[Pages H5699-H5747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1045
AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution
250 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 434.
{time} 1046
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub-
Sahara Africa, with Mr. Ewing in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will
control 22\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in
opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the chairmen and the ranking
members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the
time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in
opposition to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that request. Time must be
yielded by the Members who control the time under the special order
adopted by the House, the ranking members and the chairmen of the
appropriate committees.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Members that do
oppose this bill on certain grounds, and I believe they should be
afforded an opportunity that the Chair could, in fact, make
accommodations for, and I urge the House to do that.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given
time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I think there should be a reasonable amount of time
presented for the opportunity for those who oppose this bill to be able
to speak on this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will suspend.
The rule provides that the time will be yielded by the chairmen and
the ranking members of the two appropriate committees, and that is the
way the Committee of the whole will proceed under the rule approved by
the House.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for
H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
This bill is the product of years of bipartisan congressional efforts
to promote increased trade and investment between our Nation and sub-
Saharan Africa. This measure authorizes a new trade and investment
policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and expresses the
willingness of our Nation to assist the eligible countries of that
region with a reduction of trade barriers, the creation of an economic
cooperation forum, the promotion of a free trade area, and a variety of
other trade and related mechanisms.
This bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has broad support
in the Committee on International Relations and was ordered to be
reported in February of this year.
[[Page H5700]]
Yesterday, in the meeting of the Committee on Rules, one of our
distinguished colleagues, one who has demonstrated a long and
passionate commitment to humanitarian issues, expressed concerns that
this bill does not do enough for the people of Africa. Mr. Chairman,
although this is indeed a modest bill, it would be a grave mistake to
underestimate its strength. Both its power and its modesty, Mr.
Chairman, come from the fact that this bill does not attempt to do
anything for the people of Africa but rather it proposes to encourage
beneficial trade with the countries and peoples of Africa.
This act recognizes a universal and independent desire of individuals
everywhere to improve their lives and those of their families. Adam
Smith recognized this power back in 1776 when he wrote, ``The desire of
a man to better himself comes to him in the womb of his mother.'' A
fundamental belief in individual aspiration is reflected in nearly all
of the domestic legislation that we consider in this body, from tax
laws, to education subsidies, to natural resource management. That
principle must not be ignored in our policies toward other nations.
The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Africa, but much
economic activity there goes unrecorded and underreported. Ghanaian
women with little formal education grow their crops and sell them in
cooperative rural markets every week, season after season. Senegalese
merchants travel to cities all across the globe selling their wares and
remitting the bulk of their profits. Somalis, working together
throughout the Middle East, spend their salaries on products which are
in high demand back home and ship them to family members. In turn, they
trade them for profit in the markets of Hargeisa and Mogadishu. It may
come as a surprise to some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that on any
given day a visitor to Hargeisa can stand on a street corner and
exchange Deutschemarks, francs, pounds and dollars at international
exchange rates.
These activities, and countless others like them, are happening and
they are happening right now, as we speak, all over the African
continent. They are not driven by any giant multinational corporations
nor by international banks. They are not supervised by the Agency for
International Development or by the IMF. This work occurs because
people have discovered that it puts food on the table and clothes on
the backs of their children.
Make no mistake, my colleagues, I strongly support U.S. foreign aid
to Africa, and my record of that support is clear. In recent years, I
have been supportive of the Development Fund for Africa, the Seeds of
Hope Act, the International Financial Institutions, debt relief and the
work of the United Nations. But foreign aid cannot serve as a backbone
of any modern economy. At best, it can jump-start independently
sustainable economic activity and help individuals gain a foothold.
As I have said, H.R. 434 is a modest bill. One can think of many
problems confronting the people and the countries of Africa that this
bill does not specifically address, and we have heard some of them
already in the debate on the rule. But it would be a mistake to reject
this bill for what it is not without recognizing the significant
benefits that it represents.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the extraordinary
group of Members who have come together and worked extremely hard in
support of this effort before us. Both Democrat and Republican, black
and white, conservatives and liberals have found much common ground in
the pages of H.R. 434.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairman
of our Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International
Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); to the ranking
Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne); to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the dean of our
New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. Chairman, even the often contentious counties of sub-Saharan
Africa have come together united in support for this bill. I commend my
colleagues for their efforts and their commitments, and I urge
favorable consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman
of our Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce), be permitted to control the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and
Opportunity Act. It will open a new era in U.S. relations with sub-
Saharan Africa. This bipartisan bill was reported with little
opposition on a bipartisan basis from the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Chairman, sub-Saharan Africa today is very different from what it
was just a few short years ago. In the 1990s, more than two dozen of
the 48 countries in the region have held democratic elections and 30
have undertaken specific economic reforms.
{time} 1100
Increasing numbers of Africans have embraced the principles of
democracy and free markets, which enable people and nations to improve
the course of their futures.
Last year I traveled to Gabon. I believe President Omar Bongo and his
country are an example of the changes under way across the African
continent. President Bongo has set out on a plan to energize his
country. He has brought a high level of prosperity to his country and
actually developed an empowered middle class. And to ensure economic
opportunity for the Gabonese people, the president is also directing
the country's efforts in infrastructure building and privatization of
state-owned industries.
Gabon is a good example of what is happening in Africa today. And
here, in this body, we are laying the legislative groundwork that will
help support the steps Gabon and other nations are taking in Africa.
Today, we adapt U.S. policy in response to the African renaissance.
Specifically, this legislation will add a trade component to U.S.
policy toward the region to mutually improve the standard of living of
Americans and the African people.
It is unfortunate that the tremendous potential of sub-Saharan Africa
has not been reflected in U.S. trade policy to date. But this bill
fills that gap. I commend many members of the Committee on Ways and
Means on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to where we are today
on the floor in developing this legislation.
In developing this legislation, I particularly compliment the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane);
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, who
are the lead sponsors of this bill. They have done great work.
In addition, I must mention the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) particularly who have expended
enormous effort in bringing this bill to the floor.
I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that the balance of my time may be managed by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that he may be able to yield and assign
the time as he chooses.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my
statement I may yield the time controlled by the Committee on Foreign
Affairs on the Democratic side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
[[Page H5701]]
There was no objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first take one moment to remind
our colleagues where this legislation began.
The genesis was with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from
Washington State (Mr. McDermott). I have yet to see a bill with as
strong bipartisan support with people on both sides of the aisle
supporting it, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Ways and Means the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many of my friends, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on the Republican side.
There are many of us who would like to do more today. Africa is a
continent that we have often ignored. The United States, with its often
European and Middle Eastern-focused policies it is attempting to
engage, the economic stage of Africa has been left behind. A continent
with the poorest people on this planet, devastated by illness, famine,
and economic hardship, America's foreign assistance has given the least
to this continent that needs it the most.
There is more that we should be doing. We should be doing more in
almost every category, from assistance to health, education, and in
trade.
For my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not an
easy vote. Some of our core constituencies are divided. Concern for
labor protection, the concern for the environment, things that we
cherish, are not as significant and powerful as they should be.
I am among those who believe we should be doing more in every trade
bill to include labor and environmental rights. We need to make sure
that when we work to lift these other nations that we lift all of their
citizens and not just a few.
The provisions of this bill are as good as we can get in this
compromise. I can assure my colleagues, if this was a different
Congress, we would have more protection for labor, we would have more
committed to the poorest of the poor, and we would do more for the
environment.
But our choice is not that today. We do not decide the composition of
this House. What we have to do is do the best we can for these people
who have suffered so much, with the legislature that the American
people have given us.
GSP is a good program. It forces countries to address the ILO
standard. And when we take a look at its history, almost a dozen
countries have lost GSP preference because they did not follow those
rules. In another number of cases, countries that had failed to follow
the ILO standard when challenged and threatened with the removal of GSP
ended up accepting the better standard for labor.
I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stretch
politically today. There are tough questions here. There are concerns
that we all have about why we are not doing more for Africa in aid, in
health care, in education, in trade and assistance. But the choice
before us is this bill or nothing.
Will Africans be better off if we kill this bill today? I think not.
I think, if we can move this bill forward today, we will be able to
build on its strength in the future.
Lastly, for my friends who have had a bad experience with NAFTA, this
bill is not about NAFTA. This bill does not take away tariffs in a
permanent manner, irrespective of countries' actions. The countries
that deal with us under this bill will have to make improvements on how
they treat their working men and women. They will have to address these
issues that so many on our side care about. This is a bill that begins
an engagement that we should have undertaken long ago.
I again commend all those involved, but particularly the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) for their great efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as
much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly,
emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed.
Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and
I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way,
not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for
most of us today, that we are on the brink of history.
It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as
rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like
we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of
African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no
village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with
any other country except our great United States of America.
As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And
for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really
done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve
this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of
these African countries and recognizing that they know that if
everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we
would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we
would not be able to take this one giant step.
But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to
just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to
humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state.
I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do
we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major
leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many
organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations,
saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding
and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing.
For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go
to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that
these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that
they are going to take our jobs away from us.
Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a
decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be
able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue
to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will
continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of
our technology and our consumer appetite.
So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far
enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come
in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to
improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that
before we went into that next century, where every country we have had
some agreement with, with this European country through the European
Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in
Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel,
every continent except Africa.
Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we
started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children
will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to
enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great
Republic.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act.
Over the last several years, many Members of this body have been
working hard to improve America's relationship with Africa. We have
done this because what happens in Africa matters. It matters to
Africans, and it matters to our country.
The United States has real interests in seeing that Africa begins to
reach its considerable potential. Such an Africa would offer limitless
cultural and economic opportunity to Americans.
Already our exports to Africa are some $6.5 billion. This is greater
than our exports to the former Soviet Union. It is greater than our
exports to all of Eastern Europe. And the volume is growing. U.S.
exports to Africa are
[[Page H5702]]
growing by more than 8 percent per year. This is 130-some thousand
American jobs.
As this map shows, businesses in my home State of California have
been part of this. California is one of the top States in the country
when it comes to exports to Africa, as is Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania, Texas. We can see the result of the growing exports here
to Africa.
On the other hand, if Africa fails to meet its potential with the
United States of America, then the United States will not escape the
negative economic political and security implications. There would be
lost economic opportunities, yes, but there would be more.
The reality is that terrorism and environmental degradation know no
bounds. Simply put, this legislation, which has broad bipartisan
support, is critical to the United States' relationship with Africa.
The Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs recently said,
``No other U.S.-Africa issue can be taken seriously until the Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act is passed.''
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I second that. But so do
all the African ambassadors here in Washington, everyone who has
unanimously supported this legislation. The African ambassadors
understand the importance of this legislation, and they have rejected
in no uncertain terms the efforts of critics to speak authoritatively
for Africans.
So I say to my colleagues, if they care about the future of the
continent, if they care about the future of 700 million people, support
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had
heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well.
He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would
expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa
where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could
do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
joined in that effort.
We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would
advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement
with sub-Saharan Africa.
{time} 1115
That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a
culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S.
trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan
Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and
who have given of their time and their energies so graciously.
This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in
Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held
democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed
in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May,
Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million
people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in
nearly two decades.
As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said
that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R.
434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework
for United States-African trade relations.
In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade
partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and
political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic
Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia-
Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy
discussions.
It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive
African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the
Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions.
It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free
trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria.
H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice
that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in
Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on
their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits
of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30
percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors
have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile,
the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent.
The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will
support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub-
Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a
better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally
in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime,
terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation.
A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market
for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of
Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the
region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former
Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in
1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the
region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past
several years.
As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will
establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and
will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and
political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a
wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to
codify many significant initiatives already under way in the
administration.
I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing
to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached
from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of
U.S. aid where it is needed.
I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair
slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill.
I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in
Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and
extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to
suggest that we know better for Africa than Africans do. If people are
concerned about whether the trade will be fair, if people are concerned
about whether the working conditions will be fair, I think it is
reasonable to say, let the African countries and their leadership
determine those issues, worker protection and the like.
It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an
opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected.
Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism.
This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous
new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will
enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already
taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be
more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty-
free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive.
Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That
is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of
textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the
U.S. market. We also
[[Page H5703]]
have protections in this bill to ensure that import sensitive items are
not brought in under the provisions of this legislation. For those who
believe we will be hurting our textile markets, I think if we look at
the bill, we find that that is not true.
There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African
workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African
workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we
do with other countries.
The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global
economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we
have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential
competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs
and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition.
The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations,
including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are
the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned,
there is a provision that the President must certify that any product
that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import
sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market
worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP.
The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation
has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights,
including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can
petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have
had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where
competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are
more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a
different standard applied, and I will fight for that.
I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but
it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential
consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other
issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core
worker rights.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) who serves on the Subcommittee on Africa.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I note his superb leadership in this area. I note the superb
leadership of the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee as well the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
There are two arguments against this bill, the first that it is
really bad for Africa. The gentleman from Maryland was quite eloquent
in making the case how wrong it is to apply such an assumption that the
representatives of each African nation are selling their people short,
that they do not care about worker exploitation, that somehow they do
not care about environment. These are the assumptions one must be
making if one says that the support of this legislation by every
government in the African continent is somehow to be discounted.
As to the second argument that it hurts the United States, the
gentleman from Maryland's argument was also quite persuasive. On what
assumption do we base the fear that African nations are not reliable?
On what assumption do we base the prejudice that an African nation will
not be able to comply with its obligations under the trade agreements
not to have massive transshipments? In our trading arrangements with
other nations around the world, we assume that they honor their
obligations, including the prohibitions against mislabeling and
transshipments. Why do we throw this assumption out when we are dealing
with Africa? It seems to me that the assumption is fair in this case,
even if there were a much larger percentage of textiles than there is.
Lastly, let me conclude by pointing out that we give less in direct
aid to Africa per capita than any other part of the globe with the
possible exception of India depending how it is measured. This is not
an aid bill. This is a bill to open up a reciprocal relationship of
trade and respect. Other countries we give more than $30 per capita. To
the people of sub-Saharan Africa, we give less than 17 cents per
capita. Is that right? Is that fair?
If you wish to change it but you have constraints with the budget, at
least open up trade, open up hope. That is what this bill does. I am
proud to support it.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for
me to rise in support of this legislation.
America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with
Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many
will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in
some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned
efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty
had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa
has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and
a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to
encourage this.
By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our
goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its
economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports
and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can
buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa
and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment.
The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is
not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own
congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in
exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the
top 10 States in exports to the region.
Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will
promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and
encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this
legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term
relationship with Africa.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, progress for African trade and growth can
never take place unless there is first a recognition that Africa has as
much promise as any other region in respect to long-term trade and
commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural
markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a
significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the
principles advocated by the great radical organizer Saul Alinsky was
that an aggrieved, neglected or oppressed group or nation must first
command recognition before hope for progress can be ignited.
{time} 1130
For the 17 years that I have been in Congress, there has been no
significant attention focused on African trade. Like many of my
colleagues, I am the cosponsor of several additional measures related
to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations,
this bill is probably the only African relevant bill that will reach
the floor of the House in the 106th Congress.
Let me note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is
as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I urge the full support for this landmark piece of legislation.
Progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless
there is first recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other
region with respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities.
Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products
and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global
economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great
radical organizer, Saul
[[Page H5704]]
Alinsky, was that an aggrieved, neglected, or oppressed group or nation
must first command recognition before the hope for progress can be
ignited.
For the seventeen years that I have been in Congress there has been
no significant attention focused on African trade. This long overdue
bill stands alone--and despite its imperfections and incompleteness,
this legislation deserves our full support. Hope for Africa begins with
today's recognition of Africa as a deserving trade partner.
Like many of my colleagues I am the co-sponsor of several additional
measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid
appropriations, this bill is probably the only Africa relevant bill
that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress.
Let me also note the fact that some have charged that this
legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from
the truth. In the much highlighted textile industry the Sub-Saharan
African countries have less than one percent. On the other hand, China
has almost 10 percent of the U.S. textile market. In the seventeen
years that I have served on the Education and Labor Committee no union
has yet complained to me about losing textile industry jobs to China.
Just transfer one percent of the textile trade from China to Africa
and you will do nothing to hurt American jobs--you merely maintain the
status quo. Why are the same people who are yelling about trade with
the infant economies of Africa so wimpish or silent on trade with
China.
In the final analysis we have a problem here similar to the one faced
by King Solomon when two women claiming to be the mother of one baby
came before him. There are some who are proclaiming that, never mind
the pleas of the African leaders, it would be better to vote this bill
down and do nothing for Africa. Following the wisdom of King Solomon,
it is clear that these negative opponents do not understand what is
best for Africa. I urge a yes vote on this landmark legislation.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne) for yielding this time to me, for his hard work and
commitment to Africa and to America.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 434. This is one of the most difficult
no votes which I again will cast today, but I have attempted to dig
beneath the surface of this legislation and analyze what its true
impact will be.
I was compelled to vote against this bill when it was examined in the
House Committee on International Relations. As one who has historically
encouraged and worked for a comprehensive trade and development policy
for Africa, this is not a vote which I cast lightly. In opposing this
legislation I part company with the President I strongly support and a
number of congressional colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect.
