[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22871-22890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            ANDEAN TRADE PROMOTION AND DRUG ERADICATION ACT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 289, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to 
grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
289, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3009 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3009

       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 ``Andean Trade Promotion and 
     Drug Eradication Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since the Andean Trade Preference Act was enacted in 
     1991, it has had a positive impact on United States trade 
     with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Two-way trade has 
     doubled, with the United States serving as the leading source 
     of imports and leading export market for each of the Andean 
     beneficiary countries. This has resulted in increased jobs 
     and expanded export opportunities in both the United States 
     and the Andean region.
       (2) The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a key element 
     in the United States counternarcotics strategy in the Andean 
     region, promoting export diversification and broad-based 
     economic development that provides sustainable economic 
     alternatives to

[[Page 22872]]

     drug-crop production, strengthening the legitimate economies 
     of Andean countries and creating viable alternatives to 
     illicit trade in coca.
       (3) Notwithstanding the success of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act, the Andean region remains threatened by 
     political and economic instability and fragility, vulnerable 
     to the consequences of the drug war and fierce global 
     competition for its legitimate trade.
       (4) The continuing instability in the Andean region poses a 
     threat to the security interests of the United States and the 
     world. This problem has been partially addressed through 
     foreign aid, such as Plan Colombia, enacted by Congress in 
     2000. However, foreign aid alone is not sufficient. 
     Enhancement of legitimate trade with the United States 
     provides an alternative means for reviving and stabilizing 
     the economies in the Andean region.
       (5) The Andean Trade Preference Act constitutes a tangible 
     commitment by the United States to the promotion of 
     prosperity, stability, and democracy in the beneficiary 
     countries.
       (6) Renewal and enhancement of the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act will bolster the confidence of domestic private 
     enterprise and foreign investors in the economic prospects of 
     the region, ensuring that legitimate private enterprise can 
     be the engine of economic development and political stability 
     in the region.
       (7) Each of the Andean beneficiary countries is committed 
     to conclude negotiation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas 
     by the year 2005, as a means of enhancing the economic 
     security of the region.
       (8) Temporarily enhancing trade benefits for Andean 
     beneficiary countries will promote the growth of free 
     enterprise and economic opportunity in these countries and 
     serve the security interests of the United States, the 
     region, and the world.

     SEC. 3. ARTICLES ELIGIBLE FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       (a) Eligibility of Certain Articles.--Section 204 of the 
     Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsections (d) through (g) as subsections (c) through (f), 
     respectively; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Certain articles that are not import-sensitive.--The 
     President may proclaim duty-free treatment under this title 
     for any of the following articles only if the article is the 
     product of an ATPEA beneficiary country and only if the 
     President determines that the article is not import-sensitive 
     in the context of imports from ATPEA beneficiary countries:
       ``(A) Footwear not designated at the time of the effective 
     date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the 
     generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade 
     Act of 1974.
       ``(B) Petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, 
     provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS.
       ``(C) 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.
       ``(D) Sugars, syrups, and molasses classified in 
     subheadings 1701.11.03, 1701.12.02, 1701.99.02, 1702.90.32, 
     1806.10.42, and 2106.90.12 of the HTS.
       ``(E) Handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, and 
     leather wearing apparel that--
       ``(i) are the product of an ATPEA beneficiary country; and
       ``(ii) were not designated on August 5, 1983, as eligible 
     articles for purposes of the generalized system of 
     preferences under title V of the Trade Act of 1974.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--Duty-free treatment under this title may 
     not be extended to--
       ``(A) textiles; or
       ``(B) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40.00 of 
     the HTS.
       ``(3) Apparel articles.--
       ``(A) In general.--Apparel articles that are imported 
     directly into the customs territory of the United States from 
     an ATPEA beneficiary country shall enter the United States 
     free of duty and free of any quantitative restrictions, 
     limitations, or consultation levels, but only if such 
     articles are described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Covered articles.--The apparel articles referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) are the following:
       ``(i) Apparel articles assembled from products of the 
     united states and atpea beneficiary countries or products not 
     available in commercial quantities.--Apparel articles sewn or 
     otherwise assembled in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries 
     exclusively from any one or any combination of the following:

       ``(I) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components 
     knit-to-shape, in the United States (including fabrics not 
     formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under 
     heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are formed in the United 
     States).
       ``(II) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components 
     knit-to-shape, in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, from 
     yarns formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, if 
     such fabrics (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if 
     such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of 
     the HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary 
     countries) are in chief weight of llama, or alpaca.
       ``(III) Fabrics or yarns, without regard to where they are 
     formed, if such fabrics or yarns are classifiable under 
     headings of the HTS from which a change in tariff 
     classification is allowed under the applicable rules for the 
     good under General Note 12(t) of the HTS (except for goods 
     classifiable under heading 6212.10 of the HTS), without 
     regard to whether the components of such yarns or fabrics 
     determine the tariff classification of the apparel article, 
     except that if such yarns or fabrics are used to produce 
     knit-to-shape components, the components must be knit-to-
     shape in the United States or in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary 
     countries.

       ``(ii) Additional fabrics.--At the request of any 
     interested party, the President is authorized to proclaim 
     additional fabrics and yarns as eligible for preferential 
     treatment under clause (i)(III) if--

       ``(I) the President determines that such fabrics or yarns 
     cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner;
       ``(II) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from the appropriate advisory committee 
     established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2155) and the United States International Trade 
     Commission;
       ``(III) within 60 days after the request, the President has 
     submitted a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate that sets forth the action proposed to be proclaimed 
     and the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained 
     under subclause (II);
       ``(IV) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning with the 
     first day on which the President has met the requirements of 
     subclause (III), has expired; and

       ``(V) the President has consulted with such committees 
     regarding the proposed action during the period referred to 
     in subclause (III).

       ``(iii) Apparel articles assembled in 1 or more atpea 
     beneficiary countries from regional fabrics or regional 
     components.--(I) Subject to the limitation set forth in 
     subclause (II), apparel articles sewn or otherwise assembled 
     in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries from fabrics or from 
     fabric components formed or from components knit-to-shape, in 
     1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, from yarns formed in 
     the United States or in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries 
     (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are 
     classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are 
     formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries), whether or 
     not the apparel articles are also made from any of the 
     fabrics, fabric components formed, or components knit-to-
     shape described in clause (i).
       ``(II) The preferential treatment referred to in subclause 
     (I) shall be extended in the 1-year period beginning December 
     1, 2001, and in each of the 5 succeeding 1-year periods, to 
     imports of apparel articles in an amount not to exceed the 
     applicable percentage of the aggregate square meter 
     equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United 
     States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are 
     available.
       ``(III) For purposes of subclause (II), the term 
     `applicable percentage' means 3 percent for the 1-year period 
     beginning December 1, 2001, increased in each of the 5 
     succeeding 1-year periods by equal increments, so that for 
     the period beginning December 1, 2005, the applicable 
     percentage does not exceed 6 percent.
       ``(iv) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A 
     handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of an ATPEA 
     beneficiary country identified under subparagraph (C) that is 
     certified as such by the competent authority of such 
     beneficiary country.
       ``(v) Special rules.--

       ``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--An article 
     otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under this 
     paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because 
     the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign origin, 
     if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25 percent of 
     the cost of the components of the assembled product. Examples 
     of findings and trimmings are sewing thread, hooks and eyes, 
     snaps, buttons, `bow buds', decorative lace, trim, elastic 
     strips, zippers, including zipper tapes and labels, and other 
     similar products.
       ``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise 
     eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph 
     shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the 
     article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if 
     the value of such interlinings (and any findings and 
     trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the 
     components of the assembled article.
       ``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in 
     division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece, 
     or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit 
     construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.

[[Page 22873]]

       ``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall 
     terminate if the President makes a determination that United 
     States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the 
     United States in commercial quantities.
       ``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise 
     be ineligible for preferential treatment under this 
     subparagraph because the article contains fibers or yarns not 
     wholly formed in the United States or in one or more ATPEA 
     beneficiary countries shall not be ineligible for such 
     treatment if the total weight of all such fibers or yarns is 
     not more than 7 percent of the total weight of the good.

       ``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the President shall consult 
     with representatives of the ATPEA beneficiary countries 
     concerned 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) of the Annex or Appendix 
     3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
       ``(D) Penalties for transshipment.--
       ``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President 
     determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter 
     has engaged in transshipment with respect to apparel articles 
     from an ATPEA beneficiary country, then the President shall 
     deny all benefits under this title to such exporter, and any 
     successor of such exporter, for a period of 2 years.
       ``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President 
     finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has 
     occurred, the President shall request that the ATPEA 
     beneficiary country or countries through whose territory the 
     transshipment has occurred take all necessary and appropriate 
     actions to prevent such transshipment. If the President 
     determines that a country is not taking such actions, the 
     President shall reduce the quantities of apparel articles 
     that may be imported into the United States from such country 
     by the quantity of the transshipped articles multiplied by 3, 
     to the extent consistent with the obligations of the United 
     States under the WTO.
       ``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the 
     meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential 
     treatment under subparagraph (A) has been claimed for an 
     apparel article on the basis of material false information 
     concerning the country of origin, manufacture, processing, or 
     assembly of the article or any of its components. For 
     purposes of this clause, false information is material if 
     disclosure of the true information would mean or would have 
     meant that the article is or was ineligible for preferential 
     treatment under subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral 
     emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of 
     the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported from 
     an ATPEA beneficiary 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 a like article described 
     in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported 
     from Mexico.
       ``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For 
     purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the 
     Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
       ``(II) the term `transition period' in section 4 of the 
     Annex shall mean the period ending December 31, 2006; and
       ``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4 
     of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the President 
     requests consultations with the ATPEA beneficiary country in 
     question and the country does not agree to consult within the 
     time period specified under section 4.

       ``(4) Customs procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential 
     treatment under paragraph (1) 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.--

       ``(I) In general.--In order to qualify for the preferential 
     treatment under paragraph (1) or (3) 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 each country described in 
     subclause (II)--

       ``(aa) has implemented and follows; or
       ``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing 
     and following,

     procedures and requirements similar in all material respects 
     to the relevant procedures and requirements under chapter 5 
     of the NAFTA.
       ``(II) Country described.--A country is described in this 
     subclause if it is an ATPEA beneficiary country--

       ``(aa) from which the article is exported; or
       ``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the 
     article originate or in which the article or such materials 
     undergo production that contributes to a claim that the 
     article is eligible for preferential treatment under 
     paragraph (1) or (3).
       ``(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 (1) 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.
       ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the 
     NAFTA.
       ``(B) ATPEA beneficiary country.--The term `ATPEA 
     beneficiary country' means any `beneficiary country', as 
     defined in section 203(a)(1) of this title, which the 
     President designates as an ATPEA beneficiary country, taking 
     into account the criteria contained in subsections (b) and 
     (c) of section 203 and other appropriate criteria, including 
     the following:
       ``(i) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a 
     commitment to--

       ``(I) undertake its obligations under the WTO, including 
     those agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act, on or ahead of schedule; and
       ``(II) participate in negotiations toward the completion of 
     the FTAA or another free trade agreement.

       ``(ii) The extent to which the country provides protection 
     of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater 
     than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-
     Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in 
     section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
       ``(iii) The extent to which the country provides 
     internationally recognized worker rights, including--

       ``(I) the right of association;
       ``(II) the right to organize and bargain collectively;
       ``(III) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or 
     compulsory labor;
       ``(IV) a minimum age for the employment of children; and
       ``(V) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum 
     wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health;

       ``(iv) Whether the country has implemented its commitments 
     to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in 
     section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.
       ``(v) The extent to which the country has met the counter-
     narcotics certification criteria set forth in section 490 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) for 
     eligibility for United States assistance.
       ``(vi) The extent to which the country has taken steps to 
     become a party to and implements the Inter-American 
     Convention Against Corruption.
       ``(vii) The extent to which the country--

       ``(I) applies transparent, nondiscriminatory, and 
     competitive procedures in government procurement equivalent 
     to those contained in the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     described in section 101(d)(17) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act; and
       ``(II) contributes to efforts in international fora to 
     develop and implement international rules in transparency in 
     government procurement.

       ``(C) NAFTA.--The term `NAFTA' means the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, 
     Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
       ``(D) WTO.--The term `WTO' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3501).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 202 of the Andean 
     Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201) is amended by inserting 
     ``(or other preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
       (2) Section 204(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(or otherwise provided 
     for)'' after ``eligibility''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3206) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       ``No duty-free treatment or other preferential treatment 
     extended to beneficiary countries under this title shall 
     remain in effect after December 31, 2006.''.

     SEC. 5. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC 
                   RECOVERY ACT.

       Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Carribean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amended as follows:
       (1) Clause (i) is amended by striking the matter preceding 
     subclause (I) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more cbtpa 
     beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles sewn or otherwise 
     assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from 
     fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from components knit-to-
     shape, in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the

[[Page 22874]]

     United States, (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if 
     such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of 
     the HTS and are wholly formed and cut in the United States) 
     that are--''.
       (2) Clause (ii) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more 
     cbtpa beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or 
     more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in 
     the United States, or from components knit-to-shape in the 
     United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United States 
     (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are 
     classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are 
     wholly formed in the United States), if such articles are 
     sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more such countries 
     with thread formed in the United States.''.

     SEC. 6. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
                   OPPORTUNITY ACT.

