PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 182 - 234 (Roll no. 570).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 9, 1997
United States-Caribbean Trade Partnership Act - Amends the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) to prescribe the treatment of specified textile and apparel articles with respect to CBERA beneficiary (partnership) countries during a period of transition to application of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or a free trade agreement comparable to NAFTA. Revises requirements for the President's: (1) determination of preferential treatment; and (2) report to the Congress regarding specified actions of partnership countries. Directs the President to monitor the effect of NAFTA on sugar imports from partnership countries. Cites circumstances under which duty-free treatment is applicable to liqueurs and spirituous beverages produced from rum in the territory of Canada. Instructs the President to provide for a meeting with the trade ministers of the partnership countries and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in order to initiate negotiations for partnership countries to accede to the NAFTA, or to enter into mutually advantageous trade agreements with the United States containing provisions comparable to NAFTA. Instructs the USTR to: (1) submit to the President and to certain congressional committees an assessment of each partnership country's ability to undertake NAFTA obligations based upon its economic development efforts and market oriented reforms; and (2) submit a separate report to congressional committees on the economic impact of a new trade relationship on partnership countries if one or more such countries accede to NAFTA, or the United States negotiates a comparable free trade agreement with them. Declares that the Internal Revenue Code shall be applied with respect to severance pay without regard to the result reached in the case of Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
People & committees
Rep. Archer, Bill [R-TX-7] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 182 - 234 (Roll no. 570).
House roll call 570 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 182 - 234 (Roll no. 570).
House roll call 570 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9873-9881, H9965-9966)
Mr. Crane moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 211.
Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 105-365.
Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 105-365.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2644 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2644 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2644 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2644 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.