Now very troubling to me, the African Growth and Opportunity Act
fails to respect African sovereignty. It threatens the rights of
African nations to determine for themselves the economic priorities
that are in the best interests of their people. H.R. 434 continues to
carry harsh eligibility requirements. To obtain trade benefits,
countries must reorder their spending priorities to suit the
preferences of foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund.
Now, considering the mystery and the destructive nature of many of
the IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa, this eligibility
requirement is one which I cannot in good conscience support.
Other provisions in this legislation require countries to reduce
taxes for corporations while at the same time cut domestic spending
which will inevitably lead to further reductions in vital health care
and education programs which are already starved for funds.
Africa has been neglected for too long, and as I listened to this
debate, the supporters of this bill say that it is a modest first step.
Well, it should be a major first step. It should not be symbolic, as
many are saying. Africa deserves better.
In our enthusiasm to promote American business opportunities and
forge new relationships with countries in Africa, we must remain
focused on the paramount need at hand to support a free and fair trade
policy which benefits Africa and America.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), vice chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and
foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to
promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing
African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global
economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute
market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries
provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens.
Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment
will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and
infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace
and significantly raise their standard of living.
It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's
woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa
is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who
criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate
aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this
Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress
enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope
legislation.
This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses
U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is
aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small
farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as
the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African
development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will
have a balanced trade and aid program.
Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this
legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the
comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal)
during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman
from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are
supportive of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve
this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the
crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated
as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their
resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little
regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain
forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth
in Africa.
With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of
our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our
appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into
Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa,
their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies
will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their
free-market system that has served this country so well.
These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and
African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great
benefit to our country.
I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that
Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers
on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are
visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this
morning.
So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of
legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa.
[[Page H5705]]
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the
House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers
and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American
market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is
involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1
percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little
sliver of red is African imports to this country.
While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent
here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot
to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the
continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing
industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or
it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now
to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile
industry.
If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much
in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the
continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make
sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do
something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build
the industrial base in that country.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few
months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he
said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and
divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to
find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists
and farmers and government can stand together.''
President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens
in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a
trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of
workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face
on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global
economy.''
I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically
in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals
from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take
advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African
workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the
Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese
workers into sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
[From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999]
A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers
(By R.C. Longworth)
As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting
richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on
the outskirts of the global village.
``Global inequalities in income and living standards have
reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program
said in its annual global overview, the Human Development
Report.
For instance:
The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20
percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income,
91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports
and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living
in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have
about 1 percent of each.
The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul
Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140
billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43
least-developed countries and their 600 million people.
The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the
rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are
not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that
costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight
year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh.
The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their
net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the
world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they
were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing
nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in
sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to
$518 from $661 in 1980.
In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30
times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that
proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1.
The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is
not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with
the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people
and communities, not just markets and their manipulators.
``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of
efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said.
``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human
development.
``Many activities and goods that are critical to human
development are provided outside the market, but these are
being squeezed by the pressures of global competition.
``When the market goes too far in dominating social and
political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of
globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating
power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and
corporations, marginalizing the others.
``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the
expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the
rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to
preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but
also to provide enough space for human, community and
environmental resources to ensure that globalization works
for people, not just for profits.''
The gap between people, like the one between nations, also
is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said.
Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations--
especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it
said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China
and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe.
One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to
wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is
increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly
dominated by a few countries and companies.
Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the
United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and-
development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same
10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S.
government over the past 20 years, it said.
Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the
telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70
percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical
products, it said.
The major countries and the global corporations may have
earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly
of power is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the
economic pie and, often, from decent health care and
education.
``The privatization and concentration of technology are
going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define
research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs
and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list
than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.''
Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,''
are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent
laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking
the ability of developing countries to develop their own
products.
Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand
has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users
than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said.
The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between
nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality
of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said.
Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World
countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates
climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates
to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries--
Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome
severe levels of human poverty.''
The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around
the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global
economy in a backlash of public resentment.
Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core
of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of
responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and
corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial
volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the
past two years only the first of many upheavals.
At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written
in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International
Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these
talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus
on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human
concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing
inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor
people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.''
[[Page H5706]]
They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an
unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.''
The UNDP report called instead for a ``global
architecture'' that would include:
A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to
strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets.
A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign
capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise
development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term
investments.
New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti-
monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from
dominating industries.
New rules on global patents that would keep the patent
system from blocking the access of Third World countries to
development, knowledge or health care.
New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks
that failed last year, would include development countries
and respect local laws.
More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing
countries to impose capital controls to protect their
economies.
A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to
encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental
laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised
voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel,
the toy company.
The leading industrial nations already are considering new
global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP
report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they
be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations.
____
Introducing H.R. 772, ``HOPE for Africa''
(By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.)
To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated
business, investment and trade that gave us slavery,
colonialism and widespread human and economic exploitation,
today we introduce H.R. 772, ``The HOPE for Africa Act of
1999,'' based on Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and
Empowerment as the basis for a new respectful and mutually
beneficial human and economic relationship.
Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment
programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse.
This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands
of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and
tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic
regimes; and economic and political instability.
We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade.
We are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists.
By introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a
new principle that should underlie every trade bill in the
United States--that the benefits of trade must be shared
widely by the majority of the common working people in every
participating society, not just benefit the business and
financial interests of an elite few.
We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our
business development and trade provisions are more expansive
than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and
Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average
African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to
organize for their own protection and economic security; has
the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can
produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so
business development and economic growth can be sustained
indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be
able to work their way out of their poverty and
underdeveloped condition with dignity.
The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies
that can be embraced by both working Americans and working
Africans because it raises the living standards of both. It
does not raise some African living standards at the expense
of lowering some American living standards. It is also good
for long-term business development and economic investment
because average workers on both continents will be able to
buy the goods and services that they produce and, in the
process, build a fairer and more perfect economic world.
First, H.R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to
economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation
is built on the principles and goals developed by African
finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization or
African Unity, and with input by African workers'
organizations such as COSATU in South Africa.
Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's
crushing $230 billion debt--unconditional, comprehensive debt
forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20
percent of sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt
service, few resources are left to devote to development and
urgent local needs.
Third, H.R. 772 addresses the AIDS crisis by replenishing
and targeting assistance from the Development Fund for Africa
for AIDS education and treatment programs; making it U.S.
policy to assist Sub-Saharan African countries in efforts to
make needed pharmaceuticals and medical technologies widely
available; and prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine
African intellectual property and competition policies that
are designed to increase the availability of medications.
Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, 83 percent of AIDS
deaths have occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Fourth, H.R. 772 restores Africa's budget line item for
foreign aid with a set guaranteed amount, not to decline
below 1994 levels. This would restore parity for Africa with
U.S. foreign aid treatment of other vital regions. Currently,
Africa is the only region not a line item in the budget.
Finally, President Clinton says we must put a new and human
face on trade--and I agree. But the new face must be based on
a new foundation. The policies regarding Africa that the
Congress sets now will deeply affect the economic future of
the continent and, thus, the future of the African people for
decades to come. With such high stakes, it is vital that we
get the initial policy right. With this in mind, I submit
H.R. 772, which has the broad-based support of African and
U.S. development, trade and economic experts and also
organizations in Africa and the U.S., representing the
interests of the majority of the people who will be affected.
____
A Human Face on the Global Economy--The HOPE For Africa Act of 1999
(By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.)
President Clinton in his State of the Union Address said:
`` . . . trade has divided us, and divided Americans outside
this chamber, for too long. Somehow we have to find a common
ground on which business and workers and environmentalists
and farmers and government can stand together . . . . We must
ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually
benefit from trade--(applause)--a trade that promotes the
dignity of work, and the rights of workers, and protects the
environment . . . . We have got to put a human face on the
global economy. (Applause.)''
I agree completely. However, the only piece of legislation
mentioned in the President's Address, and the first trade
bill being pushed by the administration, is the Republican-
sponsored African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), H.R.
434--which is a continuation of the old face of trade.
The new face of trade must be based on a new foundation.
That is why I introduced a Democratic alternative, H.R. 772
``The Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment
(HOPE) for Africa Act of 1999.''
The old face of the AGOA has been dubbed ``NAFTA for
Africa'' by the trade press, and represents the failed status
quo trade policy that has lost the support of the American
people and was rejected last fall by Congress. Like Fast
Track, the AGOA's chief sponsor is conservative corporate-
oriented Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL).
When this legislation was introduced last year, I called it
the ``Africa Recolonization Act'' and joined 185 of my
colleagues in opposing it. Opposition to the AGOA is
widespread in Africa. The Congress of South African Trade
Unions declared this bill worse than no bill at all. Indeed,
South African President Nelson Mandela declared the bill
``not acceptable to us'' in a joint news conference with
President Clinton.
This bill is not the first time that developed countries
have sought to do business with Africa. Slavery and
colonialization were long-standing international commercial
policy with Africa, and the results are the desperate
poverty, environmental devastation and civil unrest plaguing
Africa today. There is a long history of U.S.-Africa economic
relations that must be overcome.
My HOPE for Africa bill promotes sustainable, equitable
development in Africa, and fair and mutually beneficial trade
between our two regions. Specifically, HOPE represents the
new approach to international commercial policy that the
President says he is seeking: access for African countries to
U.S. markets; broad benefits to ordinary Africans; corporate
adherence to labor, human rights and environmental standards;
employment of African workers; promotion of African capital
accumulation and investment partnership; emphasis on
establishing small and medium-sized businesses in Africa; and
partnerships between Africans and Americans.
HOPE provides for mutually beneficial trade by taking a
holistic approach to interlocking trade, investment, business
facilitation, debt relief and aid elements that are vital
to any successful economic relationship between sub-
Saharan Africa and the U.S. Indeed, the bill is based on
the principles of the Lagos Plan on economic development
created by the African finance ministers and the
Organization of African Unity.
Moreover, HOPE includes the purchase, at the significantly
discounted market rate, and cancellation of African debt
which has a face value of $230 billion and annual debt
service that devours over 20% of all African export earnings.
Cancellation of this debt would provide a clean slate--and
working domestic credit markets and resources for education,
infrastructure and health--for African countries facing the
challenges of the global economy. HOPE also targets U.S.
foreign aid toward uses with broad public benefits, such as
the prevention and treatment of the AIDS epidemic ravaging
Africa. The AGOA does not even mention AIDS.
The AGOA extends short-lived trade ``benefits'' for the
nations of sub-Saharan Africa. In exchange for these crumbs
from globalization's table, the African nations must pay a
huge price: adherence to economic policies that serve the
interests of foreign creditors, multinational corporations
and financial speculators at the expense of the majority of
Africans.
Specifically, the AGOA requires sub-Saharan Africa to adopt
a range of policies
[[Page H5707]]
straight out of the International Monetary Fund's discredited
play book. These policies include cuts in spending on health
care and education, orienting food production away from
meeting domestic needs and toward exports, and divesting
natural resources and precious public assets to foreign
investors. No other region's right to economic self-
determination is dismissed so cavalierly by U.S. policy
makers.
AGOA provides no relief from Africa's crushing debt burden,
and does nothing to ensure that African workers and
businesses, as opposed to foreign corporations, will enjoy
the benefits of expanded trade.
Whose interests will the AGOA advance? Look at the
coalition promoting it--a corporate who's who of oil giants,
banking and insurance interests, as well as apparel firms
seeking one more place to locate their low-paying sweatshops.
Some of these corporations are already infamous in Africa for
their disregard for the environment and human rights.
Africa is a region of tremendous human creativity, vast
natural and cultural wealth, and enormous economic potential.
More than 750 million people live in sub-Saharan Africa,
compared to 250 million in the United States. The standard of
living for most of Africa's people has been falling. The
region's per capita income is less than $500 annually--versus
$752 in 1980 when the IMF first began to work its will on
African economic policy.
How shall we overcome our exploitative history with Africa?
By the AGOA or by HOPE? It should be clear. AGOA ignores the
needs of nations it is ostensibly designed to assist. HOPE
embodies the priorities African nations themselves have
identified. HOPE represents the new approach which places the
needs of people ahead of narrow corporate interests and the
dictates of economic dogma. HOPE is the human face on the
global economy that President Clinton says he seeks.
____
The Trade Debate and HOPE for Africa
(By Robert L. Borosage)
In 1999, the historic debate about US trade policy and the
global economy will once again be joined. Economic collapse
abroad and political opposition at home have shattered the
Washington trade consensus. In his State of the Union
address, President Clinton admitted as much, suggesting the
need for a new dialogue on trade.
The first round of that debate will take place in African
trade policy. The HOPE for Africa Bill, introduced by Rep.
Jesse Jackson Jr. and co-sponsored by an ever-growing number
of House members, contains the principles of a new direction
for US trade policy generally. It contrasts starkly with the
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which is essentially a
NAFTA for Africa. The following outlines the political
context and stakes of that argument.
I. THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS IS NO MORE
As President Clinton has warned, the world is gripped with
the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. 40% of the world
economy is in recession. Millions of Asians have been thrust
into poverty. Russia has gone belly up. The contagion now
engulfs Brazil, and threatens Latin America's economies. With
West Germany in decline, Europe also now experiences
declining growth that could lead into a recession.
Even in the United States, an island of prosperity in a sea
of trouble, the effects are being felt. Manufacturing
industries were in recession for much of last year. Exports
declined; the trade deficit has hit new and unsustainable
height. The most efficient steel plants in the world have
been forced to lay off thousands of steelworkers. Layoff
announcements last year were the worst of the 1990s. Even
Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan has warned of the
dangers posed by the soaring trade deficits and the global
crisis.
While the international policy elite struggles to contain
the crisis and worries about its effects on globalization, it
is apparent that globalization is the source, not the victim
of the contagion. For over two decades, global corporations
and banks have forged a global economy. They wrote the rules.
Workers, consumers, and environmentalists were not invited to
the table. They systematically pushed to dismantle controls
over corporations, capital and currencies. The short term
pain was worth it, they argued, for we would all reap the
benefits of faster growth and global markets.
Now the returns are in. The world is plagued, as Joseph
Stiglitz, chief economist for the World Bank has reported,
with financial crises of increasing severity and frequency.
Moreover, as a series of authoritative studies have
documented, the defensive measures adopted by countries to
avoid the crisis have produced far slower growth and greater
inequality.
In the wake of the global crisis, this policy cannot be
sustained. Across Asia, countries are scrambling to protect
their people, to limit the brutal impact of speculative
tides.
And in the United States, even at the height of the
recovery, most Americans remain skeptical about the benefits
of trade. The failure of the NAFTA accord reinforces those
attitudes. Over the last two years, a coalition of unions,
consumers, and environmentalists joined with isolationists on
the right to block fast track trade authority. As AFL-CIO
President John Sweeney has said, ``the Washington consensus
isn't even a consensus in Washington anymore.'' It is time
for a new direction.
II. THE CURRENT DEFAULT
This reality is increasingly recognized in the rhetoric of
global leaders. Last summer, President Clinton warned the
World Trade Organization that the global economy had to work
for working families or it could not be sustained. He called
for a new effort to build core labor standards and
environmental protections into the global trading rules.
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has called for a ``new
architecture'' for global finance. British Prime Minister
Tony Blair has gone further, suggesting the need for a new
Bretton Woods, presumably a systemic attempt to bring capital
and currency speculation under greater control. Billionaire
financier George Soros has demanded action to stave off what
he calls ``the capitalist threat.''
Yet the bold rhetoric has not yet been reflected in policy.
The contrast between changing rhetoric and static policy
grows wider as the crisis continues to spread.
The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act expresses this
inertia. Modeled on the NAFTA Accord, encompassing the harsh
preconditions that the IMF enforced on Asian countries (and
later admitted were excessive), it represents the failed
policies of the past, not the new direction for the future.
iii. the emerging alternative: hope for africa
The HOPE for Africa legislation, based upon extensive
discussions with worker, scholars and activists in the
African community, offers a small ``d'' democratic,
internationalist alternative to the NAFTA model. It provides
the beginnings of a new direction for US trade policy, and
responds to the president's call for a new dialogue on the
rules that should guide the global economy. Core elements
include;
Debt relief to enable nations to pursue independent paths
to growth and development. In contrast, the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act offers no relief from the crippling debt
burdens that force countries to open their economies,
dismantle controls on capital, sacrifice food crops for
export crops, and lock themselves in a constricting
development straight jacket. Yet the record shows that
countries do far better if they increase investment and
sustain democratic freedoms while pursuing their own course
to development.
Secure access to aid targeted on human needs. Poor nations
need investment in education, health care, and other core
human needs. By providing a floor underneath aid levels and
by targeting human needs, HOPE for Africa provides nations
with a basis upon which to plan. This contrasts sharply with
the ``NAFTA for Africa'' model, which guarantees nothing and
will end up providing aid that will go to repay foreign
creditors.
Preferential access to the US market, but only if the
countries choose to meet core human rights and environmental
standards. Countries that decide to adhere to their own
international commitments--to core international labor
rights, to environmental protections, respect for other human
rights--can gain preferred access to the US market. This
contrast sharply with the NAFTA-WTO model that protects
property rights but not labor rights, protects speculators
but not the environment. One would lift standards up; the
other would drive them down.