       Section 112(b) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3721(b)) is amended as follows:
       (1) Paragraph (1) is amended--
       (A) by amending the heading to read as follows:
       ``(1) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     sub-saharan african countries.--''; and
       (B) by amending the matter preceding subparagraph (A) to 
     read as follows: ``Apparel articles sewn or otherwise 
     assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
     countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from 
     components knit-to-shape, in the United States from yarns 
     wholly formed in the United States, (including fabrics not 
     formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under 
     heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed and cut 
     in the United States) that are--''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more 
     beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Apparel articles 
     cut in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries 
     from fabric wholly formed in the United States, or from 
     components knit-to-shape in the United States, from yarns 
     wholly formed in the United States, (including fabrics not 
     formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under 
     heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed in the 
     United States) if such articles are sewn or otherwise 
     assembled in one or more such countries with thread formed in 
     the United States.''.
       (3) Paragraph (3) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, or components knit-to-shape,'' after ``from fabric wholly 
     formed'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
       (i) by striking ``1.5'' and inserting ``3''; and
       (ii) by striking ``3.5'' and inserting ``7''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (i) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (A), 
     preferential treatment under this paragraph shall be extended 
     through September 30, 2004, for apparel articles wholly 
     assembled or knit-to-shape and wholly assembled in one or 
     more lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
     countries regardless of the country of origin of the fabric 
     or the yarn used to make such articles.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 289, the 
amendment printed in the bill is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3009, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3009

       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 ``Andean Trade Promotion and 
     Drug Eradication Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since the Andean Trade Preference Act was enacted in 
     1991, it has had a positive impact on United States trade 
     with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Two-way trade has 
     doubled, with the United States serving as the leading source 
     of imports and leading export market for each of the Andean 
     beneficiary countries. This has resulted in increased jobs 
     and expanded export opportunities in both the United States 
     and the Andean region.
       (2) The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a key element 
     in the United States counternarcotics strategy in the Andean 
     region, promoting export diversification and broad-based 
     economic development that provides sustainable economic 
     alternatives to drug-crop production, strengthening the 
     legitimate economies of Andean countries and creating viable 
     alternatives to illicit trade in coca.
       (3) Notwithstanding the success of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act, the Andean region remains threatened by 
     political and economic instability and fragility, vulnerable 
     to the consequences of the drug war and fierce global 
     competition for its legitimate trade.
       (4) The continuing instability in the Andean region poses a 
     threat to the security interests of the United States and the 
     world. This problem has been partially addressed through 
     foreign aid, such as Plan Colombia, enacted by Congress in 
     2000. However, foreign aid alone is not sufficient. 
     Enhancement of legitimate trade with the United States 
     provides an alternative means for reviving and stabilizing 
     the economies in the Andean region.
       (5) The Andean Trade Preference Act constitutes a tangible 
     commitment by the United States to the promotion of 
     prosperity, stability, and democracy in the beneficiary 
     countries.
       (6) Renewal and enhancement of the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act will bolster the confidence of domestic private 
     enterprise and foreign investors in the economic prospects of 
     the region, ensuring that legitimate private enterprise can 
     be the engine of economic development and political stability 
     in the region.
       (7) Each of the Andean beneficiary countries is committed 
     to conclude negotiation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas 
     by the year 2005, as a means of enhancing the economic 
     security of the region.
       (8) Temporarily enhancing trade benefits for Andean 
     beneficiary countries will promote the growth of free 
     enterprise and economic opportunity in these countries and 
     serve the security interests of the United States, the 
     region, and the world.

     SEC. 3. ARTICLES ELIGIBLE FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       (a) Eligibility of Certain Articles.--Section 204 of the 
     Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsections (d) through (g) as subsections (c) through (f), 
     respectively; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Certain articles that are not import-sensitive.--The 
     President may proclaim duty-free treatment under this title 
     for any article described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or 
     (D) that is the growth, product, or manufacture of an ATPDEA 
     beneficiary country and that meets the requirements of this 
     section, if the President determines that such article is not 
     import-sensitive in the context of imports from ATPDEA 
     beneficiary countries:
       ``(A) Footwear not designated at the time of the effective 
     date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the 
     generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade 
     Act of 1974.
       ``(B) Petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, 
     provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS.
       ``(C) 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.
       ``(D) Handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, and 
     leather wearing apparel that were not designated on August 5, 
     1983, as eligible articles for purposes of the generalized 
     system of preferences under title V of the Trade Act of 1974.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--Subject to paragraph (3), duty-free 
     treatment under this title may not be extended to--
       ``(A) textiles 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) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40 of the 
     HTS; or
       ``(C) sugars, syrups, and sugar-containing products subject 
     to over-quota duty rates under applicable tariff-rate quotas.
       ``(3) Apparel articles.--
       ``(A) In general.--Apparel articles that are imported 
     directly into the customs territory of the United States from 
     an ATPDEA beneficiary country shall enter the United States 
     free of duty and free of any quantitative restrictions, 
     limitations, or consultation levels, but only if such 
     articles are described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Covered articles.--The apparel articles referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) are the following:
       ``(i) Apparel articles assembled from products of the 
     united states and atpdea beneficiary countries or products 
     not available in commercial quantities.--Apparel articles 
     sewn or otherwise assembled in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary 
     countries, or the United States, or both, exclusively from 
     any one or any combination of the following:

       ``(I) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components 
     knit-to-shape, in the United States, from yarns formed in the 
     United States or 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries 
     (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are 
     classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are 
     formed in the United States).
       ``(II) Fabrics or fabric components formed or components 
     knit-to-shape, in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, 
     from yarns formed in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, 
     if such fabrics (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if 
     such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of 
     the HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary 
     countries) or components are in chief weight of llama or 
     alpaca.
       ``(III) Fabrics or yarn that is not formed in the United 
     States or in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, to the 
     extent that apparel articles of such fabrics or yarn would be 
     eligible for preferential treatment, without regard to the 
     source of the fabrics or yarn, under Annex 401 of the NAFTA.

       ``(ii) Additional fabrics.--At the request of any 
     interested party, the President is authorized to proclaim 
     additional fabrics and yarns as eligible for preferential 
     treatment under clause (i)(III) if--

[[Page 22875]]

       ``(I) the President determines that such fabrics or yarns 
     cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner;
       ``(II) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from the appropriate advisory committee 
     established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2155) and the United States International Trade 
     Commission;
       ``(III) within 60 days after the request, the President has 
     submitted a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate that sets forth the action proposed to be proclaimed 
     and the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained 
     under subclause (II);
       ``(IV) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning with the 
     first day on which the President has met the requirements of 
     subclause (III), has expired; and
       ``(V) the President has consulted with such committees 
     regarding the proposed action during the period referred to 
     in subclause (III).

       ``(iii) Apparel articles assembled in 1 or more atpdea 
     beneficiary countries from regional fabrics or regional 
     components.--(I) Subject to the limitation set forth in 
     subclause (II), apparel articles sewn or otherwise assembled 
     in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from fabrics or 
     from fabric components formed or from components knit-to-
     shape, in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, from yarns 
     formed in the United States or 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary 
     countries (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such 
     fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the 
     HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary 
     countries), whether or not the apparel articles are also made 
     from any of the fabrics, fabric components formed, or 
     components knit-to-shape described in clause (i).
       ``(II) The preferential treatment referred to in subclause 
     (I) shall be extended in the 1-year period beginning December 
     1, 2001, and in each of the 5 succeeding 1-year periods, to 
     imports of apparel articles in an amount not to exceed the 
     applicable percentage of the aggregate square meter 
     equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United 
     States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are 
     available.
       ``(III) For purposes of subclause (II), the term 
     `applicable percentage' means 3 percent for the 1-year period 
     beginning December 1, 2001, increased in each of the 5 
     succeeding 1-year periods by equal increments, so that for 
     the period beginning December 1, 2005, the applicable 
     percentage does not exceed 6 percent.
       ``(iv) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A 
     handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of an ATPDEA 
     beneficiary country identified under subparagraph (C) that is 
     certified as such by the competent authority of such 
     beneficiary country.
       ``(v) Special rules.--

       ``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--An article 
     otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under this 
     paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because 
     the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign origin, 
     if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25 percent of 
     the cost of the components of the assembled product. Examples 
     of findings and trimmings are sewing thread, hooks and eyes, 
     snaps, buttons, `bow buds', decorative lace, trim, elastic 
     strips, zippers, including zipper tapes and labels, and other 
     similar products.
       ``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise 
     eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph 
     shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the 
     article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if 
     the value of such interlinings (and any findings and 
     trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the 
     components of the assembled article.
       ``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in 
     division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece, 
     or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit 
     construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
       ``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall 
     terminate if the President makes a determination that United 
     States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the 
     United States in commercial quantities.
       ``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise 
     be ineligible for preferential treatment under this 
     subparagraph because the article contains fibers or yarns not 
     wholly formed in the United States or in one or more ATPDEA 
     beneficiary countries shall not be ineligible for such 
     treatment if the total weight of all such fibers or yarns is 
     not more than 7 percent of the total weight of the good.

       ``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the President shall consult 
     with representatives of the ATPDEA beneficiary countries 
     concerned 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) of the Annex or Appendix 
     3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
       ``(D) Penalties for transshipment.--
       ``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President 
     determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter 
     has engaged in transshipment with respect to apparel articles 
     from an ATPDEA beneficiary country, then the President shall 
     deny all benefits under this title to such exporter, and any 
     successor of such exporter, for a period of 2 years.
       ``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President 
     finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has 
     occurred, the President shall request that the ATPDEA 
     beneficiary country or countries through whose territory the 
     transshipment has occurred take all necessary and appropriate 
     actions to prevent such transshipment. If the President 
     determines that a country is not taking such actions, the 
     President shall reduce the quantities of apparel articles 
     that may be imported into the United States from such country 
     by the quantity of the transshipped articles multiplied by 3, 
     to the extent consistent with the obligations of the United 
     States under the WTO.
       ``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the 
     meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential 
     treatment under subparagraph (A) has been claimed for an 
     apparel article on the basis of material false information 
     concerning the country of origin, manufacture, processing, or 
     assembly of the article or any of its components. For 
     purposes of this clause, false information is material if 
     disclosure of the true information would mean or would have 
     meant that the article is or was ineligible for preferential 
     treatment under subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral 
     emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of 
     the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported from 
     an ATPDEA beneficiary 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 a like article described 
     in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported 
     from Mexico.
       ``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For 
     purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the 
     Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
       ``(II) the term `transition period' in section 4 of the 
     Annex shall mean the period ending December 31, 2006; and
       ``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4 
     of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the President 
     requests consultations with the ATPDEA beneficiary country in 
     question and the country does not agree to consult within the 
     time period specified under section 4.

       ``(4) Customs procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential 
     treatment under paragraph (1) 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.--

       ``(I) In general.--In order to qualify for the preferential 
     treatment under paragraph (1) or (3) 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 each country described in 
     subclause (II)--

       ``(aa) has implemented and follows; or
       ``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing 
     and following,

     procedures and requirements similar in all material respects 
     to the relevant procedures and requirements under chapter 5 
     of the NAFTA.
       ``(II) Country described.--A country is described in this 
     subclause if it is an ATPDEA beneficiary country--

       ``(aa) from which the article is exported; or
       ``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the 
     article originate or in which the article or such materials 
     undergo production that contributes to a claim that the 
     article is eligible for preferential treatment under 
     paragraph (1) or (3).
       ``(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 (1) 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.
       ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the 
     NAFTA.
       ``(B) ATPDEA beneficiary country.--The term `ATPDEA 
     beneficiary country' means any `beneficiary country', as 
     defined in section 203(a)(1) of this title, which the 
     President designates as an ATPDEA beneficiary country, taking 
     into account the criteria contained in subsections (c) and 
     (d) of section 203 and other appropriate criteria, including 
     the following:
       ``(i) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a 
     commitment to--

       ``(I) undertake its obligations under the WTO, including 
     those agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act, on or ahead of schedule; and
       ``(II) participate in negotiations toward the completion of 
     the FTAA or another free trade agreement.

       ``(ii) The extent to which the country provides protection 
     of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater 
     than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-
     Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in 
     section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
       ``(iii) The extent to which the country provides 
     internationally recognized worker rights, including--

       ``(I) the right of association;
       ``(II) the right to organize and bargain collectively;

[[Page 22876]]

       ``(III) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or 
     compulsory labor;
       ``(IV) a minimum age for the employment of children; and
       ``(V) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum 
     wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health;

       ``(iv) Whether the country has implemented its commitments 
     to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in 
     section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.
       ``(v) The extent to which the country has met the 
     counternarcotics certification criteria set forth in section 
     490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) 
     for eligibility for United States assistance.
       ``(vi) The extent to which the country has taken steps to 
     become a party to and implements the Inter-American 
     Convention Against Corruption.
       ``(vii) The extent to which the country--

       ``(I) applies transparent, nondiscriminatory, and 
     competitive procedures in government procurement equivalent 
     to those contained in the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     described in section 101(d)(17) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act; and
       ``(II) contributes to efforts in international fora to 
     develop and implement international rules in transparency in 
     government procurement.

