Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo

Caribbean Basin Interim Trade Program: CBI/NAFTA Parity (CRS Report for Congress)

A full-text PDF of the latest version is currently unavailable.
Release Date Revised April 5, 2006
Report Number IB95050
Authors Vladimir N. Pregelj, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Source Agency Congressional Research Service
Older Revisions
  • Premium   Revised Jan. 12, 2005 (20 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Sept. 30, 2003 (19 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Aug. 8, 2003 (18 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised June 27, 2003 (18 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised May 6, 2003 (19 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised March 25, 2003 (20 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Feb. 12, 2003 (20 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Dec. 6, 2002 (19 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Sept. 16, 2002 (18 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Aug. 6, 2002 (18 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised May 23, 2002 (18 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Nov. 14, 2001 (18 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Feb. 5, 2001 (18 pages, $24.95) add
Summary:

The entry into force, on January 1, 1994, of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has eliminated the advantage that the beneficiaries of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and related provisions of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) had enjoyed in trade with the United States relative to Mexico, and gave Mexico an increasingly significant competitive edge over the CBERA countries. The scheduled further implementation of the NAFTA would have resulted in a substantial advantage to Mexico over the CBERA countries and vitiate in part the purpose of the CBERA. Beginning with the 103rd Congress, Congress considered legislation to provide, temporarily, to CBI beneficiary countries tariff and quota treatment equivalent to that accorded to Mexico under the NAFTA. The legislation also would set up mechanisms for the accession of such countries to the NAFTA or an equivalent bilateral agreements with the United States. Due to its controversial nature, based on the perceived adverse consequences for the U.S. textile industry and substantial estimated negative effect on the U.S. budget, however, the legislative process reached an impasse in mid-1995. Although favorably reported in several instances since then, the parity legislation was not enacted.