Preferred access limited to companies that actually serve
to add employment, business opportunity and production within
Africa, as opposed to multinationals content to use Africa as
a transshipment point for goods made elsewhere.
The contrast with current policy is apparent. Today the US
offers preferential access to its markets to countries
routinely, whatever their record on labor rights or
environmental protections. The ``NAFTA for Africa'' bill
sustains such preferences on the condition that nations
enforce IMF-like austerity and privatization dictates.
iv. the coming political debate: no more business as usual
With the first signs that the Asian nations may be emerging
from the global crisis and the hope that the Europe and US
will escape much of its impact, the temptation is to return
to business as usual. Already the Business Roundtable has
announced a public relations campaign to educate Americans on
the benefits of trade and the need for fast track trade
authority. The administration is pushing for a new round in
global trade talks, and possibly for China's accession to the
World Trade Organization. With the support of much of the
Wall Street-multinational corporate lobby and the
administration in hand, Republican leaders began this year
assuming that they could pass the ``NAFTA for Africa bill
quickly with bipartisan'' support.
But as the growing support for the HOPE for Africa
alternatives shows, the old consensus cannot be put back
together again. Attempts to impose it will meet ever-greater
opposition at home and abroad. And if the US economy slows
and unemployment rises, the failure to define a new course
that works for working people may generate a harsh xenophobic
and nationalist reaction.
HOPE for Africa points the way to a new direction, one
grounded in respecting independent national paths to
development and growth, while protecting core human values.
If frames a debate that is vital to working people a home and
abroad. It deserves more than a hearing. It deserves support
and passage.
[[Page H5708]]
____
PACE,
Fairfax, VA, March 15, 1999.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 330,000 members of
PACE, the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy
Workers International Union, I am writing to urge you to
support the HOPE for Africa Act, H.R. 772. This is the first
time in our collective memories that the House has considered
a bill that tries to ensure that any wealth generated by
increased trade is shared by workers in all affected
countries. The bill does so in part by including strong
workers' rights provisions. The HOPE for Africa Act contrasts
sharply with the African Growth and Opportunity Act, H.R.
434, which is almost identical to H.R. 1432, which passed the
House last year.
The HOPE for Africa Act would expand trade between the U.S.
and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa more than the Growth
and Opportunity Act, but without damaging the U.S. economy.
It would do so by increasing market access for Lome Treaty
products, for which the U.S. is not a competing supplier.
HOPE would also shift apparel quota from China to Africa,
rather than adding additional imports to an already glutted
U.S. clothing market to the detriment of workers here. Most
importantly, HOPE includes strong language against
transshipment of goods and use of guest workers, both aimed
at seeing that its benefits accrue to African workers, rather
than to Asian producers.
H.R. 772 does all of this without imposing the
counterproductive conditionalities of H.R. 434. Instead of
requiring African countries to reshape their economies to
serve U.S. investors, HOPE recognizes the right of African
countries to shape their own economic development plans.
Finally, HOPE for Africa provides the financial assistance
that African nations will need to be able to participate in
the world economy. It restores the budget line item for
African aid. The failure of African Growth and Opportunity to
do this leaves Africa as the only region of the world with no
guaranteed annual level of American aid. HOPE also provides
relief from Africa's crushing $230 billion burden of foreign
debt. No debt relief is contained in the African Growth and
Opportunity Act.
The House has a unique opportunity to forge a new consensus
on trade policy, one that serves workers as well as
employers. We urge you to become a cosponsor of the HOPE for
Africa Act, H.R. 772, and to work to enact it into law.
Thank you for consideration of our views on this important
piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Paula R. Littles,
Director, Citizenship-
Legislative Department.
____
Washington, DC,
March 30, 1999.
Dear Colleague: I write to share with you a letter written
by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile
Employees (UNITE) on behalf of H.R. 772, the ``HOPE for
Africa Act.'' As you may know textile manufacturing jobs are
often transplanted to overseas markets with lax worker
protections and wage rates. Consequently, many working men
and women in America find themselves down-sized, outsourced
and left behind. Yet instead of taking a protectionist
position on international trade issues in Africa, UNITE has
chosen to support the ``HOPE for Africa Act'' because ``for
the first time in [their] collective memories,'' there is a
trade bill being offered that ``tries to ensure that any
wealth generated by increased trade is shared by workers in
all affected countries.'' If you would like more information
about the ``HOPE for Africa'' act, please contact me or have
staff contact my Legislative Director, George Seymore, at 5-
0773 or george@jackson.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
____
Unite!
March 1, 1999.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 250,000 members of
UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile
Employees, we are writing to urge you to support the HOPE for
Africa Act, H.R. 772. This is the first time in our
collective memories that the House has considered a bill that
tries to ensure that any wealth generated by increased trade
is shared by workers in all affected countries. The bill does
so in part by including strong workers rights provisions. The
HOPE for Africa Act contrasts sharply with the African Growth
and Opportunity Act, H.R. 434, which is almost identical to
H.R. 1432, which passed the House last year.
The HOPE for Africa Act would expand trade between the U.S.
and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa more than the Growth
and Opportunity Act, but without damaging the U.S. economy.
It would do so by increasing market access for Lome Treaty
products, for which the U.S. is not a competing supplier.
HOPE would also shift apparel quota from China to Africa,
rather than adding additional imports to an already glutted
U.S. clothing market to the detriment of workers here. Most
important, HOPE includes strong language against
transshipment of goods and use of guest workers, both aimed
at seeing that its benefits accrue to African workers, rather
than to Asian producers.
H.R. 772 does all of this without imposing the
counterproductive conditionalities of H.R. 434. Instead of
requiring African countries to reshape their economies to
serve U.S. investors, HOPE recognizes the right of African
countries to shape their own economic development plans.
Finally, HOPE for Africa provides the financial assistance
that African nations will need to be able to participate in
the world economy. It restores the budget line item for
African aid. The failure of African Growth and Opportunity to
do this leaves Africa as the only region of the world with no
guaranteed annual level of American aid. HOPE also provides
relief from Africa's crushing $230 billion burden of foreign
debt. No debt relief is contained in Growth and Opportunity.
The House has a unique opportunity to forge a new consensus
on trade policy, one that serves workers as well as
employers. We urge you to become a cosponsor of the HOPE for
Africa Act, H.R. 772, and to work to enact it into law.
Sincerely,
Ann Hoffman,
Legislative Director.
____
Middle East & Africa
nigeria: oil in troubled waters--with a week to go before Nigeria's
election, Robert Corzine and William Wallis visit the turbulent oil
delta
If only that were true. In recent weeks, dozens of young
men from the Ijaw tribe have been killed by Nigerian army
bullets as they demonstrated for a bigger share of the oil
wealth produced by foreign companies in the delta.
Four years after the execution of the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa,
who campaigned for the rights of the delta's Ogoni people,
the region is again teetering on the edge of open rebellion
against the federal government in faraway Abuja.
The conflict also threatens to divide the communities of
the delta, as young activists challenge the authority of more
cautious traditional leaders. Foreign oil companies such as
Royal Dutch/Shell, which operate on behalf of the Nigerian
state, are already in the line of fire. Militant groups have
orchestrated kidnappings and closed oil installations in the
state of Bayelsa.
Saro-Wiwa's militant message has been embraced by many of
the region's minority tribes. The Ijaw--Nigeria's fourth
largest tribe--have even resurrected Egbesu, their ancient
god of war, to support their cause. ``Egbesu Boys'' recently
marched into Yenagoa, the capital of Bayelsa, wearing only
black shorts and holding white candles in a peaceful protest.
But clubs can easily replace candles, and it was armed Egbesu
Boys who died in the fighting with soldiers in Yenagoa.
Oil wealth is at the root of the tensions in the delta.
Nowhere in the world do so many of the world's poorest people
rub shoulders with some of its richest multinationals.
In their reed huts and tiny canoes, the Ijaws are dwarfed
and encircled by towering gas flares and the pipelines that
criss-cross the meandering creeks and rivers of the delta.
Canoes carved from local trees and designed for the placid
waters of the mangrove swamps are regularly tipped over in
the wake of orange speedboats ferrying oil workers to and
from installations.
``When you see Shell workers and the installations they
live in, and our swamp where the people are wallowing, you
cannot be happy,'' a youth leader says.
Dragging his hand in the water from the side of a boat, he
collects a rainbow film of oil on his dark skin. He says it
is from an untreated spill. He is one of many young men in
the delta who believe that oil leaks from ageing pipes--and
not over-fishing--have choked the life from the once-fish-
filled waters.
In one incident, he recalls, a loose bolt in a connecting
pipe sent a 30-foot jet of oil over a village at the Santa
Barbara crossing. For 24 hours, it spewed out a thick layer
of oil, covering huts, fishing nets, cooking utensils and the
small periwinkle snails that substitute for fish if the catch
is poor.
``The only fish we can find here now are small and bony. We
call them `broke-marriage' because their flesh melts into the
soup and husbands accuse their wives of feeding it to another
man,'' says an old woman.
Local resentment against oil companies has made large parts
of the delta no-go areas for foreign oil men, who risk being
kidnapped or attacked by angry villagers.
``Arresting oil company boats is one of the few ways the
Ijaw can gain the federal government's attention,'' says
Antony Ikonibo, paramount ruler of the Akassa clan, a
collection of 50 fishing villages and settlements near the
mouth of the Nunn River.
In Khongo, the main village in Akassa, the signs of neglect
are everywhere.
The jungle has reclaimed the high school, built by a
civilian government in the 1970s. Goats sleep in one of the
few classrooms still in use. In the evening, villagers gather
around a muddy pool that serves as the main water supply.
There is no electricity. Concrete slabs intended to protect
the village from floods lie abandoned on the riverbank, the
contractor having pocketed the money and abandoned the
project.
Although the residents of the delta are united in the
demands for a long-awaited share of the oil wealth, the
emergence of militant groups and their increasingly
aggressive tactics have divided communities.
``If we're not careful, soon the traditional leaders will
be the target as it happened in Ogoniland,'' says Chief
Ikonibo.
``There they were appealing for calm but the youths thought
they were taking money
[[Page H5709]]
[from oil companies] and so they butchered them.''
Many residents say it would be a tragedy if a struggle
directed against a remote and distant government claimed many
of its victims from within the neglected communities
themselves.
But as one young man in Khongo noted: ``If a man from the
Delta is on the wrong side, he'll die like a fly.''
____
Transafrica,
Washington, DC, February 15, 1999.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: I am writing in strong support of the
Human Rights Opportunity Partnership and Empowerment for
Africa Act of 1999 (``HOPE for Africa Act''), soon to be
introduced by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. This bill would
promote sustainable economic development and democratic
governance in Africa as a means of securing for that
continent maximum socio-economic benefits from its myriad
economic relationships with the United States public and
private sectors.
The Hope Act was developed over several months of meetings
with a variety of grassroots organizations, both African and
American. The Act, among other things: describes the status
of Africa at the dawn of the new millennium; cancels Africa's
official U.S. debt; addresses the role of sovereignty in the
conduct of mutually beneficial relations between nations; re-
establishes a line-item for aid to Africa in the U.S. Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill, and strongly encourages
Export-Import Bank and OPIC involvement with small, female
and minority-owned businesses.
Thus far, members who have announced their intention to co-
sponsor the HOPE Act are:
House Minority Whip, David Bonior (D-MI); Congressional
Black Caucus Chair, Jim Clyburn (D-SC); Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney (D-GA); Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA);
Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA); Congressman Elijah
Cummings (D-MD); Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH);
Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI); Congresswoman Sheila
Jackson-Lee (D-TX); Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL);
Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Congressman Lane Evans (D-
IL); Congressman John Conyers (D-MI); Congressman George
Miller (D-CA).
On March 11, 1998, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a bill designed
to authorize new trade and investment policies towards sub-
Saharan Africa. The Senate failed to pass companion bill S.
778.
H.R. 1432 would have imposed on Africa the most harmful
conditionalities of the North America Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Act,
like many structural adjustment programs, would have
bankrupted local African enterprises, increased Africa's
dependency on food imports, gutted vitally needed social
services, reduced government expenditures on health and
education, and widened the gap between rich and poor. Even
President Nelson Mandela, standing next to President Clinton
at an internationally televised press conference during
President Clinton's March 1998 visit to Africa, said the
following regarding H.R. 1432 in general, and its
conditionalities in particular:
``These matters are the subject of discussions and they are
very sensitive matters . . . This is a matter over which we
have serious reservations. This legislation to us, is not
acceptable.''
Efforts to remove these harmful provisions from H.R. 1432
were rejected by the House Leadership.
On February 2, 1999, Congressman Philip Crane (R-IL)
introduced H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act,
in substantially the same form as H.R. 1432. However, H.R.
434 eroded H.R. 1432 in that language pertaining to
development assistance and human rights was deleted.
By introducing the HOPE for Africa Act, Congressman Jackson
seeks not only to remove the damaging provisions of the Crane
bill, but more importantly to ensure maximum social,
economic, and political benefits for the nations of Africa as
they rightfully expand extant economic relations with the
U.S. public and private sectors.
In the United States as in Africa, an educated and healthy
populace is vital to competitiveness in an increasingly
complex global marketplace. And, in Africa as in America,
labor and environmental standards should form part of
responsible public/private undertakings. The Jackson bill
recognizes this.
The U.S. process of policy formulation--whether domestic or
foreign in focus--has never limited debate and discussion to
a ``single track.'' During our Congressional battle against
apartheid, for example, and later during the Congress's
efforts to restore democracy to Haiti, there were a plethora
of ideas and approaches, reflected in a number of different
legislative initiatives, as to how best to achieve these
important goals.
The creation of a new and comprehensive economic policy
package towards Africa should be no different.
U.S. criticism of the Soviet Union during the Cold War was
that forced adherence to the established ``party-line''--no
variation, no debate, no offering of alternate ideas--
resulted in policies that ran counter to the long-term
interests of the then-Soviet people. If we do indeed wish the
people of Africa to benefit from the vast wealth and
potential of that continent, and from the ever-expanding
opportunities for US/Africa cooperation, we must--unlike the
Soviets--allow open and constructive debate on the best means
of doing so.
I seek your leadership to ensure the passage of the HOPE
for Africa Act. Should you wish to discuss this matter
further, I would welcome your call at (202) 797-2301.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Randall Robinson,
President.
____
Women's EDGE,
February 11, 1999.
Dear Representative: Women's EDGE, a coalition of
international development organizations, domestic women's
groups, and individuals, is writing to express our concern
about the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act II (H.R. 434). We
oppose this bill, as currently written. Women's EDGE works to
give women and families around the world an economic edge.
Women's EDGE believes that H.R. 434 will harm, rather than
help, the majority of African citizens. We support the HOPE
(Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership, & Empowerment) for
Africa Act, sponsored by Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.
(D-Illinois) as that best opportunity to achieve sustainable
development in the Sub Saharan African (SSA) region.
H.R. 434 aims to improve the livelihoods of African
citizens by pursuing an export-promotion strategy to the
exclusion of other methods. We are deeply disturbed that H.R.
434 contains no provisions for development assistance to
Africa. Women's EDGE believes that trade and aid are both
important policy tools for the U.S. to use to achieve its
diplomatic and economic aims. Furthermore, in order to truly
benefit African citizens, the U.S. needs to support basic
development needs such as basic education, education and
access to technology, and capacity-building efforts. By
laying the foundation for strong human capital development,
the U.S. will be aiding African citizens today and tomorrow.
In contrast to H.R. 434, the HOPE for Africa Act supports
restoration of annual aid to Africa at the 1994 level ($802
million) under the Development Fund for Africa and
prioritizes funding for basic human needs.
Women must be central to any discussion of sustainable
economic development. A recent World Bank paper (No. 428)
stated that ``if Sub-Saharan Africa is to achieve equitable
growth and sustainable development, one necessary step is to
reduce gender inequality in access to and control of a
diverse range of productive, human, and social capital
assets. . . . Reducing gender inequality--a development
objective in its own right--increases growth, efficiency, and
welfare''.
Trade policies must take women's social and work roles into
account and design policies that improve women's lives,
rather than increase their burden. Numerous studies have
shown that trade provisions affect women differently because
of the social roles that women play in most societies, as
well as the wage discrimination, job segmentation, and
cultural barriers women often face. While we commend the
authors of H.R. 434, for recognizing the importance of women
to economic development (Sec. 3), we are dismayed that there
are no provisions within the bill to facilitate women's
access to education, credit, capital, or technology in order
to increase their ability to become economically self-
sufficient. Instead, many of the export-driven strategies
within H.R. 434 will serve to undermine women's businesses
and health.
Some examples include:
Micro-credit programs, which have gained strong support in
the U.S. Congress, are an avenue through which women have
been able to parlay small loans into thriving businesses
throughout SSA. However, in Zimbabwe, as trade was
liberalized, women micro-entrepreneurs were unable to compete
with the flood of cheap goods entering their country (AWEPON/
DGAP, 1996).
Susan Joekes' research has shown that in Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA), a switch to export-promotion crops (non-traditional
agricultural promotion) has often diverted resources from
domestic consumption. Men have controlled the extra cash
earned from this strategy and the nutritional status of women
and children has declined. Falls in girls' school enrollment
has also been observed, reflecting the need to use additional
labor to meet domestic and export production.