       ``(C) NAFTA.--The term `NAFTA' means the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, 
     Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
       ``(D) WTO.--The term `WTO' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3501).
       ``(E) ATPDEA.--The term `ATPDEA' means the Andean Trade 
     Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.''.
       (b) Determination Regarding Retention of Designation.--
     Section 203(e)(1) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3202(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The President may, after the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) have been met--
       ``(i) withdraw or suspend the designation of any country as 
     an ATPDEA beneficiary country, or
       ``(ii) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of 
     preferential treatment under section 204(b)(1) or (3) to any 
     article of any country,

     if, after such designation, the President determines that, as 
     a result of changed circumstances, the performance of such 
     country is not satisfactory under the criteria set forth in 
     section 204(b)(5)(B).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 202 of the Andean 
     Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201) is amended by inserting 
     ``(or other preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
       (2) Section 204(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(or otherwise provided 
     for)'' after ``eligibility''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3206) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       ``No duty-free treatment or other preferential treatment 
     extended to beneficiary countries under this title shall 
     remain in effect after December 31, 2006.''.

     SEC. 5. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC 
                   RECOVERY ACT.

       Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Carribean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amended as follows:
       (1) Clause (i) is amended by striking the matter preceding 
     subclause (I) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more cbtpa 
     beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles sewn or otherwise 
     assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from 
     fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from components knit-to-
     shape, in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the 
     United States, (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if 
     such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of 
     the HTS and are wholly formed and cut in the United States) 
     that are--''.
       (2) Clause (ii) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Other apparel articles assembled in one or more 
     cbtpa beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles sewn or 
     otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary 
     countries with thread formed in the United States from 
     fabrics wholly formed in the United States and cut in one or 
     more CBTPA beneficiary countries from yarns wholly formed in 
     the United States, or from components knit-to-shape in the 
     United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, 
     or both (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such 
     fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the 
     HTS and are wholly formed in the United States).''.
       (3) Clause (iii)(II) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(II) The amount referred to in subclause (I) is as 
     follows:

       ``(aa) 290,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-
     year period beginning on October 1, 2001.
       ``(bb) 500,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-
     year period beginning on October 1, 2002.
       ``(cc) 850,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-
     year period beginning on October 1, 2003.
       ``(dd) 970,000,000 square meter equivalents in each 
     succeeding 1-year period through September 30, 2008.''.

       (4) Clause (iii)(IV) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(IV) The amount referred to in subclause (III) is as 
     follows:

       ``(aa) 4,872,000 dozen during the 1-year period beginning 
     on October 1, 2001.
       ``(bb) 9,000,000 dozen during the 1-year period beginning 
     on October 1, 2002.
       ``(cc) 10,000,000 dozen during the 1-year period beginning 
     on October 1, 2003.
       ``(dd) 12,000,000 dozen in each succeeding 1-year period 
     through September 30, 2008.''.

       (5) Section 213(b)(2)(A) of such Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ix) Apparel articles assembled in one or more cbtpa 
     beneficiary countries from united states and cbtpa 
     beneficiary country components.--Apparel articles sewn or 
     otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary 
     countries with thread formed in the United States from 
     components cut in the United States and in one or more CBTPA 
     beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in the United 
     States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, or from 
     components knit-to-shape in the United States and one or more 
     CBTPA beneficiary countries from yarns wholly formed in the 
     United States, or both (including fabrics not formed from 
     yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 
     5603 of the HTS).''.

     SEC. 6. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
                   OPPORTUNITY ACT.

       Section 112(b) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3721(b)) is amended as follows:
       (1) Paragraph (1) is amended by amending the matter 
     preceding subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     sub-saharan african countries.--Apparel articles sewn or 
     otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan 
     African countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from 
     components knit-to-shape, in the United States from yarns 
     wholly formed in the United States, (including fabrics not 
     formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under 
     heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed and cut 
     in the United States) that are--''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Other apparel articles assembled in one or more 
     beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Apparel articles 
     sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-
     Saharan African countries with thread formed in the United 
     States from fabrics wholly formed in the United States and 
     cut in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries 
     from yarns wholly formed in the United States, or from 
     components knit-to-shape in the United States from yarns 
     wholly formed in the United States, or both (including 
     fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are 
     classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are 
     wholly formed in the United States).''.
       (3) Paragraph (3) is amended--
       (A) by amending the matter preceding subparagraph (A) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3) Apparel articles from regional fabric or yarns.--
     Apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in 
     one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from 
     yarns originating either in the United States or one or more 
     beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries (including fabrics 
     not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classified under 
     heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed in one 
     or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries), or from 
     components knit-to-shape in one or more beneficiary sub-
     Saharan African countries from yarns originating either in 
     the United States or one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan 
     African countries, or apparel articles wholly formed on 
     seamless knitting machines in a beneficiary sub-Saharan 
     African country from yarns originating either in the United 
     States or one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
     countries, subject to the following:'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
       (i) by striking ``1.5'' and inserting ``3''; and
       (ii) by striking ``3.5'' and inserting ``7''; and
       (C) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Special rules for lesser developed countries.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (A), 
     preferential treatment under this paragraph shall be extended 
     through September 30, 2004, for apparel articles wholly 
     assembled, or knit-to-shape and wholly assembled, or both, in 
     one or more lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
     countries regardless of the country of origin of the fabric 
     or the yarn used to make such articles.
       ``(ii) Lesser developed beneficiary sub-saharan african 
     country.--For purposes of clause (i), the term `lesser 
     developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African country' means--

       ``(I) a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country that had a 
     per capita gross national product of less than $1,500 in 
     1998, as measured by the

[[Page 22877]]

     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
       ``(II) Botswana; and
       ``(III) Namibia.''.

       (4) Paragraph (4)(B) is amended by striking ``18.5'' and 
     inserting ``21.5''.
       (5) Section 112(b) of such Act is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary 
     sub-saharan african countries from united states and 
     beneficiary sub-saharan african country components.--Apparel 
     articles sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more 
     beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries with thread formed 
     in the United States from components cut in the United States 
     and one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries 
     from fabric wholly formed in the United States from yarns 
     wholly formed in the United States, or from components knit-
     to-shape in the United States and one or more beneficiary 
     sub-Saharan African countries from yarns wholly formed in the 
     United States, or both (including fabrics not formed from 
     yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 
     5603 of the HTS).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When we were younger and engaged in various activities, I was 
involved in sports, and I know on those long workouts during the summer 
we would be doing jumping jacks. One of the things we repeated 
constantly was, ``Every day in every way we're getting better and 
better,'' probably in the hopes that mind would overcome matter because 
we were not very good in terms of the team. But the belief that you can 
do better, I think, is important. We never said, ``Every day we're 
perfect.'' We were getting better.
  There have been a number of discussions on this floor about the 
procedure, about the substance and about the way in which the House has 
been operating. I am here to tell you that today in every way, we are 
getting better and better. Are we perfect? No.
  What you have in front of you is a piece of legislation sponsored by 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, cosponsored by the 
ranking member, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade and the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade. In addition to that, I 
want to thank our colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Dunn). I especially want to underscore the contribution that the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) made not just on this bill, but on 
the Caribbean Basin bill in terms of labor rights, which we adopted to 
place into the Andean portion of this bill. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) in terms of their assistance and support on the 
African portion of this bill.
  The fundamental premise of this bill is that we ought to trade 
commercial products, not drugs. To the degree that is going to be 
possible, we can affect the supply side of the supply-demand problem 
with drugs. We included the Caribbean Basin Initiative and Africa in 
this bill because I think it is extremely important that when we offer 
these regions marginal benefits under our laws that they do not think 
that it is taken from one area to be given to another, that in fact a 
rising tide can float all boats.
  And so today we are pleased to bring to the floor a bipartisan bill 
that passed the committee on a voice vote; that although there are some 
concerns by some areas because whenever you talk about trade, you are 
talking about change and change is not only painful, but difficult. We 
will commit to those who believe they are disadvantaged that when the 
facts are presented and the case is made, we will do everything in our 
power to adjust the arrangement so that it contains and will be what we 
believe this bill is, a win-win relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This agreement expires on December 4, and I rise in support of the 
bill. I sharply disagree with the statement made by the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means that this bill is just a little short of 
being perfect. I think we have a very, very long way to go to get our 
House and to get our committee back to the traditional concept that 
trade bills ought to be done in a bipartisan way.
  There are just some things that are so important that many of us 
believe that we ought to set aside the strong objections that we have 
because it would be in the best interests of trade, the best interests 
of the people in the Andean countries, and fulfill the commitments that 
the American people have to our friends in this area. But I just wonder 
whether it is just old-fashioned to have bills and to have hearings on 
these bills, to have Members be able to share their concern about the 
economic impact that would result as a result of passing legislation.
  I do not think we should have Republican bills and Democratic bills. 
And I do not think there is anyone in this House that objects to having 
trade, because it is just abundantly clear that trade is good for the 
United States. Trade creates jobs here, it expands our economic base, 
it allows us to have stronger friends, stronger trading partners, it 
promotes peace; but I do not see why we should not have more dialogue, 
why we should not have more hearings, why all of these things have to 
be done in such a unilateral way and why people just have to come to 
the floor and vote up and down, and if anyone disagrees with a bill 
that has been drafted unilaterally that automatically their patriotism 
is being challenged.
  It is not over just because we pass a bill here. There are 
conferences. There are differences that have to be worked out. There is 
no reason why a good bill has to cause people to lose their jobs, 
whether it is in the textile industry or whether it is in the tuna 
industry. And people that complain about these jobs are not just 
whiners and those that are opposed to trade, they are just trying to 
keep the people in their districts from going on welfare or from having 
to try to get unemployment compensation, which we cannot even get a 
decent bill out of our committee to do that.
  We have to realize that we are at war, and war means that we have to 
at least appear to be bipartisan and that we cannot allow personalities 
and politics to have a stronger impact in what we do than having 
respect for each other even when we disagree. I have a lot of 
disagreements with what is in this bill. I have a lot of disagreements 
with the procedure. I have a lot of disagreements with the process, the 
same way I do and did with the so-called trade promotion authority 
bill, or fast track.
  I am not going to let anyone challenge my patriotism because I 
disagree with the process, the procedure and the substance of those 
bills. Nobody should have their patriotism challenged because they have 
legislative disagreements. We have to try desperately hard to make 
certain that these real disagreements do not bubble up to be 
disagreements that are going to be attached to parties, because if you 
study this bill, there are enough things that Republicans and Democrats 
should be working out together rather than having egos control the 
agenda.
  And so while I support this bill, we have commitments to our friends 
in Africa, in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we have to give support 
to those that are fighting the drug fight. My good friend and brother, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I have been around the 
world for decades trying to stamp out the growth and the processing of 
drugs. But in poor countries you have to make certain that you give 
them some economic opportunities to substitute for those crops of death 
and destruction with crops and industries that promote a positive 
production of goods and services.

                              {time}  1100

  So I just hope that because I have cosponsored this bill and because 
Democrats on the committee that have very strong objections to the way 
this came to the floor are voting for this bill,

[[Page 22878]]

that it not be perceived that the problems that we had yesterday have 
disappeared today. If by coming forward and supporting the progress of 
this bill, it means that we can expect more cooperation from the other 
side of the aisle in conference, and that is turning and becoming a new 
attitude as it relates to other trade agreements that we will 
participate in, then it is a good day.
  I would like to point out, too, that I have not had any problem with 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade; but I might add that I am disappointed that he 
has not been able to play the role that he has played in past sessions 
of Congress in trade because we have had just as many differences of 
opinion, but we have found ways to work our way out of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Trade, the sponsor of the bill and someone who has worked long and 
hard in this area and frankly very fruitfully in the last few years.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3009, the 
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. While this is an 
important piece of trade legislation that supports U.S. efforts to 
achieve the free trade area of the Americas, FTAA, by 2005, the 
President also believes this bill is central to U.S. national security 
and our efforts to combat drug trafficking both here in the United 
States and in the Andean region.
  H.R. 3009 will renew and expand duty free tariff treatment to our 
regional trading partners Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The 
current Andean Trade Preference Program will expire on December 4 
unless Congress acts.
  We need this critical legislation to expand U.S. trade and to help 
Andean entrepreneurs find practical and profitable alternatives to 
cultivating crops for the production of illicit drugs. If we fail to 
renew APTA, we not only turn our backs on the people of Bolivia, 
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru who are struggling daily to resist the lure 
of the drug economy, but we also will be turning our backs on our 
fellow Americans who are fighting drug scourge here at home and in 
Latin America.
  Thanks in large part to the APTA's duty free tariff treatment, Peru 
and Bolivia in particular have succeeded in stamping out much of their 
illicit drug production while expanding job opportunities in trade and 
legitimate agriculture and rural industry. Although Colombia and 
Ecuador's success have been less dramatic, new strategies, including 
Plan Colombia, are even now being implemented to combat the drug 
cartels. Instead of waging a war against the drug cartels solely 
through military aid, APTA endeavors to target the region's poverty and 
the lack of job opportunities as motivation for otherwise good, 
productive citizens becoming involved in illicit crop cultivation and 
the drug trade.
  Trade statistics demonstrate that over the life of the existing APTA 
program, two-way trade between the United States and the region is 
nearly doubled. When we consider the secondary effects, legitimate jobs 
created in the Andean region and the economic and civil stability that 
these jobs bring, we realize that the APTA has been a useful tool in 
our war against drugs.
  The bill before us builds on the successful APTA program by enhancing 
benefits available to Andean countries interested in pursuing our 
objectives relating to expanded market access for U.S. exports, fair 
treatment for U.S. investors, and strong protections for our valuable 
intellectual property rights. I would say to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that the bill also includes conditionality drafted by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) relating to the extent to which these countries 
provide internationally recognized worker rights.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 will be a valuable tool for President Bush and 
his team to use to undermine the powerful drug cartels and to spur our 
country's broader trade agenda. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3009.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the purpose of controlling 
time, an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade and one who, without his 
efforts, we would not have many of the trade bills that we have today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my friend.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, the Andean 
Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.
  For years, Latin American countries have struggled to strengthen 
their economies to ensure a better quality of life for their people. I 
have visited many of these countries and know firsthand the progress 
that has been made and the work that still needs to be done.
  Since the inception of the APTA in 1981, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and 
Ecuador have worked hard to reduce their narcotics trade and to move 
workers into nondrug-related industries. Because of APTA, they have 
increased their exports to the U.S.A. by almost 80 percent and have 
created an estimated 140,000 jobs in their region.
  This trade, however, has not been one-sided. The U.S.A. has benefited 
by becoming the largest exporter to the APTA countries. Two-way trade 
has doubled since 1991. This increase in exports has expanded job 
opportunities in the U.S.A. Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador are on 
the front lines in our war against narcotics, and we need to do 
everything we can to help them win this war. By extending this act for 
another 5 years, we will encourage democracy, free enterprise and 
economic security in the region.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Africa of the Committee on International Relations and someone who 
has worked with members on our committee to make sure that the African 
portion of this bill is as good as we could get it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will promote economic growth 
in Latin America and in Africa. It is going to promote American 
national security.
  Last year, the African Growth and Opportunity Act was signed into 
law. It was bipartisan legislation. For the first time, our country 
stated its interests and established a meaningful policy to trade with 
the nations of Africa. The U.S. Government and, more importantly, the 
U.S. private sector have begun to treat Africa as a place to do 
business; and this bill will help further.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I am pleased to report 
this legislation is having a profoundly positive impact on Africa. 
Several of the African countries that are making the market reforms 
required in the bill are attracting levels of foreign investment, and 
they are importing well beyond expectations. In these countries, 
desperately needed jobs are being created as more jobs are being 
created overall in the United States as a result. It is strengthening 
the rule of law in Africa.
  The bolstering of the rule of law and economic reforms are good for 
Africa, and they are good for the U.S. U.S. exports to Africa are up 
since it went into effect, and there is a national security gain for 
us.
  Yesterday, I chaired a hearing on Africa's role in the fight against 
global terrorism. One witness described the continent as the soft 
underbelly in the fight against terrorism. One thing is for sure, when 
people are jobless, they are more susceptible to those who would lure 
them into radicalism.
  The bill also won us political goodwill in Africa, a valuable asset 
in today's world where cooperation matters more now than ever.