Women's EDGE has grave reservations about the impact of the
eligibility requirements on the poor in SSA, particularly
poor women. The eligibility criteria outlined in H.R. 434
calls for the restructuring of African economies. Past
experience has demonstrated that this sort of restructuring
has led to deep cuts in government health, nutrition, and
education programs. As a result, professional women who work
in the government (and are disproportionately concentrated in
these sectors) are displaced, and poor women see an increase
in the cost of health care, food, and education. Any eligi-
[[Page H5710]]
bility criteria should allow nations the necessary latitude
to ensure food security, adequate health care, and access to
basic education for its citizens.
The HOPE for Africa Act, rather than using the ``cookie-
cutter approach'' outlined in H.R. 434 to determine
eligibility, recognizes the need for self-determination for
African nations. The HOPE for Africa Act enables African
nations to pursue policies in the best interests of their
citizens and recognizes the different capacities, natural
resource base, and economic, social, and political needs of
each nation.
Women's EDGE shares the concerns that other organizations
have articulated about the preoccupation of expanding the
textile industry in SSA, given that global trade rules will
end textile and apparel quotas in 2005. With China competing
for the textile market once the quotas are lifted, nascent
industries will be overwhelmed and it is likely that China
will become one of the sole suppliers of textiles for the
global economy. This strategy seems to be shortsighted as a
long-term development model for the region. The HOPE for
Africa expands the market access for African goods, while
protecting workers rights and the environment. Women's EDGE
also supports the HOPE for Africa contention that debt relief
must be an integral part of any policies aimed at improving
the livelihoods of African citizens.
Women's EDGE urges you to oppose H.R. 434 and instead,
support the HOPE for Africa Act that includes development aid
and debt relief, and respects the sovereignty of African
nations.
Sincerely,
Ritu R. Sharma,
Executive Director, Women's EDGE.
____
Sierra Club,
Washington, DC, February 10, 1999.
Don't Trade Away Africa's Environment--Oppose the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (``NAFTA for Africa'') Support the HOPE for Africa Act
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Sierra Club's more
than half-million members, I urge you to oppose the African
Growth and Opportunity Act (``NAFTA for Africa'') and to
support the HOPE for Africa Act instead. Last fall Congress
defeated fast track legislation as the first step toward
forging a new, progressive trade policy that would guarantee
protections for working families and the environment
alongside any new trading privileges for business. The NAFTA
for Africa represents the failed status quo trade policy that
has lost the support of the American people and was rejected
last fall with the defeat of fast track. The HOPE for Africa
Act represents the first, bold step toward creating a new,
progressive trade policy for the twenty-first century.
The NAFTA for Africa would pressure African countries into
handing over their minerals, oil, and timber to transnational
corporations by threatening to withdraw the low tariffs now
granted for African exports to the United States under the US
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Without strong
environmental and labor standards, increased foreign
investment by transnational oil, mining, and logging
companies would destroy the natural resources--the farmland,
pure water, and forests--that the vast majority of Africans
depend on for sustainable development.
The NAFTA for Africa would:
encourage the kind of irresponsible and unaccountable
investment represented by Royal Dutch Shell's oil operations
in Nigeria's Ogonilnad. Shell has polluted the land and
water, destroying Ogoni farmland and spreading disease, while
propping up the country's military dictatorship with oil
revenues. The NAFTA for Africa would spur investment by
foreign mining and oil companies that have already displaced
thousands from their homes without recourse to law, ignored
Africa's weak environmental laws, and polluted the air, soil,
and water with mine wastes, mercury, and cyanide.
increase tropical deforestation by foreign logging
companies in Central Africa, where deforestation rates
already exceed those of Brazil. In addition to destroying
forests that help to curb global warming and provide clean
water to Africa's farms and cities, industrial logging could
expose the African people to terrible disease risks.
According to The New York Times, the deadly Ebola virus was
recently unleashed in Zaire and Gabon after foreign logging
companies cut their way into untouched, primary forests,
exposing humans to the forest animals that harbor the
disease.
harm Africa's ability to benefit from new foreign
investment by requiring cuts in corporate taxes and
government spending. With few options for taxes to support
needed public services, such essentials as public health and
education would almost certainly be slashed.
In contrast, the HOPE for Africa Act would offer Africa a
partnership for equitable and sustainable development that
could serve as a model for a new, progressive American trade
policy. In place of the NAFTA for Africa's meager trade
benefits, HOPE for Africa would open the US market to the
wide variety of goods listed under the Lome Treaty in which
the US is not a competitor, would grant new access for
African textiles and apparel while protecting the rights of
workers and the environment, and would not set onerous, new
conditions for continued GSP preferences.
In addition, HOPE for Africa would:
provide comprehensive relief of Africa's crushing burden of
$230 billion in foreign debt. Debt relief would allow Africa
to re-direct its own resources toward priority development,
health, education, and environmental needs. And debt relief
would reduce the enormous pressure to recklessly exploit and
export the region's rapidly shrinking natural resources.
provide adequate foreign assistance through the Development
Fund for Africa and through the US Agency for International
Development. Hope for Africa requires that such assistance be
spent in consultation with the intended beneficiaries, the
African people, and would be directed toward education,
micro-credit, health, environmental protection, and other
priority goals.
ensure that foreign corporations operating in Africa adhere
to internationally recognized labor rights and to developed
country environmental standards. Hope for Africa would give
US citizens access to US courts to enforce these obligations.
The Hope for Africa Act offers the opportunity to launch a
new, progressive trade policy in partnership with the African
people that promotes equitable and sustainable development
for all. The NAFTA for Africa offers only more of the same,
failed policies of the past. We urge you to support the Hope
for Africa Act and to reject the NAFTA for Africa.
Sincerely,
Carl Pope,
Executive Director.
____
American Lands Alliance,
Washington, DC, February 25, 1999.
American Lands, Center for International Environmental Law, Defenders
of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Pacific Environment and Resources
Center and Sierra Club Urge Congressional Support for the Hope for
Africa Act
Dear Member of Congress: Yesterday, Representative Jesse
Jackson, Jr. and thirty other Members of Congress introduced
legislation that will help protect Africa's threatened native
forests.
The HOPE (Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and
Empowerment) for Africa Act of 1999 (H.R. 772) is one of the
first international trade and investment bills that forest
activists can stand behind and endorse.
Unique among trade legislation, the HOPE for Africa Act
includes strong environmental safeguards to ensure that
corporations operating in Africa and accessing the bill's
benefits act responsibly with respect to the local
environment. Specifically, the bill would:
1. Deny U.S. market access to products that are produced in
a manner inconsistent with the environmental standards that
apply to similar operations in developed countries;
2. Empower U.S. citizens to enforce provisions of the Act
in U.S. courts; and
3. Provide adequate foreign assistance to Africa while
requiring that the assistance be spent in consultation with
the African people and be directed toward environmental
protection and other goals.
On the other hand, The ``NAFTA for Africa'' bill, or the
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 434), provides a
myriad of new rights to foreign corporations operating in
Africa while remaining completely silent on environmental
protections.
The NAFTA for Africa bill would encourage the continuation
of logging practices that have led to the near deforestation
of Africa's frontier forests. According to the World
Resources Institute, in West Africa, nearly 90 percent of the
original moist forest is gone, and what remains is heavily
fragmented and degraded. In Central Africa, over 90 percent
of all logging occurs in primary forest, one of the highest
ratios of any region in the world. In Zaire, which contains
more than half Central Africa's remaining forests, many
tropical forests remain intact, in part because of the
nation's poor transportation system. The NAFTA for Africa
bill would mean open season on these endangered forests while
the HOPE for Africa Act would encourage forest protection.
The HOPE for Africa Act would provide forests activists
with the opportunity to protect Africa's endangered forests
with support for environmental protection policies, financial
assistance and local input on sustainable practices while the
NAFTA for Africa bill would provide new rights to foreign
logging corporations without any consideration for forest
protection.
We hope that you will listen to voices of forest activists
from across the country and protect Africa's remaining native
forests by supporting the HOPE for Africa Act and opposing
the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
Sincerely,
Antonia Juhasz,
Director, International Trade and Forests Program, American
Lands.
on behalf of:
Brennan Van Dyke,
Director, Trade and Environment Program, Center for
International Environmental Law.
[[Page H5711]]
William Snape,
Legal Director, Defenders of Wildlife.
Mark Vallianatos,
International Policy Analyst, Friends of the Earth.
Doug Norlen,
Policy Director, Pacific Environment and Resources Center.
Daniel A. Siligman,
Director, Responsible Trade Campaign, Sierra Club.
____
[From the New York Times, June 7, 1998]
At What Cost?
(By Bob Herbert)
It has a nice name, the ``African Growth and Opportunity
Act,'' and a clever slogan, ``trade not aid,'' but a bill now
before Congress is in fact an enormous benefits package for
thriving multinational corporations and a threat to the very
sovereignty of the sub-Saharan nations that sponsors of the
bill say they want to help.
The bill narrowly passed the House in March, where it was
introduced and pushed hard by Representative Philip Crane, an
Illinois Republican who has referred to some developing
African countries and their leaders as ``retards.'' (A
spokeswoman told me on Friday that the Congressman had not
intended to offend anyone.)
The sponsor in the Senate, which has yet to vote on the
measure, is Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. The bill
has the strong backing of the Clinton Administration, as well
as such giant corporations as Texaco, Coca-Cola and Kmart.
The aim of the bill is to liberalize trade between the
United States and Africa. It would, among other things, allow
duty-free and quota-free exports to the U.S. for 10 years,
support the creation of a U.S.-sub-Sahara free-trade
agreement and encourage the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation to set up funds to stimulate private development
in Africa.
But the bill also makes some demands. In essence,
participating countries would have to adhere to the harsh and
often inhumane requirements of the International Monetary
Fund. Thus, these underdeveloped and often very poor
countries would have to undergo a radical economic
restructuring that would include cuts in corporate taxes,
reductions in government spending and privatization of some
of their most valuable assets--mines, forests, harbors, oil
wells and the like--with the multinationals and other wealthy
foreign investors ready to snap them up at fire-sale prices.
``What does this mean to the people on the ground in these
countries?'' asked Randall Robinson, the president of
TransAfrica and an opponent of the Crane-Lugar bill.
He noted that I.M.F. structural adjustment programs are
already under way in some African countries and studies of
those programs have shown disturbing effects. Ghana is one
example. It is cited as an I.M.F. success story. And yet, as
Mr. Robinson pointed out, public spending on education,
health and agriculture--in accordance with I.M.F. dictates to
limit spending--has been falling. Health care for the poor
has taken a particularly heavy hit, even though children are
dying in staggering numbers.
Half of all deaths in Ghana in recent years have been of
children under 5, though that age group makes up just one-
fifth of the country's population.
In Senegal, under the guidance of the I.M.F., spending on
education has been cut. One might ask what sense this makes
in a country in which more than 65 percent of adults and 77
percent of all women are illiterate.
From the point of view of the I.M.F. and the
multinationals, it makes economic sense.
The trade bill also requires participating countries to
join the World Trade Organization, even though many African
countries have chosen not to join. The Organization for
Economic Development, a supporter of the W.T.O., has reported
that sub-Saharan Africa would be a loser under W.T.O. rules
because countries that import more food than they export
would inevitably be hurt by requirements to cut domestic
agriculture subsidies.
This is not a small matter. Four in 10 Africans suffer in
some degree from hunger or malnutrition. Agricultural
subsidies can be a matter of life and death in such
populations.
But the trade bill fashioned in Washington says simply: you
will join the W.T.O.
Attempts to amend the bill--to modify the most onerous
requirements--have been beaten back. President Nelson Mandela
of South Africa has characterized the bill as ``not
acceptable.'' But most sub-Saharan leaders, faced with
desperately poor populations and desperately high
unemployment, have signed on. They appear to hope that in
some way, somehow, a trade agreement with the big boys, with
the United States and its great corporations, will alleviate
their economic suffering.
It's a situation ripe for wholesale exploitation.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The choice between the major provisions of two proposed
pieces of legislation with respect to U.S./Africa economic
policy--HOPE for Africa and African Growth and Opportunity--
are contrasted below. This legislation will define U.S.
economic policy towards Africa for the foreseeable future.
HOPE stands for Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and
Empowerment.
economic policy: self-determination or paternalism?
African Growth and Opportunity rejects African nations'
right to self-determination by coercing them to adopt the IMF
economic development model which has already had devastating
consequences in the region.
HOPE for Africa is based on the recognition that African
nations have the right to determine their own approach to
economic development.
trade benefits for africa
African Growth and Opportunity's meager trade ``benefits''
(the only benefits for Africa in the entire bill) are either
short-lived, illusory or redundant.
HOPE for Africa offers broad market access for African
goods.
benefits for african businesses, communities and workers
African Growth and Opportunity contains no conditions that
African citizens or businesses benefit from the market access
provisions.
HOPE for Africa aims to raise living standards and foster
capital accumulation in Africa.
debt relief
African Growth and Opportunity provides no binding debt
relief whatsoever--despite the fact that Africa's crushing
$230 billion debt burden is a massive obstacle to economic
and social progress.
HOPE for Africa provides for comprehensive debt
cancellation. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20
percent of Sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt
service, few resources are devoted to development and urgent
local needs.
sustainable development assistance
African Growth and Opportunity fails to even restore the
budget line item for Africa aid eliminated in 1996--even
though U.S. assistance is at a historical low of .02 percent
of the U.S. GNP and Sub-Saharan Africa is now the only region
of the world with no guaranteed annual level of American aid.
The bill provides no safeguards to ensure that funds that are
allocated will be used to benefit African nations and African
economic development instead of U.S. corporations, for
instance seeking subsidies or government backing of
investment they were planning to undertake anyway.
HOPE for Africa restores aid to Africa and ensures it is
used for Africa's benefit.
the aids crisis
African Growth and Opportunity ignores the AIDS crisis, and
fails to even mention the word AIDS, much less allocate any
U.S. aid funding to combat the AIDS epidemic currently
enveloping the continent.
HOPE for Africa addresses the AIDS crisis by replenishing
and targeting assistance from the Development Fund for Africa
for AIDS education and treatment programs; making it U.S.
policy to assist Sub-Saharan African countries in efforts to
make needed pharmaceuticals and medical technologies widely
available; and prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine
African intellectual property and competition policies that
are designed to increase the availability of medications.
labor rights and environmental protection
African Growth and Opportunity is silent on these issues.
HOPE for Africa includes strong safeguards to ensure that
corporations operating in Africa and accessing the bill's
benefits act responsibly with respect to their employees and
the local environment.
____
Side-by-Side Comparison: HOPE for Africa (H.R. 772) and African Growth
and Opportunity Act (H.R. 434)
The Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment
for Africa Act (``HOPE for Africa Act'') H.R. 772 was
conceived and drafted by African and U.S. civil society
groups, economists, trade specialists and legislators to
address the real needs and concerns of sub-Saharan African
nations (hereafter SSA). It includes mutually beneficial
U.S.-Africa trade and investment opportunities--meaning that
African businesses and workers, not just U.S. corporations,
will enjoy the Act's broad trade benefits. It adopts a
holistic approach to the elements essential to ensuring a
mutually successful U.S.-sub-Sahara Africa economic policy,
including business facilitation, debt relief, aid and AIDS
prevention and treatment. The legislation enjoys broad
support of African labor, environmental and development
organizations, as well as their U.S. counterparts. It is
being promoted by a coalition of African-American clergy,
community organizations and leaders.
In contrast, the ``African Growth and Opportunity'' Act
adopts the NAFTA formula for Africa: giving foreign
corporations broad new rights that will increase their
capacity to profit from control of African resources, while
doing nothing to ensure that benefits actually accrue to
African nations and people. This NAFTA for Africa legislation
also contains harsh eligibility rules that will force African
nations to alter their economic and social policies and laws
to suit the needs of foreign investors and the dictates of
the
[[Page H5712]]
International Monetary Fund--despite the IMF's dismal record
in the region. NAFTA for Africa is supported by the
multinational corporate lobby and harshly criticized by
African and African-American community, church and
development groups. Nelson Mandela called the bill ``not
acceptable.''
The choice between the two bills, whose major provisions
are contrasted below, will define U.S. economic policy
towards Africa for the forseeable future.
economic policy: self-determination or paternalism?
H.R. 434 rejects SSA nations' right to self-determination
by coercing them to adopt the IMF economic development model
which has already had devastating consequences in the region.
In order to qualify for the bill's narrow trade benefits SSA
countries must be annually certified by the U.S. President as
meeting a long list of U.S.-imposed, IMF-style conditions:
Cutting government spending, such as further depriving
vital health and education services of desperately needed
funding; Cutting corporate taxes; Privatizing public assets
through divestiture and opening up most areas of their
economies to ownership and control by foreign multinationals,
such as mines, agricultural land and telecommunciations;
Abandoning economic development policies that nurture local
industry and enable it to compete globally; Joining the WTO,
where the OECD has said African nations will be the big
losers; and Adopting policies, like the abolition of price
controls, that will jeopardizing food security.
H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa is based on the recognition that
African nations have the right to determine their own
approach to economic development.
Rather than being conditioned on SSA nations' adopting a
one-size-fits-all economic model, the substantial benefits
provided (market access for a wide range of African products,
business facilitation, debt relief, development assistance),
are instead designed to provide SSA nations with the
resources and the freedom of maneuver necessary to pursue the
policies that are in the best interest of the majority of
their citizens, and
The HOPE for Africa Act is modeled on the policy priorities
established in the Lagos Plan of Action drawn up by African
Finance Ministers in cooperation with the Organization for
African Unity.
trade benefits for africa
H.R. 434's trade ``benefits'' (the only benefits for Africa
in the entire bill) are either short-lived, illusory or
redundant, and are conditioned on the discredited IMF-style
policies.
Lifts existing quotas for Kenya and Mauritius and locks in
quota-free treatment for the rest of SSA for textiles and
apparel. This benefit is illusory, however, given that global
trade rules will end textile and apparel quotas in 2005, at
which point all countries who have invested in this industry
will be overwhelmed by the dominant producer: China
In the interim, there are no meaningful safeguards to
ensure that ``African'' textiles and apparel exported to the
U.S. will actually be African in origin; weak transshipment
rules mean they may be shipped through Africa from third
countries such as China.
The Generalized System of Preferences program for SSA
countries will be extended until 2009.
All SSA countries are granted ``least developed country''
benefits of the GSP program. It turns out that all but a
handful of the most economically developed African countries
already have been designated as qualifying for this
treatment.
H.R. 772. HOPE for Africa offers expansive market access
benefits to African countries, including new benefits for
countries that enforce internationally recognized human
rights and labor standards.
For the next five years before termination of the apparel
and textile quota system, HOPE for Africa lifts the quotas
now existing for Kenya and Mauritius and locks in quota-free
treatment for the other SSA countries, but ensures that such
goods will be produced Africa, by African workers, under
conditions that protect workers' rights.
African countries will be granted quota-free, duty-free
U.S. market access for the broad range of goods listed under
the Lome Treaty in which the U.S. is not a competing
producer. Lome covers goods like bananas, certain minerals,
processed foods, and tropical products in which African
countries have an advantage.
HOPE provides strong, enforceable protections against
transshipment.
The Generalized System of Preferences program for SSA
countries will be extended until 2005.
labor rights and environmental protection
H.R. 434 denies trade benefits to countries engaging in
``gross'' violations of human rights, but does not contain
meaningful, enforceable language on labor rights and is
silent on environmental issues.
It denies benefits to countries engaging in ``gross''
violations of human rights.
It contains weak and unenforceable language with respect to
labor rights protections that major labor unions have
declared ineffective.
It provides expansive rights and benefits to multinational
corporations operating in SSA, but requires nothing of them
with respect to the protection of the environment.
H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa contains strong, enforceable
provisions denying benefits to human rights violators, as
well as strong, enforceable safeguards to ensure that
corporations operating in Africa benefiting from the bill act
responsibly with respect to their employees and the local
environment.
It denies benefits to countries engaging in ``significant''
violations of human rights.
It denies U.S. market access to products that are produced
under conditions that violate internationally recognized
labor standards.
It provides additional trade benefits for products of joint
ventures using the environmental standards the use in their
developed country facilities.
It empowers U.S. citizens to enforce the labor,
environmental and other protections of the Act in U.S.
courts.
benefits for african businesses, communities and workers
H.R. 434 contains no conditions that African citizens or
businesses benefit from the market access provisions:
It doesn't require companies to employ citizens of sub-
Saharan nations. Already, Asian workers are being imported
into several African countries--where significant
unemployment already exists among Africans--to work at Asian-
owned factories.
It doesn't require investment or creation of jobs in sub-
Sahara Africa. Rather, the weak transshipment rules allow
goods to be shipped through Africa.
It applies a mere 20% value-added requirement for the GSP
program to SSA--lower than any other eligible region. This
reduces the likelihood of significant employment gains under
the bill.
H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa aims to raise living standards
and foster capital accumulation in Africa. To this end, the
bill provides and requires:
Additional trade benefits for companies with 51% African
equity participation.
60% African value-added for goods to obtain the duty-free,
quota-free market access guaranteed by the bill.
Companies benefiting from the trade preferences employ 90%
African workers.
debt relief
H.R. 434 provides no debt relief whatsoever--despite the
fact that Africa's crushing $230 billion debt burden is a
massive obstacle to economic and social progress.
HOPE for Africa provides for comprehensive debt
cancellation. With upwards of 20% of sub-Saharan nations' GDP
going to debt service, few resources are devoted to economic
development and urgent local needs.
African debts have been repaid many times over, but the
vicious cycle of taking out new loans to pay the excessive
compound interest on the old loans ensures that its debt will
never be ``officially'' satisfied.
HOPE for Africa calls for full cancellation of African
foreign debt, starting with the relatively small debt owed to
the U.S. government and covering IMF, World Bank and private
sector loans. By eliminating the principle--whose market
value is less than a single year's interest payments--HOPE
will remove the burden of servicing the debt.
During the period of debt cancellation, HOPE for Africa
caps debt payments so that no African country is forced to
pay an amount exceeding 5 percent of its annual export
earnings toward the servicing of foreign loans (the same
percentage countries paid under the Marshall Plan).
sustainable development assistance
H.R. 434 fails to even restore the budget line item for
Africa aid eliminated in 1996--even though U.S. assistance is
at a historical low of .02% of U.S. GNP and sub-Sahara Africa
is now the only region of the world with no guaranteed
American aid.
H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa restores aid to Africa and
ensures it is used to benefit the majority of SSA people.
Restores annual aid guarantee at the 1994 level ($802
million) under the Development Fund for Africa.
Requires that assistance be dispensed in consultation with
African civil society, that it be directed to such vital
areas as women's programs, education, healthcare, HIV/AIDS
education and treatment, micro-credit, sustainable
agriculture.
business facilitation
H.R. 434's business facilitation measures are not actually
targeted to SSA businesses.
Targets $500 million in existing OPIC funds for projects in
sub-Sahara Africa, but does not target African businesses as
beneficiaries, nor does it require that such funds be
dispensed in consultation with African civil society.
Provides no safeguards to ensure that any financing will be
used to benefit African nations and African economic
development instead of U.S. corporations, that for instance,
are seeking government backing of investment they were
planning to undertake anyway.
H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa, targets investment financing for
desperately needed infrastructure projects to small, women-
and minority-owned businesses with majority African
ownership, ensuring that the projects are undertaken in an
environmentally responsible manner.
It targets $500 million in OPIC funds for infrastructure
projects in SSA, including schools, hospitals, sanitation,
potable water and accessible transportation.
It allocates 70% of the OPIC funding to small, women- and
minority-owned businesses with at least 60% African ownership
and $1 million or less in assets.
[[Page H5713]]
It targets 50% of OPIC funds used for energy projects to
renewable or alternative energy.
It requires environmental impact assessments to be
conducted and made public wherever relevant.
It creates advisory boards to oversee new OPIC funds
(section 501) and Ex-Im Bank financing in SSA (section 502).
These boards will have private sector experts in human
rights, labor rights, the environment and development. Board
meetings will be public.
the aids crisis
H.R. 434 ignores the AIDS Crisis. NAFTA for Africa fails to
even mention the word AIDS, much less provide any programs or
funding to combat the AIDS epidemic currently enveloping the
Continent.
H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa addresses the AIDS crisis by:
replenishing aid and newly targeting assistance from the
Development Fund for Africa, specifically to AIDS education,
prevention and treatment programs.
making it U.S. policy to help sub-Saharan African countries
make needed pharmaceuticals widely available.
prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine WTO TRIPS-
legal African intellectual property and competition policies
designed to increase the availability of medications.
____
Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Page 69, strike line 9 and all that follows through line 18
on page 70 and insert the following:
SEC. 11. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA EQUITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS.
(a) Initiation of Funds.--The Overseas Private Investment
Corporation shall, not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, exercise the authorities it has to
initiate 1 or more equity funds in support of projects in the
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in addition to any existing
equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the
Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Structure and Types of Funds.--
(1) Structure.--Each fund initiated under subsection (a)
shall be structured as a partnership managed by professional
private sector fund managers and monitored on a continuing
basis by the Corporation.
(2) Capitalization.--Each fund shall be capitalized with a
combination of private equity capital, which is not
guaranteed by the Corporation, and debt for which the
Corporation provides guaranties.
(3) Types of funds.--One or more of the funds, with
combined assets of up to $500,000,000, shall be used in
support of infrastructure projects in countries of sub-
Saharan Africa, including basic health services (including
AIDS prevention and treatment), including hospitals, potable
water, sanitation, schools, electrification of rural areas,
and publicly-accessible transportation in sub-Saharan African
countries.
(c) Additional Requirements.--The Corporation shall ensure
that--
(1) not less than 70 percent of trade financing and
investment insurance provided through the equity funds
established under subsection (a), and through any existing
equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the
Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act, are
allocated to small, women- and minority-owned businesses--
(A) of which not less than 60 percent of the ownership is
comprised of citizens of sub-Saharan African countries and 40
percent of the ownership is comprised of citizens of the
United States; and
(B) that have assets of not more than $1,000,000; and
(2) not less than 50 percent of the funds allocated to
energy projects are used for renewal or alternative energy
projects.
Page 70, strike line 19 and all that follows through line
20 on page 73 and insert the following:
SEC. 12. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND EXPORT-
IMPORT BANK INITIATIVES.
(a) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--Section 233
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(e) Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Board shall establish and work
with an advisory committee to assist the Board in developing
and implementing policies, programs, and financial
instruments with respect to sub-Saharan Africa, including
with respect to equity and infrastructure funds established
under section 11 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The advisory committee established under
paragraph (1) shall consist of 15 members, of which 7 members
shall be employees of the United States Government and 8
members shall be representatives of the private sector.
``(B) Appointment.--The members of the advisory committee
shall be appointed as follows:
``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives
of the private sector and 1 member who is an employee of the
United States Government.
``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are
employees of the United States Government.
``(C) Additional requirements.--Of the 8 members of
advisory committee who are representatives of the private
sector--
``(i) at least 4 members shall be representatives of not-
for-profit public interest organizations;
``(ii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in development issues;
``(iii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in human rights issues;
``(iv) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in environmental issues; and
``(v) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in international labor rights.
``(D) Terms.--Each member of the advisory committee shall
be appointed for a term of 2 years.
``(3) Meetings.--
``(A) Open to public.--Meetings of the advisory committee
shall be open to the public.
``(B) Advance notice.--The advisory committee shall provide
advance notice in the Federal Register of any meeting of the
committee, shall provide notice of all proposals or projects
to be considered by the committee at the meeting, and shall
solicit written comments from the public relating to such
proposals or projects.
``(C) Decisions.--Any decision of the advisory committee
relating to a proposal or project shall be published in the
Federal Register with an explanation of the extent to which
the committee considered public comments received with
respect to the proposal or project, if any.
``(4) Environmental impact assessments.--The Corporation
shall carry out environmental impact assessments with respect
to any proposal or project not later than 120 days before the
advisory committee, or the Board, considers such proposal or
project, whichever occurs earlier.''.
(b) Export-Import Bank Initiative.--Section 2(b)(9) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(9)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(9) For purposes of the funds allocated by the Bank for
projects in countries in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in
section 17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act):
``(A) The Bank shall establish an advisory committee to
work with and assist the Board in developing and implementing
policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to
such countries.
``(B) The members of the advisory committee shall be
appointed as follows:
``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives
of the private sector and 1 member who is an officer or
employee of the Federal Government.
``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are
officers or employees of the Federal Government.
``(C)(i) At least half of the members of the advisory
committee who are representatives of the private sector shall
be representatives of not-for-profit public interest
organizations.
``(ii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall be a representative of an organization with expertise
in development issues.
``(iii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall be a representative of an organization with expertise
in human rights.
``(iv) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall be a representative of an organization with expertise
in environmental issues.
``(v) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall have expertise in international labor rights.
``(D) Each member of the advisory committee shall serve for
a term of 2 years.
``(E)(i) Members of the advisory committee who are
representatives of the private sector shall not receive
compensation by reason of their service on the advisory
committee.
``(ii) Members of the advisory committee who are officers
or employees of the Federal Government may not receive
additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their
service on the advisory committee.
``(F) Meetings of the advisory committee shall be open to
the public.
``(G) The advisory committee shall give timely advance
notice of each meeting of the advisory committee, including a
description of any matters to be considered at the meeting,
shall establish a public docket, shall solicit written
comments in advance on each proposal, and shall make each
decision in writing with an explanation of disposition of the
public comments.
``(H) The Bank shall complete and release to the public an
environmental impact assessment with respect to a proposal or
project with potential environmental effects, not later than
120 days before the advisory committee, or the Board,
considers the proposal or project, whichever occurs earlier.
``(I) Section 14(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act shall not apply to the advisory committee.''.
[[Page H5714]]
____
Amendment to H.R. 2415
Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VIII--INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR COMPETITION LAW RELATING TO
PHARMACEUTICALS OR OTHER MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES
SEC. 801. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR COMPETITION LAW RELATING
TO PHARMACEUTICALS OR OTHER MEDICAL
TECHNOLOGIES.
No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of State may be used to seek, through negotiation
or otherwise, the revocation or revision of any intellectual
property or competition law or policy of a sub-Saharan
African country that is designed to promote access to
pharmaceuticals or other medical technologies if such law or
policy, as the case may be, complies with the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)).
____
Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Page 92, after line 17, add the following:
SEC. 20. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT FUND
FOR AFRICA.
(a) In General.--Section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2294) is amended by inserting before the
first sentence the following: ``There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this chapter for fiscal year 2000
and each subsequent year an amount not less than the amount
appropriated to carry out this chapter for fiscal year
1994.''.
(b) Additional Requirement.--Amounts appropriated under the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations established under the first sentence of
section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2294), as added by subsection (a), shall be appropriated to a
separate account under the heading ``Development Fund for
Africa'' and not to the account under the heading
``Development Assistance''.
____
Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Page 41, after line 16, insert the following:
TITLE I--TRADE AND INVESTMENT PROVISIONS
Page 41, line 17, strike ``SEC. 2'' and insert ``SEC. 101''
(and redesignate each subsequent section accordingly and make
all appropriate technical and conforming changes).
Page 92, after line 17, add the following:
TITLE II--CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES
SEC. 201. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.
The Congress makes the following declarations:
(1)(A) For the majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa to
be able to benefit from new trade, investment, and other
economic opportunities provided by this Act, and amendments
made by this Act, the pre-existing burden of external debt of
sub-Saharan African countries must be eliminated.
(B) This fresh start will allow operation of local credit
markets and eliminate distortions currently hindering
development in sub-Saharan Africa.
(2) The cancellation of debt provisions contained in this
title, and amendments made by this title, shall serve to help
establish a more level playing field on which sub-Saharan
African countries may move forward under the provisions of
this Act.
SEC. 202. CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART VI--CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE UNITED STATES BY SUB-
SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
``SEC. 901. CANCELLATION OF DEBT.
``(a) In General.--The President shall cancel all amounts
owed to the United States (or any agency of the United
States) by sub-Saharan African countries defined in section
17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act as a result of--
``(1) concessional loans made or credits extended under any
provision of law, including the provisions of law described
in subsection (b)(1); and
``(2) nonconcessional loans made, guarantees issued, or
credits extended under any of provisions of law, including
the provisions of law described in subsection (b)(2).
``(b) Provisions of Law.--
``(1) Concessional provisions of law.--The provisions of
law described in this paragraph are the following:
``(A) Part I of this Act, chapter 4 of part II of this Act,
or predecessor foreign economic assistance legislation.
``(B) Title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
``(2) Nonconcessional provisions of law.--The provisions of
law described in this paragraph are the following:
``(A) Sections 221 and 222 of this Act.
``(B) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).
``(C) Section 5(f) of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act.
``(D)(i) Section 201 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
(7 U.S.C. 5621).
``(ii) Section 202 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5622).
``(E) The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et
seq.).
``(c) Termination of Authority.--The authority to cancel
debt under this section shall terminate on September 30,
2002.
``SEC. 902. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Reduction of Debt not Considered to be Assistance.--A
reduction of debt under section 901 shall not be considered
to be assistance for purposes of any provision of law
limiting assistance to a country.
``(b) Inapplicability of Certain Prohibitions Relating to
Reduction of Debt.--The authority to provide for reduction of
debt under section 901 may be exercised notwithstanding
section 620(r) of this Act.
``SEC. 903. REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 1999, and
December 31 of each of the next 3 years, the President shall
prepare and transmit to the appropriate congressional
committees an annual report concerning the cancellation of
debt under section 901 for the prior fiscal year.
``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `appropriate
congressional committees' means--
``(1) the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives; and
``(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
``SEC. 904. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``For the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990) for the cancellation of debt under
section 901, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
President such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
SEC. 203. ADVOCACY OF CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
(a) Advocacy of Cancellation of Debt.--The Secretary of
State shall provide written notification to each foreign
government that has provided loans, guarantees, or credits to
the government of a sub-Saharan African country (and such
loans, guarantees, or credits are outstanding) that it is the
policy of the United States to fully and unconditionally
cancel all debts owed by each such sub-Saharan African
country to the United States. In addition, the Secretary
shall urge in writing each such foreign government to follow
the example of the United States and fully and
unconditionally cancel all debts owed by sub-Saharan African
countries to each such foreign government.