[[Page 22879]]

  We are going to be doing more to promote trade with and economic 
development in Africa and Latin America, and I describe this 
legislation as a step in the right direction for our many interests in 
the southern hemisphere; but we better be running a sprint, not 
walking, in many parts of the developing world if we are going to be 
effectively combatting terrorism.
  We need to be doing all that we can, as soon as we can, to see that 
large parts of the world are not mired in hopelessness. It is a tall 
task to change that. It will not happen overnight; but we have some 
tools, including this legislation, to help our interests in Africa and 
in the western hemisphere.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I support renewal of APTA. It will help promote economic development 
and growth in the Andean countries. It is the most valuable way that we 
can assist them and combat the grip of illegal drugs on their 
economies.
  I also support a reasoned, balanced expansion of the products under 
APTA, to include textile and apparel products.
  The trade issues are multi-dimensional. We must strike the right 
balance by taking into account the impact on other countries and very 
vigorously the impact on our country, our workers, our businesses.
  Last year, when we passed the African and Caribbean bills, we struck 
an appropriate balance. We crafted a bill to build on the 
complementarities between the textile and apparel industry in those 
countries and in ours.
  Regarding APTA, the committee staffs were working to craft a bill 
that would expand it while recognizing the multi-dimensional nature of 
trade. There was agreement, and I point this out, on duty free 
treatment for the following Andean apparel products: unlimited quantity 
of apparel made from U.S. fabric and made from two specialty regional 
fabrics, and limited quantities of apparel made from regional fabrics 
and yarn.
  Then on short notice, the chairman of our committee called a markup. 
He eliminated the requirements relating to use of U.S. yarn in U.S. 
fabric, and he doubled the cap on apparel made from regional fabric and 
yarn. He proposed substantial changes in the textile and apparel caps 
and quotas within the Caribbean and African bills, bills which have 
been in place for only a year or little more, and bills where the 
textile and apparel provisions were reached only after long and hard 
negotiations. I asked at the markup what the impact of these new 
provisions would be on American jobs, but no one had an answer. There 
clearly is a need for serious re-examination of the proposed formulas 
in this bill for textile and apparel, both in the Andean nations and 
for CBI and AGOA.
  There also remain outstanding questions on the implementation of the 
international core labor standards. One of the core aspects mentioned 
of this bill is that it addresses the issue of labor-market standards 
and trade. It has strengthened the labor market criteria previously 
applicable to APTA.
  These provisions have particular current relevance to the situation 
in Colombia where large numbers of labor leaders have been murdered. 
The government of Colombia recently sent a letter to us describing 
Colombia's commitment to core labor standards and discussing in some 
detail programs to combat child labor and for the protection of union 
leaders.
  Because we are now in the process of trying to complete discussions 
with the Colombians on implementation of these programs--by the way we 
need the involvement of our administration--and because of the need for 
further work on the proposed changes relating to apparel and textile 
imports, it is regrettable that the majority decided suddenly to bring 
up this bill with only a day or two of notice.
  Because APTA expires on December 4, there is a strong argument that 
on balance it is better for Members who, as I do, have concerns about 
this bill to vote to move it along, a bill, by the way, which I have 
not cosponsored, and to focus on working with the Senate and any 
subsequent conference to address the shortcomings in this bill in its 
present form.
  In that regard, I spoke last night with the chairman of the Finance 
Committee of the Senate, Max Baucus. After this conversation, I was 
reassured that the Senate will provide a meaningful opportunity for 
consideration of the changes proposed in this bill that were not fully 
aired in our committee. Also, there will be a chance to fully analyze 
all parts of it before action. Such opportunity must include a weighing 
of all the potential impact on the economy, businesses, and workers of 
this Nation.
  Consequently, I have decided on balance that the better course is to 
vote to move along this bill to the Senate. I do so with the intention 
to continue to be in fullest touch with colleagues in the Senate and to 
participate as actively as possible in any conference to ensure that 
the final bill remedies the problems in the bill before us; and if that 
does not happen, to be able to vote against the bill when it returns to 
the House for final action.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of 
the committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the United States made a commitment to the 
Andean region, and today we have an indispensable opportunity to renew 
that commitment. Renewing and expanding the Andean Trade Preference Act 
will promote broad-based economic development in the region, as well as 
develop viable economic alternatives to coca cultivation and cocaine 
production.
  Beyond that, and very importantly, H.R. 3009 eliminates the U.S. 
tariffs on the import of tuna from Andean nations. The tariffs on tuna 
are among the highest and most anticonsumer anywhere in our system: 10 
percent when packed in water, 35 percent when packed in oil. The irony 
is, the domestic industry that these tariffs allegedly protect has 
largely moved offshore. The only major U.S. production center remaining 
is in American Samoa where StarKist employs 2,700; and Thai Union, a 
foreign competitor, employs 2,500. It is worth noting that domestic 
production of tuna totals 30 million cases per year, which is only two-
thirds of the U.S. demand, so we expect to import a significant amount 
of our tuna.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly no dumping of tuna in U.S. markets will occur as 
a result of this legislation and no operational capacity will be 
shifted out of American Samoa either. The western tropical Pacific is 
and will remain the best tuna fishing grounds, and StarKist has made it 
clear that they are prepared to pick up any job losses that might 
result in their competitor facility.
  Given these economic statistics, U.S. trade policy during the last 8 
years has supported reducing tuna tariffs. Ironically, Ecuador, which 
is not part of NAFTA or CBI, is still facing these high tuna tariffs, 
whereas the participants in those agreements are not. Yet Ecuador is 
the only nation in all of Latin America and the Caribbean to be 
certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce as being in compliance, as 
``dolphin safe'' and in compliance with the eastern Pacific tuna 
conservation measures.
  Environmental groups active on the ``dolphin safe'' issues support 
the inclusion of this legislation. To quote the Earth Island Institute, 
the leading environmental group on dolphin-safe fishing, ``By reducing 
tuna tariffs for Ecuador, Congress can reward that country for their 
efforts to protect dolphins. Furthermore, by reducing tuna tariffs, 
Congress can provide incentives to other nations to protect marine 
mammals.''
  Contrary to some allegations that are made here, including tuna in 
this bill will not adversely affect the job situation in the United 
States. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the 
original ATPA agreement ``does not appear to have had an adverse impact 
on or have constituted a significant threat to U.S. employment.'' This 
is a win-win for us.

[[Page 22880]]

  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this bill and move it forward as an important part of 
our commitment to our partners in Latin America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes and 15 
seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3009, because 
the hemorrhaging of jobs must stop and someone has to take a stand.
  I am not surprised, and I do not think anybody should be surprised, 
by how this bill got to the floor. The same folks who engineered this 
bill getting to this floor support, surrendered the Congress' authority 
to deal with trade matters outlined in Article I, Section 8. I did not 
come here to surrender my responsibilities. Read Article I, Section 8.
  I join my colleagues in their concerns about Andean countries that 
the actual jobs and working conditions would be poor at best of those 
jobs created. We are giving our jobs to these countries even though 
4,000 trade unionists have been murdered in the last 15 years, and 130 
of them so far this year.
  My district, Mr. Speaker, is probably one of the largest Peruvian 
American populations of any Member in the House. Some of my Andean 
constituents want this legislation passed to give their unemployed 
relatives back home jobs. However, many Peruvian Americans are the same 
immigrants whose jobs will be lost in my district under the provisions 
of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have set up a Catch-22 situation. We are unfairly 
pitting brother against brother and sister against sister, and it was 
tremendously outlined this morning when the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble) pointed out very succinctly what this means. 
According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Trade Representative 
admitted at the WTO meeting that ``The United States said * * * it 
conceded everything it can without the approval of Congress.''
  Our economy is in too much turmoil to send decent manufacturing jobs 
overseas, not to be replaced with wage and benefit equivalent jobs. Why 
do our policies allow this to happen? What do Americans get in return 
for giving up their jobs?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I commend him for 
putting together a balanced product. It is not a lot of trade for the 
United States; it is a relatively small amount of trade with the Andean 
countries, but it is extremely important to the Andean countries.
  As has been already talked about this morning, it gives the President 
the authority to grant duty-free treatment. This existing authorization 
has resulted in a doubling of bilateral trade between our countries in 
the last 10 years, dramatic improvements in living standards in 
countries in the Andean region; and unfortunately, this needed 
authorization expires on December 4. So we need to move and move 
quickly.
  If we do not, it would essentially raise duties on $2 billion of 
imports from our Andean trading partners. This would send exactly the 
wrong message to our Andean friends who have made great strides in the 
last decade with regard to international drug trafficking and have also 
recently been strong partners with the United States with regard to 
terrorism.
  The drug trade is something that, of course, is very important to all 
of us here, Mr. Speaker. We are told that practically all of the 
cocaine and most of the heroin that comes into the United States and is 
consumed here comes from the Andean region. Many of the areas' farmers 
turn to growing coca and opium poppy, of course the raw materials for 
cocaine and heroin, because they simply, given the economic problems in 
these countries, do not have other viable, legitimate, lawful 
activities. Most of these farmers would rather not be part of the 
odious drug trade that has so many detrimental impacts for those 
countries, as well as for our country, but they are left with no viable 
options to take care of their families.
  We need to give these people other viable options. We can do that 
through trade. We have done that over the past 10 years. We need to 
continue to and expand on it.
  Always, ATPA, the way the chairman has put together this bill before 
us today, which I think is a balanced product, is a very important way 
to use trade to level the playing field, as compared to other countries 
in the Western Hemisphere, in the Caribbean, in Central America, 
Mexico; and that is extremely important for these Andean countries.
  Mr. Speaker, expanding trade and economic opportunities in this area 
will bolster regional stability, strengthen democratic institutions, 
and dramatically assist in our fight against drug trafficking. I 
strongly urge the Members to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the bipartisan nature of 
this bill, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) from our side of the aisle.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I support the provision 
relating to the Andean Preference Act, of course the provisions to 
enhance worker rights, human rights, for democracy-building, for 
antinarcotics provisions, and to promote U.S. exports for both Latin 
America and the Caribbean. But I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
AGOA II provisions in the bill before us.
  Increased international trade and investment is a key component 
leading to economic development and growth in sub-Saharan Africa, and 
economic growth is an integral element of any sub-Saharan strategy to 
overcome the many and severe social, health, political, environmental 
and other challenges.
  Last year the African Growth and Opportunity Act became law, as the 
Trade and Development Act of 2000, and marked the historic policy which 
defined the trade and investment policy in this neglected region of the 
world. Indeed, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, is just 
over a year old and already has had remarkable results. U.S. trade with 
sub-Saharan Africa increased 50 percent in the year 2000.
  Examples of results from the AGOA include a Government of Kenya 
estimate of the creation of 50,000 direct and 150,000 indirect jobs 
resulting from new investments; new investments in Lesotho of $120 
million, four times the official development assistance for that 
country; investment plants for a new tuna processing facility in Ghana; 
and significant increases in apparel exports from countries such as 
Lesotho, Kenya, Madagascar and South Africa.
  Clearly, AGOA has demonstrated initial success in promoting greater 
commercial activity between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa, 
has spurred and bolstered economic reform in several African countries, 
and has facilitated closer relations between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa. Imports from Africa are growing more quickly this year 
than imports from Asia, Europe or Latin America, with apparel making up 
most of the import growth, translating to thousands of new jobs.
  I and others have traveled many times to Africa in the last year to 
gain a firsthand view of how the bill is operating in practice. In all, 
we were able to gather important information which was used to design 
the AGOA II legislation. While the provisions of the bill do not 
include all of the items that we would want in the AGOA II bill, I am 
pleased that the Congress and our chairman and our ranking member and 
others have continued to focus on the commitment to Africa and these 
countries.