(b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare
and submit to the Congress a report containing--
(1) a description of each written notification provided to
foreign governments under the first sentence of subsection
(a);
(2) a description of the response of each such foreign
government to such notification; and
(3) a description of the amount (if any) owed to the United
States by any foreign government opposing the United States
policy advocated pursuant to subsection (a).
SEC. 204. ADVOCACY OF CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE
INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
Title XVI of the International Financial Institutions Act
(22 U.S.C. 262c-262p-5) is amended by redesignating section
1622 as section 1623 and by inserting after section 1621 the
following:
``SEC. 1622. ADVOCACY OF CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE
INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Treasury shall instruct
the United States Executive Directors at the International
Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development to use the voice, vote, and influence of the
United States to advocate that their respective
institutions--
``(1) fully and unconditionally cancel all debts owed by
any country in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in section 17
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act) to such
institution; and
``(2) encourage each country benefiting from such debt
cancellation to allocate 20 percent of the national budget of
the country, including savings from such debt cancellation,
to basic services, as the country has committed to do under
the United Nations 20/20 Initiative, with appropriate input
from civil society in developing basic service plans.
``(b) Advocacy of Policy to Prevent Sub-Saharan African
Countries From Paying More Than 5 Percent of Annual Export
Earnings for Debt Service on IMF or World Bank Loans.--The
Secretary of Treasury shall instruct the United States
Executive Directors at the International Monetary Fund and
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
until their respective institutions have fully and
unconditionally canceled all debts owed to
[[Page H5715]]
such institutions by any country in sub-Saharan Africa
(within the meaning of subsection (a)(1)) to use the voice,
vote, and influence of the United States to advocate that
their respective institutions not be party to, and that no
future loan from their respective institutions be used to
finance in whole or part the implementation of, any agreement
which requires the government of any such country, during any
12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this section or any anniversary of such date, to pay an
amount exceeding 5 percent of the annual export earnings of
the country during the year toward the servicing of foreign
loans.
``(c) Advocacy Methods.--The Secretary of Treasury shall
instruct the United States Executive Directors at the
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development to carry out such instructions
by all appropriate means, including by letter to the country
representative members governing bodies of their respective
institutions, and by requesting formal votes on these
matters.
``(d) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall submit to the Committees on International Relations and
on Banking and Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Foreign Relations of
the Senate a report that contains--
``(1) a description of the response by foreign governments
to the policies advocated pursuant to this section;
``(2) the result of any votes taken pursuant to requests
made under subsection (c);
``(3) the amount (if any) owed to the United States by any
country opposing any such policy; and
``(4) a copy of the letter referred to in subsection
(c).''.
SEC. 205. CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO UNITED STATES LENDERS
BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
(a) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall submit to the Congress a report on the
amount of debt owed to any United States person by any
country in sub-Saharan Africa. The report shall specify the
amount owed to each such person by each such country, the
face value and market value of the debt, and the amount of
interest paid to date on the debt.
(b) Acquisition of the Debt by the United States.--Not
later than September 1, 2000, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall acquire each debt obligation owed to any United States
person by any country in sub-Saharan Africa. It is the sense
of the Congress that the price at which such an obligation is
acquired should be the market value of the debt obligation as
of January 1, 1999.
(c) Debt Cancellation.--On the acquisition of a debt
obligation pursuant to this section, the debt obligation is
hereby canceled.
SEC. 206. STUDY ON REPAYMENT OF DEBT IN LOCAL CURRENCIES BY
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
Section 603 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained
in section 101(d) of division A of the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the viability and desirability of having each
indebted country in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in section
17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act) repay foreign
loans made to the country (whether made bilaterally,
multilaterally, or privately) in the currency of the indebted
country; and''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``(6) The matters described in subsection (e)(4).''.
SEC. 207. ALLOCATION OF PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL BUDGETS OF
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR BASIC
SERVICES.
The Secretary of State shall encourage the government of
each sub-Saharan African country to allocate 20 percent of
its national budget, including the savings from the
cancellation of debt owed by the country to the United States
(pursuant to part VI of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as added by section 202 of this Act), to other foreign
countries (as called for in section 203 of this Act), to the
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (as called for in section 1622
of the International Financial Institutions Act, as added by
section 204 of this Act), and to United States persons (as
called for in section 205 of this Act), for the provision of
basic services to individuals in each such country, as
provided for in the United Nations 20/20 Initiative. In
providing such basic services, each such government should
seek input from appropriate nongovernmental organizations.
SEC. 208. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO LEVEL OF INTERIM
DEBT PAYMENTS PRIOR TO FULL DEBT CANCELLATION
BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
It is the sense of the Congress that, prior to the full and
unconditional cancellation of all debts owed by sub-Saharan
African countries to the United States (pursuant to part VI
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section
202 of this Act), to other foreign countries (as called for
in section 203 of this Act), and to United States persons (as
called for in section 205 of this Act), each sub-Saharan
African country should not, in making debt payments described
in the prior provisions of law, pay in any calendar year an
aggregate amount greater than an amount equal to 5 percent of
the export earnings of the country for the prior calendar
year.
____
Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Page 43, line 22, strike ``(a) In General.--''.
Page 44, line 2, strike ``gross'' and insert
``significant''.
Page 44, beginning on line 3, strike ``and has'' and all
that follows through line 22 on page 48 and insert a period.
Page 58, line 5, strike ``to the United States--'' and all
that follows through line 18 and insert the following: ``to
the United States from Kenya and Mauritius, respectively, not
later than 30 days after the country demonstrates the
following:
``(A) The country has adopted an efficient visa system to
guard against unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel
goods and the use of counterfeit documents in accordance with
the provisions of this Act. The Customs Service shall provide
the necessary technical assistance to Kenya and Mauritius in
the development and implementation of the visa system
described in the preceding sentence.
``(B) Not less than 90 percent of employees in business
enterprises producing the textile and apparel goods are
citizens of that country, or any 2 or more sub-Saharan
African countries.
``(C) The cost or value of the textile or apparel product
produced in the country, or any 2 or more sub-Saharan African
countries, plus the direct costs of processing operations
performed in the country or such countries, is not less than
60 percent of the appraised value of the product at the time
it is entered into the customs territory of the United
States.''.
Page 58, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 5
on page 59 and insert the following:
(2) Other sub-saharan countries.--The President shall
continue the existing no quota policy for each other country
in sub-Saharan Africa if the country is in compliance with
the requirements applicable to Kenya and Mauritius under
subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1).
Page 61, after line 10, insert the following:
(e) Treatment of Tariffs.--The President shall provide an
additional benefit of a 50 percent tariff reduction for any
textile and apparel product of a sub-Saharan African country
that meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
subsection (c)(1) and that is imported directly into the
United States from such sub-Saharan African country if the
business enterprise, or a subcontractor of the enterprise,
producing the product is owned by citizens of 1 or more sub-
Saharan African countries who control not less than 51
percent of such business enterprise.
Page 61, after line 10, insert the following:
(f) Additional Enforcement.--A citizen of the United States
shall have a cause of action in the United States district
court in the district in which he or she lives or in any
other appropriate district to seek compliance with the
standards set forth under subparagraph (B) or (C) of
subsection (c)(1) with respect to any sub-Saharan African
country, including a cause of action in an appropriate United
States district court for other appropriate equitable relief.
In addition to any other relief sought in such an action, a
citizen may seek three times the value of any damages caused
by the failure of a country or company to comply. The amount
of damages described in the preceding sentence shall be paid
by the business enterprise (or business enterprises) the
operations or conduct of which is responsible for the failure
to meet the standards set forth under subparagraph (B) or (C)
of subsection (c)(1).
Page 61, line 11, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(g)''.
Page 62, strike line 1, and all that follows through line
18 and insert the following:
``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--(i) The
President may provide duty-free treatment for any article
described in clause (ii) that is imported directly into the
United States from a sub-Saharan African country.
``(ii) An article described in this clause is an article
set forth in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), or an article
set forth in the product list of the Lome Treaty, that is the
growth, product, or manufacture of a sub-Saharan African
country that is a beneficiary developing country, if, after
receiving the advice of the International Trade Commission in
accordance with subsection (e), the President determines that
such article is not import-sensitive. This subparagraph shall
not affect the designation of eligible articles under
subparagraph (B).''.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the
bill--H.R. 434. Three-hundred-and-eighty years ago our nation's first
trade policy landed 19 Africans in Jamestown, VA. Since then our nation
has struggled with that painful and profound legacy. Undoubtedly, the
effects of trade are far reaching and long lasting. In many ways my
presence here today and that of 33 million other Americans is the
result of this nation's first African trade policy.
[[Page H5716]]
As I told a delegation from Gabon that came to visit me in my office
yesterday, the blood that unites us runs deeper than the water that
divides us. So as Congress considers a new trade policy with Africa for
a new millennium, for many of us this issue is charged with strong
emotions and deep convictions. There are people of good will and
intentions on both sides. It's rare--almost never--that I stand in
opposition to a bill sponsored by Mr. Rangel, a man who I've known and
looked up to virtually all of my life and for whom I have the utmost
respect and admiration. We both want what's best for Africa.
Today the weight and eyes of history are upon us. After centuries of
getting it wrong--through slavery, exploitation, as pawns in a Cold War
and neglect--it is incumbent upon us to get this new policy right.
Why am I opposed to the rule and opposed to AGOA?
Indeed, a dozen of my Democratic colleagues offered some 20
amendments--all of which were rejected except for four, only one of
which is not a non-binding sense of the Congress resolution.
These amendments--which this restrictive rule would keep us from
considering--did two things that are vital:
Cutting out the AGOA terms that would cause damage--make things
worse--for the majority of people in Africa and/or the U.S. If the AGOA
were simply not good enough--because some important aspect was missing
for instance, that would be one thing--but it is AGOA's ability to
undermine the already harsh status quo of food security, access to
health and education, control of natural resources and economic
sovereignty in Africa--that has moved me to action.
These are the provisions--mainly contained in AGOA's section 4--that
led a broad array of African labor, religious, anti-hunger and other
civic groups to reach out to me to develop an alternative to AGOA.
We're talking about groups like COSATU--South African's mighty labor
federation representing one in five South Africans. These are the
provisions that have led to the formation of a coalition of African
American bishops and ministers against AGOA--and led the community,
labor, church, pro-Africa and other U.S. groups from TransAfrica and
Organization US to the AFL-CIO, Teamsters and Sierra Club to make a
vote against AGOA a high priority.
AGOA's section 4 would impose conditions--unlike any we impose on any
other trade partners--requiring African countries to make major changes
in their domestic economic and social policies as a condition for
qualifying for AGOA's ``benefits.'' And, we are not talking about NAFTA
telling Mexico to enforce intellectual property rights because that is
a trade issue. We are talking about legislation that has the
U.S. President annually certifying each sub-Saharan African countries'
compliance with a long list of U.S.-imposed conditions: like requiring
cuts in domestic corporate taxes and domestic health and education
spending, we are talking about forced privitization through divestiture
of African nation's mineral and oil wealth and of its other public
assets, we are talking about changes in domestic pharmaceutical policy
that are in compliance with African countries' obligations in the GATT-
WTO.
There simply is nothing like that dealing with any other region of
the world. And worse, the U.S. government has said to Africa's
Ambassadors: it is this or nothing. Yet, the ``this'' is simply an
intensification of the IMF-NAFTA policies that have been a disaster for
African countries--because many of the provisions in AGOA are beefed up
version of the ``structural adjustment'' policies imposed on Africa by
the IMF in the past decades that have led to growing infant mortality,
lowering of real incomes, devastating cuts in basic health and
education services. Now we have the World Bank and IMF admitting that
this policy has failed in sub-Saharan Africa and then the U.S. would
impose it unilaterally through AGOA?
And that does not get to the damage to the U.S.: which is that AGOA's
rules against transshipment through Africa from third countries like
China are so weak that the 1.3 million U.S. workers in the textile and
apparel sector would face major job losses even as African workers
obtain no benefits. No doubt that there would be a limited impact of
the trade provisions of AGOA if what we were talking about was just
African imports--but AGOA's transshipment rules--opposed by the U.S.
and African textile and apparel unions and by the U.S. industry--are
the same ones that failed in the island of Hong Kong with its small
size and well-funded enforcement capacity. It is unnacceptible that
U.S. textile and apparel workers--70% of whom are women and people of
color--should lose their jobs while no new jobs are created in Africa
because Chinese made goods are using the AGOA's trade benefits.
The second thing the amendments this rule would keep out would do is
add the vital missing elements to AGOA:
You all know the list: AGOA simply fails to deal with the most basic
issues that could make for a mutually beneficial U.S.-Africa policy:
There's nothing binding HIV-AIDs, one of Africa greatest economic and
social challenges.
There is nothing binding to deal with the crushing $230 billion debt
burden on the SSA countries.
There are no basic labor, human rights, African-employment,
environmental rules for corporations to meet in order to enjoy the
special trade benefits--not even the pathetic NAFTA agreements.
What is in AGOA and what is missing guarantees that passing this
legislation on Africa is a worse outcome for most people in Africa than
doing no U.S. legislation on Africa at this time. We all want to do
something for Africa--but I doubt any of us want to do something bad to
Africa.
Make no mistake: what we do with this Africa legislation will be the
U.S.-Africa policy for decades to come, there's not going to be some
piecemeal approach where industry--satisfied by the new rights it has
obtained over Africa's resources and economies--suddenly decide to
independently push for debt relief, aid, AIDS-HIV policy. Come on
folks, get real. We either do the right thing now, or we are
responsible for inflicting damage in Africa to benefit some narrow
special interests in the U.S. business world.
We need to reject this rule and massive change AGOA. Absent that we
need to defeat it. On behalf of the 72 Democrats cosponsoring the
alternative approach to U.S.-Africa trade policy--the Human Rights
Opportunity Partnership and Empowerment (HOPE) for Africa Act, I urge
you to defeat this rule and keep hope alive.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, today Congress has before it
legislation that will take a first step. Some would like it to be a
giant step. Some say it is a baby step, but it is still a first step to
a long standing inequality of U.S. trade policy with reference to
Africa.
The passage of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, will
codify the first-ever trade policy with the nations of sub-Saharan
Africa. It is a first step for sub-Saharan African nations who need a
financial boost to their economies in order to improve the
socioeconomic status of their citizens. It is a first step to trade
with the most powerful economy in the world.
It is a first step of American investment in Africa that will bring
the same benefits it has brought to other developing nations, jobs,
skill, training, and a degree of local sourcing and a transfer of
technology and best practices that will benefit African business
development.
It is a shame that it has taken this long for a first step, but it is
indeed a first step for the U.S. Trade policy toward other developing
nations in Europe, Asia, and South America utilizing similar framework
has led to significant economic development in those nations to the
point where the GDP growth rate exceeded that of the U.S.
To aid the development of Israel, the United States granted duty- and
quota-free access for its textiles and apparel. It was the right thing
to do for Israel; it is the right thing to do for Africa.
In order to ensure that the African people are the major recipients
of the benefits of this trade, this legislation contains the strongest
anti-illegal transshipment language of any U.S. trade policy. The
ambassadors from the African nations and the Organization of African
Unity have endorsed this legislation.
It is not for us to decide that they do not know what trade policy is
best for their nations, just as we in America would not appreciate a
foreign nation deciding what international policies are best for
America.
The sub-Saharan African nations that can participate in this trade
policy need to be given the same opportunity and assistance to develop
their economies that the U.S. has given to developing countries in
Asia, Europe, and South America.
Remember, we cannot have a second step without a first step.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is safe to
say that everybody here wants to help Africa. Why is there a
difference? It is because some do not want to do it on the
[[Page H5717]]
backs of American workers, plain and simple. How could this be a good
bill? Well, we could assure that there are no Asian transshipments. Can
we accomplish that without U.S. Customs? Not with the track record
currently.
We could assure that the products were made in Africa. The agreement
calls for 35 percent. Rule of origin. Can my colleagues imagine if we
allowed Made in America, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant), that say only 35 percent needs to be made here for them to
have the label?
{time} 1145
Clearly, we should look to increase our export opportunities to the
African countries, but under this agreement, not a single item is
required to have their tariffs lowered.
I would challenge the Members, this is a trade bill, we will all
agree. I think the name is the transshipment trade bill, but we have a
trade bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my home State of
Texas leads 15 other U.S. States in exporting goods to Africa, with an
economic benefit totaling over $1 billion. So I rise in support of H.R.
434, hoping that many of my colleagues will answer the call from
African leaders, and specifically women.
Women are very eager to possess the means to fully engage the global
economy and become economically self-reliant. This bill helps the
economic standing of women in Africa, as well as the U.S. Businesswomen
in the Nigerian American community in my district are encouraging me to
remind this body that H.R. 434 will help women in Africa to receive
more entrepreneurial opportunities that are central to the eradication
of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. This is why the African Association
of Women Entrepreneurs supports this bill.
Currently, women in Africa head about 40 percent of African
households, and supply a significant percentage of the African work
force. This is a great first step. They do not want a handout, they
want trade. Vote for 434.
Mr. Chairman, some opponents to H.R. 434 would have you believe that
Democrats cannot think in terms of self-reliance or free-market
opportunities in the context of helping individuals create a better way
of life for themselves, domestically or abroad.