[[Page 22881]]

  Specifically, the AGOA II provisions amend the AGOA to clarify that 
preferential treatment is provided to knit-to-shape or ``wholly 
assembled'' apparel articles assembled in beneficiary countries; amend 
the AGOA to provide preferential treatment for apparel articles that 
are cut both in the U.S. and beneficiary countries; doubles the apparel 
cap for apparel made in Africa from regional fabric made with regional 
yarn from 3 to 7 percent over 8 years; and allow Namibia and Botswana 
to benefit from the ``lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
country'' provisions of the act.
  It also gives guidance to our administration as to how to interpret 
the act's provisions and provides technical assistance for capacity-
building. I know that there are, though, domestic concerns regarding 
the narrow expansion of the apparel benefits in the bill.
  It is important to note that while imports of apparel from sub-
Saharan Africa increased in 2000, they still represent less than 1.5 
percent of U.S. woven apparel imports and less than 1.2 percent of U.S. 
knit apparel imports. The AGOA program can hardly be considered a 
threat to domestic producers.
  Drug trafficking, the AIDS pandemic, arms proliferation, terrorism, 
these are the real threats. Economic growth and development and job 
creation are powerful weapons to counter these concerns that affect the 
global community of which the U.S. has a leadership role.
  I know that many of my colleagues have raised concerns with the House 
considering the bill at this time, but now is the time. These 
provisions are essential for African nations at this time, as African 
economies will likely be the hardest hit by the global economic 
slowdown. The U.S. has committed itself to promoting prosperity, 
stability, and democracy in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and the 
Andean region. We cannot let our friends down in this time of great 
need.
  I urge my colleagues' support for this bill as we strengthen our 
efforts to improve the operation of AGOA and improve sub-Saharan Africa 
utilization of the AGOA program.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, and someone who 
has devoted extraordinary time in the area of trade internationally, 
and who has been an enormous help on this bill as well.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for his comments. I also wanted to commend him 
for his leadership in bringing this extraordinarily important piece of 
legislation to the floor at this time.

                              {time}  1130

  I do stand here today because of my role as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs, understanding the interrelationship between our foreign 
policy and our economic policy.
  Offering the promise of greater trade with the United States to the 
Andean countries is a critical component of our foreign policy. The 
original ATPA was created to foster legitimate economic relations 
between the United States and the Andean region and to stimulate 
legitimate economic alternatives to narcotics production and 
trafficking in the Andean region.
  The ATPA has been successful in both counts. It has helped to foster 
trade between the U.S. and the Andean countries, and it has nearly 
doubled over the last decade the trade with that region to $18 billion, 
to the mutual benefit of U.S. and Andean businesses, and to consumers 
here in the United States.
  At one level, expanded trade is about consumerism. Lower tariffs 
means lower prices for the U.S. consumers, families, and businesses 
that import products from these countries. The interests of these 
consumers are vital. When we lower barriers to trade, we increase the 
quality of life for our citizens.
  But at another level, ATPA is about our national security policy at 
home and in this hemisphere. We are fighting a drug war here in the 
United States and abroad. This bill helps to generate economic growth 
in the Andean region. Such growth is needed to stabilize these 
democracies and empower their societies with the means to improve their 
quality of life.
  During consideration of our foreign operations bill, an overwhelming 
number of Members supported alternative development efforts by USAID 
and others. In the fight against drugs, ATPA is the best alternative 
development plan we have going.
  When I visited this region last spring to look at our Andean 
initiative, every single official that I talked with said the single 
most important help we could give to the region was to renew and expand 
the Andean trade Preference Act and allow them to trade.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
bill and in support of the motion to recommit to be offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Step by step, I guess we could say thread by thread, I think we have 
unraveled the viability of textiles and apparel manufacturers in this 
country to operate. We have done it by making it possible, indeed 
encouraging, the largest manufacturers to take their manufacturing 
operations offshore in search of cheaper labor, and by making it 
impossible for small manufacturers to compete staying here because they 
cannot take their operations offshore. So the result is an industry 
that just simply cannot survive.
  We have done it in the name of free trade, in the name of helping 
those in other countries. We have ignored the viability of businesses 
that employ people down the street from us in our own communities. We 
cannot continue to do this. This bill is yet another step in that 
direction.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) is right, that if we 
look at this bill in single focus, it does not have the gigantic 
impact; but when we couple it with NAFTA and other free-trade 
agreements that have taken place, the totality gets us to a point where 
textiles and apparel in this country simply cannot exist. That is not a 
result that we should encourage or allow.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for America, it is good for the Andes, 
and it is good for anyone who is concerned about more jobs and better 
jobs, and about the environment and labor here in America and around 
the world.
  In the last decade, because of this new trade between America and the 
Andes, we have created 140,000 new jobs in the Andean region, jobs that 
used to be dependent on drug trafficking but now are dependent on a 
real economy. As a country like America knows, we have had so many in 
our families destroyed by drug trafficking here and at home, so every 
effort we can do to replace that and stem that offshore is good for us.
  In Colombia, for example, we have seen the flower industry become a 
model industry, initiating antiviolence training programs, helping 
people buy new homes, leading a ``greener Colombia'' effort. These are 
model industries for worker rights and the environment they have never 
done before.
  They can do more and want to have more model industries, and we hold 
them back, because only 10 percent of the goods from the Andes are 
eligible for ATPA benefits. We need to expand them, because in the end, 
competition is not only good for America, but it is our future, as 
well.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished 
ranking member of our Subcommittee on Trade for yielding time to me.

[[Page 22882]]

  Mr. Speaker, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, are our neighbors to 
the south. They are our friends, and they are hurting.
  Bolivia's economy particularly is hurting, in large part because they 
did exactly what we asked them to do: they eradicated the drug culture 
in their country. All they are asking from us now is for us to give 
them the opportunity to sell their legal products and produce to the 
United States. Products like alpaca and llama wool which we don't even 
produce. They have really paid an enormous cost, and they deserve this 
treatment under our ATPA.
  Likewise, Colombia: we are sending billions of dollars through our 
military to wipe out the drug trade in Colombia with relatively limited 
success. The principal reason why it has limited success is because 
there is very little alternative for many of these farmers, unless we 
can enable them to have a competitive market in the United States for 
their produce and their products.
  Likewise with Peru, who just elected an indigenous leader, a fine 
person who wants to work very closely with our country. So also is the 
case with Ecuador.
  This bill, very importantly, includes the kind of help that Africa 
for generations has needed, as well as the Caribbean Basin countries. 
It includes very strong labor protections: the right to organize, to 
form unions; minimum employment age; much-improved working conditions. 
We passed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act overwhelmingly, and 
this simply sustains it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of bill that we need when the world's 
economy is falling into recession. We need to pull ourselves out of 
recession by opening up free and fair trade. Let us vote for this 
needed bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do so to announce that the next speaker is the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). He is a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and obviously, given the geographic location of his 
State, he is significantly involved with and concerned with textiles, 
from raw fiber to the production of the final product.
  He, along with most of the other people in the textile belt, has 
suffered significantly.
  The reason I took this extra time is that I wanted to make sure in 
the introduction that everyone understands the role that he has been 
playing, that is, he has looked at the way the world is and wants to 
work to make sure that we have a viable and useful relationship and 
that we do not just try to stop the world.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, we are all concerned about the instability in parts 
of the world that we have trading partners in: Africa, the Caribbean, 
the Andean areas. We should be worried and concerned about them, 
because as trade partners, they need the wherewithal to buy our 
products. They need jobs to help bring stability to those areas.
  But as the chairman said, I am concerned about jobs in the United 
States, too, in one particular area, and that is in the area of 
textiles, which has been suffering for some years now, based in large 
part on some of our trading in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill in no way is perfect. We understand that. The 
chairman has mentioned that. I remember back in the early part of this 
year I was in Thomaston, Georgia, meeting with the chamber of commerce 
and people representing agencies from the State and the Federal 
Government to talk about economic recovery, because the textile mill 
that had been in operation for 102 years made the announcement they 
were closing their doors, that they no longer could compete.
  As I sat and listened to those who presented all these good programs 
to help the people who were being displaced from their jobs, I made the 
comment, it is great to hear these people here with these offerings, 
but where were they when the patient was becoming ill? I had been 
conversing with the people at Thomaston Mill for several years and 
heard they were on their way out because they could not compete.
  No, this bill is not perfect. The part that bothers me is the 
regional content, the cloth and yarn provisions dealing with CBI in 
Africa, and the Andean reauthorization.
  But the chairman understands this. He has stated here today that he 
knows this bill is not perfect. He has listened to the Representatives 
from the textile area, the caucus on textiles. He has heard their 
input. He has done some things in other areas that I think show it is 
evident that he has listened.
  We have problems with transshipments, contraband, counterfeit 
material, claiming it is U.S. He has put provisions in the Customs 
reauthorization requiring additional people, paying for it, pertaining 
to textile transshipments.
  He has put report language in the ATPA on rules of origin, to 
instruct our ambassador to go back and look at previous agreements and 
how we have negotiated those, and how it has made us more competitive 
in certain markets, particularly textile.
  He is willing to increase and help in the area of the Trade 
Adjustment Act, so we can help with benefits for those who are 
displaced. We know there will be some.
  In the area of currency, where we have all had problems, devaluation 
of currency in other areas, in other countries, for the first time, in 
ATPA there is legislative language that instructs the ambassador to 
make sure we have consultation up front in the discussions reflecting 
that we are going to be aware and marking what they do with their 
currency.
  The report language requires that we talk and consult about 
reciprocating access so we can get our products into their market, not 
a one-way street.
  The chairman has shown good faith, and I think he will continue to do 
so. The administration has shown good faith with the trade ambassador, 
Bob Zoellick. I think he will continue to do so.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote ``yes'' on this bill; I 
want to move it forward. But I also am going to work with the chairman 
and the administration to see that we can perfect the areas that we all 
know are imperfect today. So I will be voting ``yes'' for that purpose, 
and I know that purpose will come through.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on the Andean trade debate because I think this 
is one of the most important votes, one of the most important decisions 
that this House ever makes affecting the Andean countries in South 
America.
  Certainly with the amendments to the Caribbean initiative and the 
Africa initiative, this is a very, very important trade bill.
  The Andean Trade Pact was adopted in 1991. It sunseted this year so 
we would have a chance to review.
  One of the parts that is broken in the process is essentially the 
flower imports from Colombia. I have spoken many times about the 
inequities.
  We set that program up in the early 1990s because we wanted the 
Colombian flower growers to make sure they have a legitimate market to 
divert investment away from cocaine. The Colombian flower growers have 
done very well. They have done so well that they are now 70 percent of 
the American market. In fact, practically every flower we see in a 
supermarket in America comes from Colombia.
  There has been an expense of that on the domestic side. We have lost 
hundreds of flower-growing small farms, small community greenhouse 
operations all over the United States. That is why so many Members of 
Congress have invested in this issue of wondering whether we ought to 
put the tariffs back on for Colombian flowers. Colombian flowers is big 
business. They can afford to pay the tariffs, the

[[Page 22883]]

same tariffs that are paid by other countries that import flowers. It 
is an equal playing field, a level playing field.