However, I rise in support of H.R. 434, hoping that many of my
colleagues will answer the call from African leaders, and specifically
women who are eager to possess the means to fully engage the global
economy, becoming economically self-reliant.
This bill helps the economic standing of women in Africa and well as
in the U.S.
My home State of Texas leads 15 other U.S. states in exporting goods
to Africa, with economic benefits totaling over $1 billion.
Many of the women benefiting from this relationship between Texas and
Africa are members of the large Nigerian-American community that I
represent. They are committed to strengthening trading ties with their
fellow sisters in Africa. Both sides want the passage of AGOA.
Businesswoman in the Nigerian-American community in my district are
encouraging me to remind this body that H.R. 434 will help women in
Africa to receive more entrepreneurial opportunities that are central
to the eradication of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
This is why the African Association of Women Entrepreneurs supports
this bill.
Currently, women in Africa head about 40% of African households and
supply a significant percentage of the African workforce in the
following industries: food processing, agricultural workforce,
marketing and domestic food shortage.
This shows that they are already proving their ability to work to
take advantage of the benefits that would be provided by the passage of
H.R. 434.
Economic growth provided under AGOA also benefits women by generating
increased resources for critical health care and educational needs.
Therefore, as a nurse and businesswoman, I am acutely aware of the
economic and health-related benefits that AGOA will create for women in
Africa.
I ask that my colleagues in this body not to deny women in Africa
true empowerment, health access and economic rights. A vote against
AGOA would do just that.
During the debate on the 1964 civil rights bill in the Senate, a
member of the body said of that legislation, ``There is nothing so
profound as an idea whose time has come.''
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 434 is laden with great possibilities and is
profound because it is an idea whose time has finally come. Women in
Africa are waiting for us to turn this profound idea into law and give
them the means to take control over their lives and livelihood.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill. Everyone in
this room supports Africa and we want to do what is right for Africa,
but by God, we do not have to do it at the expense of Uncle Sam.
One of the previous speakers said this bill defines an African-made
product as having 35 percent content. Look at our own laws on
requirements for American-made products. I had an amendment before the
Committee on Rules that said, make it 50 percent, in compliance with
the Buy American Act of 1933, number 1; and number 2, require that
those workers in Africa be African citizens.
This is a blueprint for transshipment, quota-free, duty-free, 35
percent content. For all of the Members who say that that is a smoke
screen, the U.S. Customs Service has already cited six African nations
for such transgressions.
Here is the bottom line, Mr. Chairman. I represent the United States
of America. We have a record trade deficit approaching a quarter of a
trillion dollars a year. I am opposed to the bill because yes, it is
good for Africa, it is bad for America. It is good for African
industry, it is bad for American industry. It is good for African
workers, it is bad for American workers. It is good for China, Asia,
and the world, and it is bad for our Cotton Belt, it is bad for our
Midwest, it is bad for our farmers, it is bad for our industry. It is
bad for America.
Let me say this, Congress will never help Africa, no matter how well-
intended, by ultimately hurting the United States of America. Mr.
Chairman, I was elected to represent the interests of Uncle Sam. I
believe Africa needs all the help we can give them, and we should, but
we should not make it easy to continue to put our people in
unemployment lines.
The Democrat party had better look at the trade situation. They had
better look at the trade situation, and they had better look at
American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of our efforts, but I oppose the
substance and the mechanics of this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say at the outset, I am glad we are having
this debate. We need to have more debates on this floor and in this
Congress.
I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from New York, for his
concern and diligence on behalf of providing opportunities and jobs in
an area that we have neglected for such a long time, and my friend, as
well, from the State of New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Having said that, let me just say that I oppose this bill. If I could
just address for a second why I oppose the bill, I want to talk about
the workers in Africa. This bill I think in my heart patterns the
mistakes that we made in Mexico.
We were told when we did the North American Free Trade Agreement that
not only would American workers benefit, but the Mexican worker would
benefit. If we look at Mexico, the reality is that the wages since we
passed that back in 1993 have gone down, from $1 an hour for the
workers who belong to the maquilladora to 70 cents an hour.
The reason that has happened, the reason the environment has been
despoiled, the reason wages have gone down, the reason they have no
rights to organize, work collectively, come together and bargain for
their sweat and labor, is because the trade agreement did not ensure
that. The trade agreement there ensured that we were protecting our
intellectual property, we were protecting the corporate rights, but it
did not protect the worker.
I fear the same pattern here. I fear the same pattern here. Until we
embody in these agreements the basic
[[Page H5718]]
rights of working men and women, the same patterns will repeat
themselves.
We should be addressing that. We should be addressing the questions
of medical emergency assistance on AIDS. We should be addressing the
debt question, which would take an enormous burden, which would be
dealing with Jubilee 2000. We should be reaching out and expressing our
hope in that way.
I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson) for bringing these issues up, bringing them to the floor,
making us look at where we have been, where we are going, and what we
are transplanting in terms of policy, and facing up to the reality that
it is not just the corporations and the diplomats and the elite corps
in these countries we ought to be concerned about, it is the working
men and women who make the products who need to have the gains so their
economies can flourish.
I thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and I urge, I urge my colleagues
to vote no on this bill.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I must oppose this bill. I oppose this bill
because I am not simply talking about Africa as a business opportunity.
I love Africa. I have spent 20 years of my life working on behalf of
Africa. We cannot see this as a business opportunity, and one more way
of sophisticatedly exploiting Africa.
For those who love Africa as I do, help me stop Savimbi in Angola
from running over dos Santos. They created Savimbi, the right wing did,
along with Mobutu. They were the ones that supported de Klerk when we
were trying to do something about getting rid of apartheid in South
Africa.
I am sitting, as the ranking member in the Subcommittee on Domestic
and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, trying to do something about the IMF. Some of the
same language from IMF and the World Bank on structural adjustment is
in this bill, not wanting Africa to own its own infrastructure, wanting
them to reduce its corporate taxes, wanting them basically not to be
able to be in control of their railroads and their airports, because we
want to have the ability to own it all when we come in on this trade
bill.
Yes, I am concerned about Africa. If Members love Africa as I do,
help me make it a line item in the budget for foreign aid. Ensure that
trade is not going to replace foreign aid. Do for Africa what we do for
Israel. Do for Africa what we do for Russia. Give it most-favored-
nation status, the way we do China.
I will tell Members how much they love Africa, they love it enough to
want to give it to the corporations and allow them to do whatever they
want to do. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) loves
Africa as I do, and he wants a good trade bill, but he has to amend it
and make it right, I say to the gentleman from New York. This is not
right.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to
me, and I appreciate the leadership the gentleman has shown in bringing
this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan
legislation. There is very little doubt that the Africa that we see
today is vastly different from the Africa we knew of yesterday. It is
truly remarkable that a continent that was once racked by the insidious
evils of apartheid, of civil strife, of dependence and economic
stagnation, is today on the eve and in the making of an economic
renaissance.
The engineers of this renaissance are not the Americans, they are not
their former European colonial masters nor the Japanese. The engineers
of this renaissance are the African themselves.
Today there is a generation of leadership in sub-Saharan Africa,
leadership dedicated not to the failed status development models of the
past, but to market-based reforms and private sector growth. This new
generation does not ask America for help, but for hope. They do not ask
America for food, but for the tools to make their crops grow. They do
not ask America for roads or schools or dams, but for the capital
incentives to build their own.
That is precisely what this bill would do. Through their actions, the
African people have asked us to hear their call for hope, for
opportunity, self-sufficiency, and sustainable economic growth. That is
precisely what this bill would do. I urge my colleagues to heed this
vote, to heed this call, and to vote yes on H.R. 434.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, because although it
is well-intended, although it sounds good, it looks good, but in
reality who does it really help? It really helps the multinational
corporations that will slide into sub-Saharan Africa, pick up all of
the goodies, put it in their pockets, in their wallets, and then move
back. It has no protection for workers.
I see nothing in this bill that says that companies must hire, train,
upgrade citizens who are indigenous to the community. I commend all of
those who worked on it, and I admit that it sounds good. I, too, love
Africa. I am of African descent.
But I can tell the Members, I do not want to help multinational
corporations at the expense of the people in my district who have lost
more than 130,000 jobs in the last 20 years, people who want to work,
good people, but people who cannot find work because the jobs are gone.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Let us talk about who is helped and who is hurt. Let me give some
numbers consistent with what the gentleman just spoke of. He said
130,000 jobs in 20 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported
that the apparel and textile industries lost 134,000 jobs in 1 year,
30,000 jobs in South Carolina in 12 months.
This will be a national holiday in China when Members pass this bill.
The Chinese are going to send through Africa material made in China,
apparel goods made in China that we would not let exist 20 seconds over
here with the work conditions.
{time} 1200
There is going to be a stamp, ``Made in Africa'' but the slave labor
comes from China, and it is going to put people from my district and
the districts of my colleagues out of work. Sixty percent of the people
in the textile industry and apparel industry are women, 35 percent are
minorities, mostly African Americans. Where are they going to go to
work?
We are going to give China an opportunity to destroy our textile
industry. The trade policies of both parties are absolutely abysmal. We
are played for a fool. I would not let either parties trade my car.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, really, there are two themes here. One is
the economic and one is the human. And sometimes we get confused with
sort of the opinions on the economics and the facts on the economics.
I am not going to get into the details because I disagree totally
with some of the assumptions that have been made, that transshipments
are going to deluge this country, it is going to open the doors to
China. I do not think that is going to happen, but that is an opinion.
We have the mechanisms to stop that.
I think that regarding the question about textile jobs, if I were
representing a textile State, I would probably be concerned, also. But
when we take a look at the actual numbers and the impact this is going
to have, it is not a big worry.
[[Page H5719]]
I think as far as the human side, Sheila Sisulu, the Ambassador from
South Africa, said this: If the first 5 years after apartheid were
about ``nation-building, now it is about making hope a reality,'' and
that is in terms of helping them economically.
Frankly, if we cannot help Africa in this tiny little impact on this
Nation, who can we help? I love Africa, but if everybody else loved
Africa, why can they not support this bill?
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill about China.
Transshipments are illegal. This is a bill about trying to inject a
measure of investment and opportunity into one of the most
catastrophically depressed regions of the world.
What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that our corporations, our
workers cannot compete with this region? Clearly, that is a false
assumption.
This is a win for Africa, but it is also an important win for the
United States. This is a region of 700 million people. U.S. agriculture
exports into this area are a tiny fraction of that compared just to
Europe alone. And the growth opportunity is extremely significant if we
begin building the kinds of relationships that will flow from the trade
that is established from this act.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for
his leadership in advancing a bill that is going to offer a real
measure of hope to a region of the world that so desperately needs it.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bad deal for Africans and
Americans. It extends NAFTA. What can we expect if H.R. 434, ``NAFTA
for Africa'', passes? We can expect even lower wages. If the experience
of Africa is like that of Mexico, wages will fall. That is precisely
what happened in Mexico where wages fell about 20 percent when NAFTA
was enacted.
We can expect even more powerful multinational corporations. Africa
knows this well already. One oil company ferries troops to fire upon
civilians who exercise their democratic rights to protest for a cleaner
environment and higher wages.
We can expect ever-higher trade deficits. Before NAFTA, the U.S. had
a trade surplus with Mexico. After NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade deficit
with Mexico. Why? Because NAFTA gave incentives to American companies
to close their plants in America and reopen them in Mexico, then export
from Mexico to the U.S. the goods they used to make in Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and in my State, Ohio.
Some say it is not for us to decide. Well, it is only the Congress
who can decide. If this is a first step, it is a first step in the
wrong direction.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 434,
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I have met with many of the
presidents of Africa. I spoke with African ambassadors and diplomats,
and all of them support the bill. I have not talked to one African
representative that has been elected that did not support the bill and
had a deep desire to increase foreign trade and investment.
In addition, as an African American woman, I strongly endorse H.R.
434 and believe that it is time that we pay attention to Africa and it
is time that the United States and the world become color-blind to the
continent and engage in trade with the Africans, just as we do with
Asia and Latin America.
Let us not forget that the Africans who were brought to this country
unwillingly made a great contribution to the infrastructure of our
country without a penny of reimbursements. We owe it to the African
continent at least to have them as trading partners. It is about time
we made a sea change in our perception of the African continent and do
everything within our power as Members of Congress to promote a success
for African people whose forefathers have given so much to this great
country.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a Member who is new to the Subcommittee on
Africa and has shown a great interest in the continent.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce) for yielding me this time. American workers are not
impoverished by African nations that are impoverished themselves.
American workers are not protected by having an impoverished African
continent. American workers are not employed nor are their wages
increased by businesses which are prevented from trading with Africa.
There are those who apparently want to see the African continent and
most of the nations hobbled by a socialistic enterprise that has really
impeded their progress for many years. They want to see countries
continue in this failed program of a government-controlled economy.
This will not work. It has not worked. It will only lead to greater
degradation of both the environment and the economic situation in
Africa.
There is another aspect of this, not just the economic consequences
which I believe are positive for both American workers and African
workers. With the end of the Cold War almost a decade ago, we are now
faced with confronting a new war: a war on international terrorism.
Likewise, Africa is a continent which can be welcomed by the United
States or left alone, as some would have us do, and fall into the arms
of terrorism, as we have seen these examples before in the past with
the bombings of American embassies.
Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that with the passage of this bill
we will eliminate the possibility of terrorist activities emanating out
of Africa, but I am suggesting that it is a step in that direction.
Because with the expansion of American exports in the way of trade and
economies we are also exporting ideas. This is an extremely important
point I think for our colleagues here to recognize.
We are not only bolstering monetary gains for those involved, but we
are helping to build up and strengthen the stability of a region in a
world that is rampant with conflict and turmoil. It is time to take a
stand, and I welcome the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa as trading
partners.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane), my good friend, for yielding me this time.
I think it might be appropriate at this time to remind the gentleman
of his promises that he made during the NAFTA debate that NAFTA would
take this $3 billion trade surplus that we then enjoyed over Mexico and
expand it. It has been expanded, but the wrong way. It has now gone
into a $10 billion annual trade loss with Mexico, and all of those
workers who were going to make enough money to go above that $1,000 per
capita annual income to the point where they could order up American
Kenmore washing machines and American-made Cadillacs, well, that has
not come to fruition. In fact, their wages have gone down.
Mr. Chairman, that is the point here. These free trade deals manifest
a situation clearly in which the best of intentions end up with very
bad results.
I am impressed with the candor of the Chinese. It has been said on
the floor that there are not going to be transshipments. Everybody
seems to agree with that except the Chinese. This is a press release
out of the Chinese Trade Ministry. I quote: ``Setting up assembly
plants in Africa with Chinese equipment, technology, and personnel
could not only greatly increase sales in African countries but also
circumvent'' and here is the Chinese Trade Ministry saying this, ``will
allow us to circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese
origin by European and American companies.''
The Chinese are already laying out their blueprint for expanding
their $40 billion trade surplus over the United States at the expense
of American workers.
Mr. Chairman, for those folks who think that African workers are
going to partake in that, notice that they are not in this press
release. They are not involved. This is going to be Chinese
transshipment. It is going to accrue to the detriment of our trade
balance.
[[Page H5720]]
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their work on
this measure.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 434. The Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act offers us an opportunity to move forward our
relationship with Africa.
Right now, the African market is small, but it is destined to grow.
We can lay the groundwork today for a stronger relationship in the
future which will mean a stronger partnership in the future, especially
when it comes to the issue of trade, when Africa becomes a vibrant and
strong player in that market.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. I would prefer to see
stronger provisions on the environment and on labor. But it needs to
move forward. Partnership and progress are important elements in the
U.S.-Africa relationship. 435 voting Members cannot in this House
individually dictate the path and pace we will take to build that
partnership and progress, especially as it relates to trade with
Africa. But collectively we can send a message that we understand that
in the future Africa will be an important trading partner with this
country and move this measure forward and hope that in the future, when
we have established that we are partners and friends with the African
countries, that we deserve their trade and we deserve their business.
I urge support for H.R. 434.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, Africa has long suffered from neglect and
needs our help. But when it comes to trade in textiles and apparel, I
am not at all convinced that this bill will help Africa, and neither
are the sponsors. They insist that its impact on the textile and
apparel industry in this country will be small, minimal. But it may
hurt textiles and apparel workers in these industries in America
without helping textile and apparel workers in Africa.
Mr. Chairman, that is because by giving sub-Saharan countries duty-
free, quota-free access to our markets, this bill will invite textile
and apparel manufacturers in Asia to make their goods in Asia but
transship them through Africa and gain access to our markets duty-free,
quota-free, no restrictions whatsoever.
Is this improbable? Not when we consider the volume of transshipment
today. Customs estimates it is in the range of $6 billion to $12
billion in textiles and apparel alone, and not when we consider the
advantages. So if my colleagues want to help Africa but also help
American workers, vote for the Bishop motion to recommit which will
give Africa liberal treatment for access, but also protect our workers.
The bill before us today may be well-intentioned, but it is deeply
flawed. I urge you to consider some important facts before you vote.
U.S. workers in the textile and apparel industry have lost their jobs
faster than workers in any other industry over the past three years,
and AGOA can only worsen the problem.
These jobs have been lost faster, and in greater numbers, than jobs
in the steel industry, which has been the beneficiary of strong
bipartisan support in this session. Almost 700,000 jobs have been lost
in the textile and apparel industry since 1981; 118,000 have been lost
in the past 12 months. The steel industry has lost 16,700 jobs over the
same period.