                              {time}  1145

  This is the one part of the bill that never gets revisited. And 
obviously I voted against the rule because we did not get to bring an 
amendment up to the floor. And we are not going to be able to amend it 
at this moment. But I would hope that after 10 years of discussion, 
after 10 years of pointing out what the problem is, with even the 
Colombians admitting they are in a different situation now than they 
were 10 years ago, with the fact that it is not about cocaine any more. 
It is about a big business being able to have an exceptional break that 
is a detriment to our domestic market.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to work on trying to get the 
tariffs back on Andean flowers and I appreciate their concern. Thank 
you very much.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, the Andean 
Trade Promotion Act and Drug Eradication Act. I want to commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York's (Mr. 
Rangel) leadership in this initiative.
  The current Andean Trade Preference Act provides duty-free treatment 
from a variety of U.S. imports from four Andean nations: Colombia, 
Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. That program will expire in December of this 
year in a little over 2 weeks.
  The current Andean program excludes many products that are key 
exports for the Andean region, such as apparel, footwear, tuna, which 
are essential to the region's future economic growth and development. 
If we fail to take this opportunity to expand legitimate trade links 
with this region, these opportunities are going to be lost and the 
ability to sustain the gains of the last decade will be diminished.
  Eradication of drugs and creating jobs to increase trade go hand in 
hand, especially in our own western hemisphere.
  The ATPA, which is now 10 years old, has played a vital role in the 
Andean region in the fight against illicit drugs. All of the world's 
cocaine comes from the Andean ridge.
  In recent years more than 60% of the heroin sold or seized on our 
streets come from the Colombian Andes.
  The minimal economic impact of ATPA pales in comparison with the 
annual $100 billion societal cost of these illicit drugs, and the 
16,000 lost lives here each year.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), my very distinguished colleague on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in 
support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). I think he made the best case 
for why the part that I really am most knowledgeable about that goes to 
this bill is a good change.
  Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for less than 1 percent of American 
exports and less than 2 percent of U.S. imports. It is an area where we 
struggle to have peace. And we cannot have justice without peace. We 
have to have some economic justice. We are watching the same problems 
in Afghanistan. We are watching them all over the world, and the whole 
idea of trade as a mechanism of peace is really very important.
  Now, the reason we have these AGOA provisions here, there is a slight 
increase in the amount that they can import to the United States; but 
basically we are here because when we wrote the bill last year, 
legislators thought they knew what they were doing. We sent it over to 
the bureaucracy and Customs wrote the rules so that the Africans could 
not use the provisions to bring apparel into the United States. So part 
of this is simply being put in place to clarify what we did last year.
  I think that if we do not do this kind of thing, we will begin 
spending our time and energy, we have already watched Sierra Leone, we 
have watched South Africa, we have watched all those countries that 
have had troubles, Ethiopia, all of them have had troubles; and what is 
needed is an economy that gives people a way to make a living, take 
care of their family, take care of their kids. This is essential as a 
part of our foreign policy. And I think that if Members do not like 
what we are doing in a lot of other places in the world, Members ought 
to be looking at trade as a way to help.
  Mr. Speaker, I only would close by saying we did not deal with one of 
issues which is an issue we ought to be thinking about and that is the 
whole question of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is one of the poorest 
countries in the world that is being squeezed by all of the changes we 
have made, and you wind up with a country where women make up about 70 
percent of the workforce and suddenly they will be out of work because 
of competition from other areas. So there is much more to be done in 
this trade area.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3009, the Andean 
Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.
  In 1987, after serving 15 years in the Washington State legislature, 
I decided to leave politics. I wanted to continue in public service, 
however, and I joined the Foreign Service as a medical officer based in 
Zaire where, for a year and a half, I provided psychiatric services to 
Foreign Service, AID, and Peace Corps personnel in sub-Saharan Africa. 
I have witnessed first hand the severe social, health, political and 
environmental challenges the people of this region face on a daily 
basis. Increased international trade and investment is a key component 
leading to economic development and growth in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Last year, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) became law. 
It is the most significant U.S. policy statement to date on our 
commitment to assist these countries with their efforts to stimulate 
economic growth and development in this long-neglected region of the 
world. Imports from Africa are growing more quickly this year than 
imports from Asia, Europe, or Latin America, with apparel making up 
most of this import growth. This investment translates into thousands 
of new jobs and increased growth for many African economies. This boost 
comes at a critical time, as African economies are likely to be the 
hardest hit by the global economic slowdown.
  AGOA II would: clarify that preferential treatment is provided to 
knit-to-shape or ``wholly assembled'' apparel articles assembled in 
beneficiary nations; provide preferential treatment for apparel 
articles that are cut both in the U.S. and beneficiary countries; 
``double'' the apparel cap for apparel made in Africa from regional 
fabric made with regional yarn from 3 to 7 percent over eight years; 
and allow Namibia and Botswana to benefit from the ``lesser developed 
beneficiary sub-Saharan African country'' provision.
  H.R. 3009 builds on the success of the Andean Trade Preference Act, 
which is set to expire on December 4, 2001, and builds on the 
bipartisan success of the Trade and Development Act of 2000--which was 
supported by an overwhelming majority of House and Senate Democrats, 
and signed into law by President Clinton. These efforts are critical 
tools in our efforts to build on our partnerships in the Andean 
countries, the Caribbean, and Africa, to promote democracy, and to 
combat illegal drug trafficking in our own Hemisphere. This bill will 
improve the operation of AGOA and increase sub-Saharan country 
utilization of the AGOA program. Moreover, the current program excludes 
many products that are key exports from the Andean region--such as 
apparel, footwear, and tuna--and are essential to the region's future 
economic growth and development. It is important that Congress renew 
the ATPA before it expires, but also to expand the program to provide 
trade preferences to commodities that are currently excluded.
  The original ATPA was created to foster legitimate trade-based 
economic relations between the United States and the Andean region and 
stimulate legitimate economic alternatives to narcotics production and 
trafficking there. The ATPA has been a success on both counts, and has 
helped foster trade between the U.S. and the Andean region that has 
nearly doubled over the last decade to $18 billion to the mutual 
benefit of U.S. and Andean businesses. If we fail to take the 
opportunity to expand legitimate trade links with this region, these 
opportunities will be lost and the ability to sustain the gains of the 
past decade will be

[[Page 22884]]

severely diminished. This bill contains the same worker protections 
contained in the Trade and Development Act of 2000--these include the 
right to form unions, a minimum employment age, a ban on forced labor, 
and acceptable conditions of work--wages, hours, safety, health, the 
environment--as well as promoting international obligations to 
eliminate the worst forms of child labor. These provisions have the 
support of unions in Andean, Caribbean and African countries.
  This bill is a grant of conditional trade benefits. Congress sets the 
term and conditions for expanded trade with the United States, and our 
trading partners must abide by them--if they do not--they will have 
these benefits taken away--period. Increase trade with the United 
States would lead to the building of new textile and apparel factories 
that would quickly provide jobs to thousands of rural peasants and 
urban workers. Jobs in these factories would pay wages at higher levels 
than the national average wage. They would also provide employment 
opportunities, particularly for women.
  Throughout modern history, the pattern of economic development in 
every country has shown that the establishment of a viable textile and 
apparel industry has always been the first rung on the ladder to 
creating a modern, industrial economy. The pattern has also shown, that 
giving women employment opportunities and control over their family's 
finances is the best way to provide people in developing countries the 
economic resources to move up the economic ladder and obtain marketable 
education and training.
  Increased trade and investment with these developing regions will 
continue to promote U.S. exports and create jobs here in this country. 
Enhancing the trade programs will continue to support democracy-
building policies and reinforces the United States' commitment to 
promote prosperity, stability, and democracy in sub-Saharan Africa, the 
Caribbean and the Andean region.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the committee.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, which is a 
bill to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act through 2006. I want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their work in helping our friends in 
South America.
  This legislation gives to the President the authority to grant duty-
free treatment for certain imports from Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and 
Peru. We know that trade is a vital part of our comprehensive strategy 
to fight the production and exportation of illegal drugs. But I 
thoroughly agree with the preceding speaker, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), that this is a very important tactic that 
can be used in many different ways.
  We can use trade, for example, to encourage Andean nations to pursue 
legitimate business activities that promote jobs and maintain economic 
and political stability in that region.
  This legislation also includes provisions to amend the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act that we passed last year that helped Sub-Saharan 
African nations. The inclusion of preferential treatment for knit-to-
shape articles, for example, a completed sweater, will help apparel 
companies in my part of the country, the northwest of the United 
States, that are now suffering from the slowdown in our economy.
  It is my hope that we can address asparagus as this legislation moves 
forward. As the chairman is aware, Washington State has a huge 
asparagus industry that could be affected by increased imports from 
Peru. We need to find the answer to that problem.
  In 1992, Peruvian asparagus imports amounted to only 4.1 percent of 
total United States production. In 2000, those same imports equaled 34 
percent of the United States production. In 2000, asparagus production 
in 22,000 acres in Washington State added $51 million to the ag 
economy; and this represent 32 percent of national production, making 
Washington State the second largest producer in the Nation.
  This is a vital agricultural product for my State, Washington State; 
and I look forward to working with the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane), as we try to find an answer that will help 
growers in California and Washington and Michigan.
  Nevertheless, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need to move forward 
with this measure. We need to do it now before the current agreement 
expires. And so I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a very distinguished colleague.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciation 
and thanks to the chairman of the committee, as well as our senior 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their 
willingness to see that maybe down the line in the legislative process 
we may work out a compromise; but at this point in time, I have to 
respectfully oppose the current legislation as it now states.
  Mr. Speaker, my district is home to the largest tuna cannery 
facilities in the world. One cannery is operated by StarKist, which 
employs about 2,700 workers; and the other cannery is operated by 
Chicken of the Sea out of California, which employs about 2,500 
workers. I note also to my friend from Pennsylvania, it is true, 
Chicken of the Sea is foreign owned, but so is Shell and British 
Petroleum and they are legally doing business here in our country, 
employing millions or even thousands of American people.
  Today these companies employ, as I said earlier, 74 percent of our 
workforce. Approximately 85 percent of the private sector jobs in 
American Samoa are dependent either directly or indirectly on the tuna 
fishing or processing industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked specifically StarKist and Heinz executives what 
financial loss StarKist would incur if canned tuna was not included in 
this agreement. I was told that StarKist would suffer no economic loss, 
other than the exception to the fact that tuna workers in Ecuador are 
being paid 69 cents an hour. My colleagues are probably not aware that 
minimum wage for cannery workers in American Samoa is only $3.20 cents 
an hour, which is far below even our national minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit my people do not want handouts. They want to 
work. Maybe of interest to my colleagues, for 40 years our leaders and 
our people purposefully did not want to have anything to do with the 
welfare program that was instituted in our country. Why? Because they 
did not want handouts. They want to work.
  When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, tuna processing and the 
fishing industry we have there is the only industry holding together 
the fragile economy of my district. American Samoa's only advantage in 
the global market place is duty-free access to the U.S. market. And 
what price did America Samoa pay for this trade privilege? We owe 
allegiance to the United States. Other countries do not.
  Again, I submit I sincerely hope that we will be able to work out 
something that will be helpful not only to our tuna industry but as 
well as to assist our friends from the Andean countries.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  There is one part of this, and I understand the regional problems 
that some of the Members have with various portions of this particular 
bill. I think as Tip O'Neill expressed it very well, ``All politics is 
local.'' And they will vote according to their constituencies, and I 
think we all understand that. But we do have a common constituency that 
is suffering now, and we are getting aid and help for them in this 
bill, and that is the terrible problems that we are having across this 
country with drug abuse.
  These countries, the Andean countries, they are working with us in 
trying to solve this problem. We need to close the vacuum that they are 
going to have on the economic damage that this is going to do and the 
job losses there. I think in all, and in the total of the bill, it is 
good for American workers. It is good for American business.

[[Page 22885]]

But there are obviously winners and losers.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the greater good be served and that all 
Members support this most important bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have spent my career working to expand 
international trade. I firmly believe that free trade, economic 
stability and political freedom go hand-in-hand. The bill before us 
today will continue to encourage growth and stability in the Andean 
region.
  That said, I would like to add that I also have concerns with 
Colombia's treatment of American companies and their failure, in some 
instances, to uphold their contractual obligations. As the author of 
this bill, I am pleased by the strides made both politically and 
economically by all of the countries in the legislation. However, given 
the fact that Kal Kan Foods, a major exporter of pet food to Colombia, 
has a large plant in my home state, I am very concerned about the 
effect prohibitive tariffs imposed by Colombia on pet food has on the 
hard working Americans in my state and across the country.
  I believe it is essential for ATPA beneficiary countries to follow 
established WTO rules and adopt, implement and apply transparent--
nondiscriminatory regulatory procedures and enforce their arbitration 
and court awards. These things are a condition of Colombia's benefits 
under current Andean trade law. To that end, I have included report 
language in this bill that directs the USTR to insist that the 
Colombian government remove all pet food from the price band system and 
apply 20% common external tariff on imports of pet food.
  My concern on this issue is further exacerbated by reports about 
Colombia's failure to honor other agreements--specifically binding 
arbitration decisions as required under the current ATPA guidelines. 
The apparent disregard for the arbitration process found in the Nortel 
case does not appear to be an isolated incident. Other U.S. 
corporations like Sithe Energies, who is partnered with Exelon 
Corporation, find themselves in the same predicament. Resulting from 
arbitration, Sithe through their Colombian affiliate TermRio, was 
awarded approximately $61 million. Unfortunately, the Colombian 
government has failed to pay this award, contending that the claim is 
on appeal. To that end, the report accompanying the legislation 
includes the following statement: ``The Committee urges the Government 
of Colombia to comply with such decisions and compensate Nortel, Sithe 
Energies and other U.S. corporations appropriately in order to maintain 
its beneficiary status under the ATPA.''
  The apparent failure of the Colombian Government to honor the terms 
of their agreements is very disconcerting. It puts at risk future 
foreign investment in Colombia at a particularly important moment in 
their history and further erodes confidence in the overall investment 
climate as well as the broader international business community. I 
strongly urge the Colombian government to move swiftly in addressing 
these problems, and I urge the Administration to monitor their 
progress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair give us the time remaining, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have about 2 minutes to reach out to 
not just the people on this floor, but everybody who is listening in 
their offices. I feel like I almost have to conjure John the Baptist to 
get this across.
  Why are we debating a bill on the Andes when people are hurting all 
across this country right now today? If anything can be seen as showing 
the irrelevance of this Congress while people are losing their jobs all 
across this country, we cannot get a bill on this floor for a retail 
sales tax holiday. We cannot get the Travel America Now Act on this 
floor. But we can come in and get a bill so that drug dealers in the 
Andes can invest in gardening or anything else that they want to get 
into in order to come into this country and sell those products as 
well.
  Do you think for a second that the drug dealers are going out of 
business with this bill?
  We have got to come on this floor today and vote this down and demand 
that the Committee on Ways and Means come in here with bills that are 
going to address the economic problems that have happened since 
September 11.
  All this calm discussion on this floor completely bypasses what has 
happened to the people in this country. All the small businesses in 
this country that come down here and we say we honor every day in this 
Congress, we are ignoring them right now. I am as hot as I can be about 
this because we are being ignored. I feel my heart pounding every day 
because I see people out of work. They cannot pay their bills in the 
next 60 days. They cannot make their mortgage payments. They cannot 
tell their kids why they cannot have clothes on their backs when they 
go to school, and we are talking about the Andes. We are talking about 
we need to move. This bill is time sensitive. What is time sensitive is 
whether we are responding to the needs of the people in this country, 
right now, post-September 11.
  People from New York have to come down here and beg, beg this 
Congress to see whether we are going to respond to them. I do not want 
to hear any lectures about how the economy will recover in 3 years. I 
do not want to hear lectures on philosophic permutations that might 
take place in the overall economy.

                              {time}  1200

  I want action now on behalf of the people of this country. Vote this 
bill down and get bills on this floor that address the economic needs 
of this country right this second.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The gentleman began by invoking the name of John the Baptist. I would 
tell the gentleman if he would review the activity that has taken place 
on this floor in terms of moving legislation that would directly 
address the concerns that he has, this House has acted. I would suggest 
that he should implore the name of Tommy the Daschle if he is really 
looking for where the problem is in terms of not moving legislation.
  This House has moved, repeatedly. We have sent product after product 
after product over to the United States Senate. And I know I am not 
supposed to mention the other body by name, and I know I am not 
supposed to refer to an individual by name and, therefore, I will say 
``the other body ain't there.'' They simply have not done their job.
  I sympathize with the gentleman from Hawaii. I would love to have an 
economic recovery bill in front of the President. We did our job. I am 
anxious to go to conference with the product that the Senate has 
produced. I am anxious to rescue the Senate if they are not able to 
produce a product. We are ready and able to address all of the concerns 
that the gentleman outlined, and I would underscore the fact that we 
already have.
  But what we have in front of us, Mr. Speaker, is a very modest bill, 
a modest bill that a number of people have worked on for a number of 
years. And all we have done is told the people of sub-Saharan Africa, 
we will give you, rather than 1, 3 percent market penetration. What we 
have said to the individuals in the Caribbean is that if you utilize 
our fiber and yarn to a very great extent, we will let you bring a few 
more products into our marketplace. And what we have said to the Andean 
countries is, if we could affect the demand side in this country to the 
degree that you have affected the supply side, it would be a 
significant advance in the war on drugs; but that, as gratitude, we 
will tell you, go pound dirt, because we are not going to offer you an 
opportunity to sell your goods in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), someone who has not looked at this from afar, 
but someone who has viewed this closely and firsthand.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this critical piece 
of legislation in memory of the 5,000 Colombian policemen that have 
died in the battle against drugs. This is an important piece of 
legislation.
  I applaud the gentleman for his support for U.S. national security. 
This

[[Page 22886]]

bill helps to dry up the source of money for drugs that would support 
terrorism after September 11.
  I want to thank Chairman Thomas, Mr. Rangel, and Chairman Crane, for 
sending the Congress a Renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act. 
Eleven years ago, I served President Bush and Secretary Baker as part 
of the State Department handling western hemisphere affairs. In one of 
the bravest missions of his presidency, President Bush went to 
Cartagena, Colombia to stand against the Medellin cartel drug lords and 
with the new democracies of the Andes. As part of our commitment, I 
worked to craft the first Andean act to boost the legal businesses and 
democracies of the Andes.
  Since that bipartisan landmark legislation, the Medellin cartel was 
crushed and trade of Andean countries shot up 80 percent. Over 140,000 
jobs have been created, bolstering the economies of embattled 
democracies.
  After September 11, the American people learned that we are fighting 
a new enemy: wealthy terrorists. Their wealth comes from that illegal 
drug trade. If we are to win this battle, we are going to use this 
Trade Preference Act to help the democratic governments of the region 
to offer their people a new way, based on trade with America.
  I want to thank the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru for 
their help. I want to especially highlight Colombia whose National 
Police Force has lost over 5,400 officers in the battle against drug 
lords and right-wing paramilitaries. This bill offers economic growth, 
democracy and human rights. I command the Ways and Means Committee and 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to ask 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3009.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, the Andean 
Trade Promotion Act and Drug Eradication Act and I want to commend 
Chairman Thomas (CA) and Representative Rangel (NY) for their 
leadership in this initiative.
  The current Andean Trade Preference Act provides duty free treatment 
for a variety of U.S. imports from the four Andean nations--Colombia, 
Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. That program expires on December 4, 2001--
in a little over two weeks. Moreover, the current program excludes many 
products that are key exports from the Andean region--such as apparel, 
footwear, and tuna--that are essential to the region's future economic 
growth and development.
  If we fail to take the opportunity to expand legitimate trade links 
with this region, these opportunities will be lost and the ability to 
sustain the gains of the past decade will be diminished. Eradication of 
drugs and creating jobs through increased trade go hand in hand, 
especially in our own Western hemisphere.
  The ATPA, which is ten years old, has played a vital role in the 
Andean ridge in our fight against illicit drugs. All the world's's 
cocaine comes from the Andean ridge, and in recent years more that 60% 
of the heroin sold or seized on our streets comes from the Colombian 
Andes. The small economic impact of ATPA pales in comparison with the 
annual $100 billion societal cost of these illicit drugs, and the 
16,000 lost lives here each year.
  While I support the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), as it 
provides a viable alternative for the growing and production of illicit 
drugs in the region, a large quantity of which make their way into the 
United States, I am concerned about H.R. 3009's labor standards. Many 
of my consitutents state that they would be in favor of the bill if it 
required adherence to these ``core'' labor standards as a precondition 
for receiving the benefits under the Act. By core labor standards, I 
refer to the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration of 
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: freedom of association, the 
right to organize and for collective bargaining and the rights to be 
free from child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination, 
which many people in the Andean Nations still face.
  We will continue to monitor the reforms process in the Andean nations 
as we do in other parts of the world, and we will continue to pay 
particular attention to workers' rights. It is important that all 
nations respect workers' rights and the ILO's core labor standards and 
practices. While it is regrettable that there are violations of 
fundamental workers' rights in the region; we will work with the 
Governments comprising the Andean nations to ensure that labor 
standards are complied with, and those perpetrating acts of violence 
against workers are held accountable for their actions.
  In addition to workers' rights issues, the Bill's fabric/textile 
provisions does not require that the apparel be ``wholly'' assembled in 
the Andean nation, and grants duty-free treatment to large quantities 
of apparel. While many feel that these provisions will cause more loss 
of jobs in an already devastated U.S. textile industry; I am committed 
to making sure that the Act in its implementation does not displace 
American jobs, and that there are retraining programs available for 
those who may suffer as a result of the ATPA.
  While H.R. 3009, provides a vehicle to further eradicate the illicit 
narcotics trade in the Andean region, we must not lose sight of the 
important labor and environmental issues that the Act presents as well. 
We must address these issues with the same vigor and particularity as 
the trade agreements we seek to promote.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3009. Yes, 
we want to promote trade, but we must also protect jobs.
  I want to also express my deep disappointment for the Rules Committee 
not allowing Representatives Miller and Evans from offering their 
important amendment to protect trade unionists in Colombia.
  I agree with my colleagues that Colombia should not be able to 
benefit from the trade provisions in this bill until that nation's 
authorities begin to investigate the deaths of at least 90% of the 
trade union deaths this year.
  Violence against trade unionists in Colombia is the highest in the 
world and is growing each year. In the last 10 years, more than 1200 
trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. The ILO and UN High 
Commission on Human Rights have also condemned these attacks. I think 
the U.S. and this Congress should do what we can to stop this violence. 
The Miller-Evans amendment would have been a strong step forward; 
however, it was not allowed to be offered.
  Thus, I am not able to support this bill and urge my colleagues to 
oppose it as well.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade 
Expansion Bill not because I don't want to help eradicate the drug 
trade in the Andean region, but because this bill overlooks the 
importance of protecting labor rights overseas and sets up unfair trade 
circumstances for U.S. textile workers.
  Labor activists are being assassinated and threatened in Colombia by 
the paramilitary organizations seeking to defend the illicit drug 
trade. I have joined with my colleagues in writing to the President of 
Colombia asking for him to investigate the various deaths of union 
activists who have worked diligently to try to bring fair and legal 
trade practices to a country whose primary export is cocaine. We have 
received no response and don't expect to. the U.S. is giving the Andean 
region duty-free status on various imports in hopes that the region 
will replace their drug economy with other sustainable economic 
alternatives. We get nothing in return, except corrupt governments that 
look the other way when it comes to international core labor standards. 
It is up to this Congress to stress the need for labor unionist 
protections when basic international labor rights are being violated 
and lives are being threatened.
  The bill before us adds textiles and apparel to the list of imports 
that will be allowed into our country duty and quota-free. In addition 
to the Andean countries (Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) already 
included under the current Andean Trade Preference Act, Caribbean and 
sub-Saharan African countries will also be included in this duty and 
quota-free status for apparel. This will have a devastating affect on 
textile and apparel jobs here at home.
  As I have already illustrated, the Colombian government has no use 
for international labor rights and a workers right to organize. Because 
of this disregard for workers rights, workers will continue to struggle 
in their plight of poverty toiling away in apparel factories making 
meager wages so that the corrupt government can take the proceeds and 
continue the drug trade. But it doesn't end here. The oppressed wages 
in the Andean countries, not to mention the Caribbean Basin and sub-
Saharan Africa, will siphon off good-paying U.S. jobs to these lower-
wage regions. This bill will hurt workers in the U.S. as well as 
workers in the various regions around the world. Clearly, labor is an 
inherent component of trade and must be addressed in this bill, as it 
must be addressed in every trade bill that confronts this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3009.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is 
vital to our efforts to eliminate the flow of illicit drugs into our 
Nation's communities. Additionally, we need to better attack terrorist 
organizations that use drug trade as a revenue source. While these 
measures are very important, I also urge the conferees on this bill to 
be careful not to give undue promotion to import products such as 
asparagus into this country that unfairly undercut American 
agricultural producers.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support 
for H.R. 3009, ``The

[[Page 22887]]

Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.'' This legislation, 
which extends the Andean Trade Preference Act, authorizes the President 
to extend trade benefits to Bolivia Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru. In 
addition, H.R. 3009 amends both the Caribbean Trade Partnership Act and 
The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act in a liberalizing way.
  The legislation achieves these concurrent goals by developing a 
comprehensive framework of requirements and obligations. In order to 
receive the trade enhancements offered by this act, an eligible country 
must demonstrate to the President that it satisfies 7 conditions.
  Countries must demonstrate commitments to WTO obligations, be an 
active participant toward the completion of the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas, provide intellectual property protection equal to minimum 
international standards, demonstrate a commitment to internationally 
recognized worker rights, eradicate child labor, and ratify and 
implement the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. This 
legislation is a critical component of this Administration's effort to 
stop the illegal flow of drugs from these Andean countries.
  H.R. 3009 provides a litany of criteria pertaining to eligible goods 
under the act. The practical effect is to promote a well regulated, yet 
liberalizing trade regime that deals directly with issues such as the 
unfair transshipment of goods to exploit tariff reductions.
  At the heart of this trade philosophy is the profound notion that non 
trade goals, such as the eradication of illicit drug use in the U.S. 
and the recognition of international labor standards, can be linked to 
trade inducements that promote both economic and policy goals. This 
legislation therefore represents the recognition that comprehensive 
trade policy that recognizes trade externalities is a sound direction 
of U.S. Trade policy.
  This legislation could be strengthened however, by acknowledging the 
additional U.S. trade priority of ensuring a safe sustainable 
development and in beneficiary countries so as to promote global 
environmental goals. By failing to recognize the importance of 
sustainable development to the American people, this legislation 
represents less a policy choice than a political one.
  Thus, while I support this legislation, it seems to represent a 
growing divide among the voices for trade liberalization between those 
of use who welcome comprehensive prioritization of all factors 
pertaining to trade--labor, the environment, and other policy goals, 
with those who prefer to use U.S. trade as a carrot and stick to induce 
other countries to undertake U.S. priorities.
  It is my sincere hope that the former position out weighs the latter 
in this body, and that this legislation and debate leads the way to a 
version of Trade Promotion Authority that all pro-trade Members of this 
House can be happy with.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, if enacted, the reduction of duties on 
canned tuna included in H.R. 3009 would immediately result in the loss 
of thousands of jobs for American workers in the tuna industry. I speak 
on behalf of some 600 workers in Mayaguez, hard working women, who will 
be without jobs soon if this bill as written is enacted into law.
  A major goal of the Andean Trade Preference Act of 1991 is to promote 
prosperity, stability and democracy in the Andean region by providing 
favorable duty treatment for certain exports to the U.S. Although 
canned tuna is exempt from duty-free treatment, the import duty on 
frozen tuna loins is virtually zero. Tuna loins are exported to the 
U.S. for canning in Puerto Rico, California and American Samoa. The 
current duty structure on tuna over the past decade has created 
tremendous growth in the Andean Pact tuna industry. For example, over 
the past ten years the number of tuna factories has increased 229%, 
production capacity has increased 400% and exports to the U.S. have 
increased 567%. Clearly the current tariff structure for tuna has been 
a huge success for the Andean region.
  I oppose reduced or duty-free treatment for canned tuna because such 
an action would destroy the remaining U.S. tuna industry in Puerto Rico 
and provide few additional benefits to the Andean region. Today the 
U.S. tuna industry provides more than 15,000 good jobs in economically 
challenged areas of our country such as Puerto Rico. If canned tuna 
from Andean Pact countries is provided favorable duty treatment, canned 
tuna will be dumped on the U.S. market destroying the U.S. industry. 
Ecuador and Colombia already have enough production capacity to supply 
the entire U.S. market and the U.S. canning industry cannot compete 
against labor costs of less than $0.70/hour. The risk of this dumping 
has already been experienced by Mexico, which recently imposed a 23 
percent import duty on canned tuna products from Ecuador due to product 
dumping.
  I do not believe that the U.S. must destroy the local economy of 
American Samoa and put at risk 600 jobs in Puerto Rico in an attempt to 
help the Andean region. To the contrary, the current tariff structure 
has been extremely successful in growing the Andean tuna industry while 
at the same time supporting important U.S. jobs. Moreover, the U.S. 
tuna industry has done its part to promote the Andean region.
  The current tariff structure for tuna has benefited both the Andean 
Pact countries and the U.S. Changing it now will cause more layoffs in 
Puerto Rico where we have just recently suffered massive layoffs in the 
tuna processing industry from the closure a major plant facility. 
Changing the current structure would also have negative impacts on 
America Samoa and California in regards to job loss.
  I want to thank my Democratic colleagues Congressman Rangel and 
Congressman Faleomavaega for their steadfast support on this issue. I 
also want to recognize the support of Congressman Cunningham and 
Congressman Tauzin and I remain hopeful that when and if a conference 
committee meets on ATPA later this year, that a compromise concerning 
the acceptable treatment of tuna can be realized.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for 
the ``Andean Trade Promotion Act.'' This trade legislation provides 
vital economic opportunity for the nations of the Andean region in 
South America and of sub-Saharan Africa, and for Indiana workers and 
businesses.
  As we look for ways to stimulate our economy at home, it is important 
to seek free and fair trade agreements abroad. This legislation will 
continue to foster economic development and growth in the Andean region 
and in sub-Saharan Africa. The strengthening of these developing 
economies will bolster our economy as we seek to expand on American 
exports throughout the world.
  I am especially encouraged by the provisions in this bill concerning 
issues pertinent to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). We 
must continue to build on the important economic reforms and 
encouraging economic development that the AGOA legislation has brought 
to Sub-Saharan Africa. Since enactment of the bill two years ago, 
United States trade with sub-Saharan African nations has increased by 
50%. In fact, the government of Kenya estimates that 50,000 direct and 
150,000 indirect jobs have resulted from new economic investments 
within their country.
  Clearly, there are vast economic opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa, 
a region with a population of 700 to 800 million people. The 
opportunity to trade our goods made in our factories by our workers 
must be exercised immediately. I believe that a strong emphasis on 
African economic development must also be accompanied by a continued 
commitment to meaningful micro-development loan programs that aim to 
empower the poorest people in Africa.
  Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Promotion Act will spur continued 
economic growth and development in South America and sub-Saharan 
Africa. I will vote for this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support this important trade legislation.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3009, ``The 
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act,'' a measure to extend 
and enhance the Andean Trade Preference Act. Signed into law in 
December of 1991, this underlying legislation has been instrumental in 
promoting economic development and economic alternatives to coca 
cultivation in four Andean trading partners and allies in the war on 
drugs, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
  It has provided improved access and duty free treatment for a wide 
variety of Andean exports into our market, and, according to a number 
of reports issued by the International Trade Commission, has helped to 
encourage the export of several nontraditional products, thereby 
raising the standard of living in rural areas in some recipient drug-
producing countries.
  Over the past 10 years, the Andean Trade Preference Act has played a 
vital role in the effort to combat the production of illicit drugs. All 
of the world's cocaine comes from the Andean ridge and in recent years 
more than 60 percent of the heroin sold or seized on our streets comes 
from the Colombian Andes. The success of our anti-drug efforts in these 
Andean countries directly affects our domestic security and the future 
of millions of Americans. By passing this measure today, we can bolster 
these efforts by creating thousands of jobs in legitimate industries 
and sectors that can benefit from duty-free entry into the United 
States.
  To further enhance the effectiveness of this legislation, I would 
urge all the countries of the region to take all possible steps to 
enhance

[[Page 22888]]

the climate for foreign investment in their domestic markets. 
Particularly in regard to Colombia, I would urge the government to 
resolve as quickly as possible its investment dispute with TermoRio, 
including its major U.S. stockholder, Sithe Energies. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert in the Record recent correspondence on this dispute 
that was sent to the United States Trade Representative, the Honorable 
Robert B. Zoellick.
  I would also point out that this legislation includes several 
important enhancements to the African Growth and Opportunity Act--
promoting economic development and creating thousands of jobs in sub-
Saharan Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, enacted as part 
of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, has already promoted greater 
trade and investment between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa, boosting 
trade with that region by 50% last year, creating scores of new 
businesses and tens of thousands of new jobs from Kenya to South 
Africa.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure which 
would further strengthen these trade and investment links, laying a 
solid foundation to our long-term relationship with the countries of 
sub-Saharan Africa and South America.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Andean Trade 
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act and its renewal and enhancement of 
the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).
  Additional trade spurs innovations and the development of better 
products while fostering competition.
  The Act, with its explicit ``Trade Goods--Not Drugs'' message has 
fostered legitimate trade based economic relations between the U.S. and 
the Andean region and has stimulated legitimate economic alternatives 
to narcotics production and trafficking.
  Trade between the U.S. and the Andean region has nearly doubled over 
the last decade to $18 billion to the mutual benefit of U.S. and Andean 
businesses.
  In my home state of Virginia, we export over $50 million in products 
to the region.
  Further progress will require an enhancement of the current programs 
to include an expanded range of Andean products.
  It has been the policy of the United States to support the Andean 
Countries with foreign assistance.
  However, removing barriers to trade with the U.S. is arguably more 
important to reviving the economic prospects of the region while 
helping to eradicate the narcotics menace terrorizing both the Andean 
Countries and the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 289, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SPRATT. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Spratt moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3009 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the 
     Committee report back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT.

       Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3206) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.

       ``No duty-free treatment extended to beneficiary countries 
     under this title shall remain in effect after December 31, 
     2006.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his motion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, today, with almost no notice, the House 
takes up H.R. 3009. The ostensible reason is to extend the Andean Trade 
Preference Act. But if that were all it was about, we would voice-vote 
that extension in the blink of an eye.
  This bill does not stop there. It goes on and, for the first time, 
grants duty-free, quota-free access for textile and apparel imports 
coming from the Andean countries. In addition to that, as if that were 
not enough, it gratuitously grants new trade concessions on top of 
those granted last year to 24 Caribbean countries and the 22 sub-
Saharan African countries.
  It has been said loosely on the floor here today, these are not major 
concessions, that they will not have terrific effects upon the textile 
industry. Let me tell my colleagues, this industry is reeling. Because 
of massive imports, job losses in textiles and apparel exceed the job 
losses in every other sector of our economy. When I came here, there 
were 2.1 million Americans working in the textile-apparel industry. 
Today, there are barely a million. Thus far, in this year alone, 2001, 
118,000 textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. In the past 3 
months alone, 46,000 U.S. textile and apparel workers have lost their 
jobs.
  What is the cause of these staggering job losses? It is easy. It is a 
flood tide of imports. In 6 years, between 1994 and 2000, the annual 
level of textile and apparel imports rose by $33 billion, 90 percent. 
The total amount of textile and apparel imports into this country last 
year was $77.5 billion, and it is inevitably going up this year.
  This is known as a protected industry. Well, that is some protection, 
$77.5 billion of imports, and only a fraction of that goes back in 
exports. The reason for that, among other things, is that a dozen times 
over the last 10 to 15 years we have liberalized trade in textiles and 
apparel. We did it for the Caribbean, we did it for Israel, we did it 
for Jordan, we did it for Cambodia, we did it for sub-Saharan Africa, 
and, most notably of all, when we passed the World Trade Agreement, the 
Uruguay Round of the GATT talks, we passed something called the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which will phase out all quotas by 
the end of 2004 and cut tariffs on textile and apparel goods. And the 
phaseout is going on as we speak.
  So what we have right now is tough enough for this industry to adjust 
to. It is struggling to survive. Just this week, Burlington, the 
largest textile manufacturer in America when I was elected to Congress, 
and for most of the years I have served here, Burlington petitioned for 
bankruptcy. That is how tough it is.
  Now, there are lots of reasons to vote against this bill, but let me 
just say that it is not a trivial imposition on the industry. The 
problem is, the devil is buried in the details of the bill, the 
technical details of the bill. This will open the floodgates even 
further. Let me mention just a couple of snippets from the bill to help 
my colleagues understand how.
  Despite claims by supporters, this bill will let Andean apparel made 
of fabrics formed almost anywhere in the world enter our country free 
of duties, free of quotas. By 2006, this bill will allow 1 billion 
square meters of regional fabric and apparel goods to enter this 
country from these four countries, duty free.
  As for sub-Saharan Africa, 22 countries, the Caribbean countries, the 
CBI countries, 24 countries, this bill takes last year's bill, which 
was a liberal concession, and basically doubles the limits imposed by 
the law we enacted last year and allows billions of additional square 
meters of fabric to come in. Do not let anyone tell say that the impact 
will be trivial; it will be substantial.
  I look at this and look at the industry and ask myself, why should 
the United States expand textile and apparel imports at a time when the 
economy is reeling, this sector of the economy is reeling, and almost 
being wiped out by textile and apparel imports? Why has this bill, with 
such potential for harm to lots of people, millions of people, been 
brought to the floor with such little notice for us to offer 
alternatives to it? Why, when we have an obvious alternative?
  This motion that I am offering now, this motion to recommit, offers 
Congress a square choice: If Congress wants to extend the expiring 
Andean Trade Preference Act, we can do it simply, we can do it 
expeditiously, we can do it with a clean extension of the act.

[[Page 22889]]

That is what this motion would do, what the Senate does in its stimulus 
bill, and what we should do in the House: a clean extension of the 
Andean Trade Pact for 5 years without inflicting a blow upon an 
industry that is struggling to survive.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina says, 
simply extend the Andean Pact. Simply extend it, meaning we go ahead 
and tell Botswana and Namibia to continue to stand in line; you do not 
deserve the opportunity to participate in AGOA; you do not deserve the 
same treatment as the other sub-Saharan African countries.
  The gentleman from South Carolina says, simply extend the Andean 
Pact. What actually happens is, in the Caribbean, based upon 
legislation that we have passed, that means the United States Customs 
continues to tell Congress what Customs says we meant when we passed 
the legislation. Because contained in this legislation is the Congress 
telling Customs what we meant. Simply extend allows a bureaucracy to 
tell us what we did.
  How many times have I heard people say what we ought to do is tell 
them what we meant? That is in this bill. Simply extending removes it.
  The gentleman from South Carolina gave us a story which is poignant, 
in that one of the industries in his area, Burlington Industries, has 
announced that it has now gone bankrupt. I would invite anyone to 
investigate some of the major reasons why it went bankrupt. The chief 
economist of Burlington Industries himself said one of the reasons was 
because we had to gird ourselves against a hostile takeover.
  Ask the shareholders and the workers if in fact they wanted the job 
that they talked about or they wanted the same people in the board 
rooms to remain? How much money was wasted in the effort to keep the 
board members, the same board members versus responsible decisions by 
that company in terms of the jobs that were currently there?
  And more ironic than that, another fundamental reason that Burlington 
went under is because they invested $200 million in new plant and 
equipment. Guess where. South Carolina? No way. Mexico. They invested 
$200 million in Mexico, and they made a bad business decision.
  Now, when are we going to say exactly what is going on? We provided 
benefits in previous legislation to keep this industry at home, and as 
soon as those benefits were passed, they left the country.
  What I admire about some of the members in the Textile Caucus who are 
working on problems is that they are dealing with the real world, not 
just trying to stop the world. This motion to recommit is an example of 
stop the world; simply reauthorize the Andean Pact. What it says to 
those countries, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia is, thank you 
very much for not growing coca, for helping us on the supply side in 
the war on drugs; and, in response to that, go pound dirt.
  On the margin, can we let these people begin to say, we can do 
something else rather than returning to the cash crop that you say is 
slowly killing your country? I think the answer should be yes. I think 
if you want to tell the bureaucracy what Congress meant, if you want to 
let all of the sub-Saharan nations participate in the benefits of the 
African Growth and Opportunities Act, and especially if you want to 
tell our friends in the Andean region, thank you, do not look at bad 
business decisions and say, do not do anything. Rather, realize this is 
a complicated problem, we are addressing it, we are trying to move 
forward, but at the very least, a very modest couple of percentage 
points, thank you is what these people not only deserve but desperately 
need.
  I plead with my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit 
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3099.

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 168, 
nays 250, not voting 15, as follows:


                             [Roll No. 447]

                               YEAS--168

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NAYS--250

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder

[[Page 22890]]


     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barcia
     Bono
     Cubin
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lantos
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Quinn
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Thompson (MS)
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1237

  Messrs. SWEENEY, BRYANT, RODRIGUEZ, Ms. HART, Mrs. WILSON, and 
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, GALLEGLY, ACKERMAN and SCHAFFER changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COYNE, GOODE, GEORGE MILLER of California, SAWYER, HILLIARD, 
MARKEY and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________