If H.R. 434 becomes law, the U.S. textile and apparel industry--
staggering under a trade deficit that topped $65 billion last year--
will be hit even harder by imports coming in duty-free and quota-free
from Africa. Neither Mexico under NAFTA, nor the Caribbean countries
under CBI enjoy such access to our apparel markets. Even worse, these
imports will not be made in Africa. They will be made in Asia and
shipped through Africa and re-labeled to evade quotas and tariffs. Who
will bear the brunt of these imports? 70% of U.S. apparel workers are
women, and more than half are minorities, mostly African-American.
Why have the jobs disappeared? A primary driver has been low-wage
imports--in both fabrics and apparel--manufactured and assembled in
nations where worker compensation and working conditions are
deplorable. This fact, not blind protectionism, is the reason we
continue to impose quotas and levy tariffs on imported textiles and
apparel. This fact also drives our decision to keep tariffs in place
even after quotas are phased out in 2005. H.R. 434, in contrast to this
reasoned policy, would create half a continent's worth of cheap
imports. It would also open up Africa as a massive platform for
transshipment, because textile/apparel goods supposedly originating
there could come to the U.S. duty-free and quota-free. In short, AGOA
will speed the already alarming textile and apparel job losses here in
the U.S.
H.R. 434 will establish Sub-Saharan Africa as a massive platform for
transshipment, accelerating these job losses.
Eight countries in Africa have already been identified by the U.S.
Customs Service as transit points for illegal shipments of Chinese
textile and apparel goods. This abuse, known as transshipment, is taken
to evade China's quotas. China exports $10 billion legally to the U.S.,
and Customs believes that China exports as much as $6 billion more to
the U.S. illegally.
H.R. 434 raised the reward for quota evasion by eliminating tariffs.
Profits from transshipment will increase by the amount of tariffs
evaded, which average 18% and run as high as 30%. The result: an
explosion of transshipment through Africa, which will be all but
impossible for Customs to police. Another result: rampant transshipment
will take away the incentive for investment in African apparel
production.
Supporters of the Bishop-Myrick amendment are not asking that a wish
list of legislative language be added to H.R. 434, as some today have
suggested. We are asking, instead, that we take steps simply to keep
the pace of these job losses to a level reasonably commensurate with
the rate of new job creation. The language we have sought to add, would
address this problem, and its absence makes this bill poison to
hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans.
I urge members to oppose H.R. 434.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
(Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
{time} 1215
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am honored to say
that, today, the vast majority of American civic, religious, and
business leaders strongly support this bill. More importantly, all 43
nations of sub-Saharan Africa have voiced unanimous support for this
bold step towards stronger economic ties between the United States and
Africa.
We have also recognized that Africa's fragile democracies cannot
sustain themselves without economic prosperity. We have turned our
attention towards strengthening Africa economically through U.S.-Africa
trade. The globalization of the economy marked by the integration of
markets through the world has made Africa the new economic frontier for
economic growth. Western Europe and Japan are aggressively pursuing new
trade relations with African countries.
This vast continent, with its enormous resources and human capacity,
may become the world's economic engine well into the 21st Century.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, the African Growth and
Opportunity Act provides the United States with the mechanism to
leverage stronger U.S.-African public and private partnerships while
promoting African and American long-term economic interests.
H.R. 434 is bipartisan. It provides a viable framework for
modernizing Africa's trade infrastructure, strengthens relationships
between the African and American private sectors, promotes African
economic reform, and lays a foundation for future cooperation. H.R. 434
is the beginning of an ongoing relationship between the United States
and Africa.
Much now has been said about the need for debt relief for Africa. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) has forcefully brought this point
home to all of us. This bill does call for a deep debt relief for poor
countries. We should, however, keep alive a discussion on this serious
matter and seek to appropriately address the debt burden in an
appropriate manner.
[[Page H5721]]
However, today, we begin to build strong trade relations between the
United States and Africa, as it is a critical part of Africa's economic
recovery. And for that, I urge all of my colleagues for the passage of
H.R. 434. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his
leadership.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Subcommittee on Africa.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the African
Growth and Opportunity Act. This bipartisan legislation is intended to
fundamentally shift U.S. trade and investment policy toward sub-Saharan
Africa, establishing as U.S. policy the creation of a transition path
from development assistance to economic self-reliance for those
countries in Africa truly committed to economic and political reform,
market incentives, and private sector growth.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act helps not only those Nations
in sub-Saharan Africa who have sought to improve their economies by
adopting political and market reforms, it helps the United States,
which will greatly benefit from expanded trade. Tearing down trade
barriers and creating new markets for American products in Africa
translates into more American jobs and opportunities right here at
home.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa and an original cosponsor
of this legislation, I want to commend all those who have worked so
hard to bring the African Growth and Opportunity Act to the floor
today. It is a well-crafted bill that deserves our overwhelming
support. I urge an aye vote on this legislation.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have reflected on the
debate that we have had this morning; and like many of my colleagues, I
am gratified that the Halls of this Congress now raise their voices in
a debate about Africa, acknowledging the fact that there is abject
poverty in Africa but, as well, that there are energetic and active and
enthusiastic business owners and women and those seeking employment who
demand equality in the international trade world.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act, with the leadership of the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and now our guiding leader
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the leadership of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)
combined together with Members recognizing that we must stand equal to
the continent, or we will stand second to Europe.
It is interesting to note that U.S. exports of sub-Saharan Africa are
greater than Russia and the NIS and Eastern Europe, $6.7 billion. But
the exports going that direction cannot be enhanced without the African
Growth and Opportunity Act.
As well, we cannot enhance the opportunity for businesses in Africa
to trade with us. We then are treating them in a second-class manner.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is well knowledgeable
that, as we ended World War II, it is very clear that the trade and
investment helped rebuild Europe after World War II.
Yes, I started traveling to Africa and visiting with Africans in the
late 1960s and 1970s. There is abject poverty. But Africans today do
not want us to define them with abject poverty.
I want a debt relief. I want this Congress to have a debt relief
vehicle. I am on a debt relief bill. But at the same time, we in
America, acknowledging the fact that the cities of Greenville and
Spartanburg and Anderson, South Carolina, exported $49 million to
Africa, we in America cannot ignore $700 million.
Therefore, it is important to pass the African Growth and Opportunity
Act as, not only an opportunity for Africans, but an opportunity for us
in America to be able to join and encourage small businesses, women,
entrepreneurs, to develop capital infrastructure and provide the nexus
of the engine of more jobs in America, in our urban and rural
communities.
There is something about doing business with people. In Africa,
people want to do business. They want to be educated. They want to have
good health care. They want to make sure they have good housing. Let us
get them going and work with them in partnership. Let them tell China
how to handle their business.
I rise to support the passage of the African Growth and Opportunity
Act. The time has come for this historic piece of legislation and the
opportunities it presents, to become reality. The African Growth and
Opportunity Act is good for America and good for Africa. For the first
time, we will have a framework for using trade and investment as an
economic development tool throughout Africa. Through this Act the
United States seeks to facilitate market-led economics and as a
consequence stimulate significant social and economic development
within the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The Governments of Africa
have articulated their eagerness to become fully integrated into the
global marketplace, as a means to self-sufficiency and progression as
the world moves into the next millennium.
The Bill changes how America does business with Africa. It seeks to
enhance U.S.-Africa policy to increased trade, investment, self-help
and serious engagement. It seeks to move away from the paternalism
which in the past characterized American's dealing with Africa. This
bill encourages strategies to improve economic performance and requires
high-level talks betwen the U.S. and African governments on trade and
investment issues.
The passage of this bill will begin a new era where Africans and
Americans work together in a relationship of mutual respect as business
partners providing for Africa a platform to integrate more fully into
the global economy. The bill is not a substitute for our foreign aid.
But it will allow our aid to Africa to be even more effective because
it will be balanced with good fair trade policies and the positive
results of foreign investments.
Although this is the first such bill to specifically target the sub-
Saharan Africa, the market access provisions of this bill are not new
to foreign policy. Developing countries around the world have
traditionally relied on trade and investment centered development to
stimulate growth and diversification of a competitive economic base.
It is an approach that has been tested and proven by time. Trade and
investment helped rebuild Europe after World War II. By opening U.S.
market and encouraging receptive conditions for U.S. investments and
exporters abroad, we were able to assist Asia in diversifying their
export bases and by doing so become prosperous consumers of American
products. It is time to apply these same incentives to the African
marketplace.
Why now? There are thousands of reasons Africa and the U.S. should
work together for the 21st century. Obviously, Africa matters to 30
million Americans who trace their roots there. But, Africa matters to
all Americans. In volume terms, nearly 14 percent of U.S. crude oil
imports come from Africa as compared to 17 percent from the Middle
East. Despite areas of instability, Africa's economic trends generally
remain positive. Africa has thus far weathered the global financial
crisis, unlike many other developing economies.
More than two-thirds of African nations continue to implement far
reaching macroeconomic reforms, including liberalizing trade and
investment regimes, reducing tariffs, rationalizing exchange rates
ending subsidies, and stabilizing their currencies.
U.S. exports of Sub-Saharan Africa rose 8.4% in 1998 to $6.7 billion.
These exports support 133,000 U.S. jobs (based on the Department of
Commerce estimates). U.S. exports to Africa are concentrated in high-
wage industries, such as aircraft and parts, construction machinery and
equipment, computers, motor vehicles, and telecommunications equipment.
Africa is an important market for U.S. farmers. In 1998, wheat and
wheat flour was the 5th largest U.S. export product to sub-Saharan
Africa with a value of $262 million.
And with an estimated 700 million people, each a potential consumer,
the African market is vast and ready for our products and services.
Sub-Saharan Africa does matter, both economically and politically. We
are part of a global community and Africa is certainly a member. It is
time to allow Africa full membership!
We must afford the same opportunities to Africa that we have already
offered to other regions of the world. Africa has been a cooperative
partner in addressing our concerns in combating such transnational
security threats as crime, narcotics, terrorism and arms proliferation.
The world can not find global solutions to the many issues without
including Africa. We need a strong, economically stable continent that
is our partner!
Democratic countries that are at peace and enjoying prosperity make
good partners. They
[[Page H5722]]
abide by international law. They help respond to crisis. They protect
their populations. They care about their environment.
It is now, and always has been in our best interest to have our world
made up of such countries. Some have stated that the Africa Growth and
Opportunity act will undermine the sovereignty of African nations by
imposing strict eligibility requirements on participating countries.
In a press conference on July 9th, the African Diplomatic Corps took
umbrage with this claim. Ambassador Edith Ssempala, ambassador from
Uganda pointed out that ``it is poverty, not African Growth and
Opportunity, which ``recolonizes'' Africa.
The Africa Growth and Opportunity act does not undermine the
sovereignty of any country because participation by Sub-Saharan
countries in the Africa a trade initiative is entirely voluntary. A
country can choose not to participate in the initiative if it believes
compliance with the eligibly criteria is not in its interests. The
ability of countries to make such decision is, in fact, a classic
example of the exercise of sovereignty.
Some cite labor rights abuses. There is a misconception that the bill
fails to include strong labor preconditions for countries to gain
eligibility for expanded trade benefits. The bill stipulates that
eligible countries must also observe the existing statutory criterion
on internationally recognized worker rights as a condition for
eligibility for duty free benefits under the General System of
Preferences (GSP) program.
This includes the right of association; the right to organize and
bargain collectively; a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or
compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of children and
acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of
work and occupational safety and health.
The African Growth and Opportunity act was developed in consultation
with African leaders. It builds upon the economic reforms initiated by
Africans for their countries.
As stated by Roble Olhaye as Dean of the African Diplomatic Corps,
the African Growth and Opportunity Act is an innovative bipartisan
legislation designed to stimulate and strengthen the U.S.-Africa
economic partnership through ``incentives, trade liberalization, and
[a] permanent forum for policy discussion and is of the utmost
urgency''.
I agree, as must we all--the time is now. Let's pass this bill!
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
(Mr. COLLINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since 1995,
over 375,000 American Textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs.
Many of these workers have been from the State of Georgia--a number of
them from the Third District, which I represent. June headlines in
Third District newspapers read, ``Thomaston Mills Drops Bombshell:
Textile Firm will Close Local Plant, Leaving 145 Jobless'' and
``Closing Will Affect All Taxpayers.'' In addition to closing its Third
District facilities, Thomaston Mills simultaneously shut down factories
and offices in a neighboring Georgia district and in Los Angeles and
New York, costing another 555 Americans their jobs. Try to tell one of
these 700 American citizens that it's a good idea to give more trade
preferences to foreign textile producers without providing anything to
American Producers in return. Thomaston Mills CEO Neil Hightower
summarized the challenges textile mills are facing saying,
We have been losing a lot of money on yarn and denim. The
Asian crisis has seriously devalued currencies there, and
they are being very aggressive in going after U.S. markets.
There is still a lot of denim used, but all the growth is
going to foreign suppliers.
The workers, families, and communities of the Third District of
Georgia are not ready to accept another trade deal that benefits
foreign manufacturers and provides nothing for American workers.
As textile manufacturers and many of my colleagues have argued for
years, an African trade initiative that does not require beneficiaries
to use U.S. yarn and cloth would seriously threaten domestic textiles
producers by allowing massive transshipments of products through Africa
from Asia. 807(a)-type ``yarn-forward'' and ``fabric-forward''
provisions would ensure first that U.S. textile workers and
manufacturers would receive some benefit in exchange for trade
advantages given to foreign producers. Additionally, such provisions
ensure that African nations reap the benefits of increased trade,
instead of trade predators such as China.
Last year, the Africa trade bill faced considerable opposition in
House floor votes on the rule, on the motion to recommit, and on final
passage, because transshipping provisions in the bill were inadequate
to prevent massive Chinese transshipments through sub-Saharan Africa.
189 Members of the House (48 Republicans and 141 Democrats) opposed the
rule last year. 192 Members (66 Republicans and 126 Democrats)
supported the motion to recommit (which included 807(a)-type
provisions). And, 185 Members (84 Republicans and 101 Democrats)
opposed final passage of the bill. In spite of this broad opposition
and in spite of the fact that this year's bill does not improve on the
weak transshipping provisions from last year's effort, the Rules
Committee chose not to allow floor consideration of an amendment that
would have added yarn-forward and fabric-forward requirements to the
bill.
Expanding trading is very important to the American worker, but most
workers understand that while the United States has aggressively
lowered or eliminated many of its barriers to foreign products, most
countries are still closed to U.S. products. Time and again, these
workers have seen trade agreements result in lost jobs. I strongly
support enhanced trade and economic development in sub-Saharan Africa,
but not at the cost of American jobs. In representing the people of the
Third District of Georgia, I must urge Members to oppose this
legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. I thank
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for his leadership, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce), and others who have worked diligently on this bill.
As an African-American woman living in America, I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this legislation. Is it perfect? No, it is not.
Is it a start? Yes, it is.
There are over 750 million Africans living in sub-Saharan Africa who
want this bill. The leadership corps here in Africa, the Ambassador
Corps who sits here in our Chamber want this bill. The African
presidents who are represented by their ambassadors want this bill.
We have got a President for the first time in history of this country
who has not only visited Africa but has put his support behind this
bill.
I am a member of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. For the
first time in the history of this country, we will have an
appropriation that begins to meet the needs of the African continent.
The land is fertile. The people are ready. Its leadership is in
place.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, when one only has 2 minutes, one can
only say so much.
But what I want to say here today, this is a first step. There has
not been another before it. America is ripe for the building of Africa,
and so are we as Africans in this country and Africans abroad.
Let us support this bill. Let us work with the African Ambassador
Corps and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs. Let me commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), our chairman, for having the sensitivity to increase the
appropriation so that we can rise up and build on the African
continent.
I rise today in strong support of strengthening Africa's role in the
international economic community. I rise today in strong support of the
people of the second largest land mass on our planet. I rise today in
strong support of the land of all of our biological origins. I rise
today in strong support of economic self-sufficiency and sufficiency
for Africa and her peoples. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 424,
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It is, indeed, long overdue for
Africa to take her place at the international table of economic
opportunity.
On the pantheon of world history, Africa is a newborn. In the last
decade, we saw the fall of one of the last old-line colonialist nations
when apartheid ended in South Africa. The first African nation to gain
a semblance of independence was the nation of Ghana in the mid 1950s
under the late Kwame Nkrumah. Since then, many nations in sub-Saharan
Africa have not struggled from outright colonialism, but the more
surreptitious and sinister demon of neo-colonialism. What is neo-
colonialism? While many sub-Saharan African nations gained political
independence, their economic purse strings were controlled by their
[[Page H5723]]
former colonizers. This is neo-colonialism, something that we must
never repeat in Africa or throughout the world. It is one of my goals,
as a Member of Congress, to ensure that Africa becomes economically
self-sufficient.
I am proud and an original cosponsor of both AGOA and H.R. 772, the
HOPE for Africa Act. It is my belief that these initiatives are not
mutually exclusive, and I hope that some of the vital components of the
HOPE for Africa are incorporated into AGOA to make it an even stronger
bill.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act assists African nations in the
often difficult transition from receiving developmental assistance to
economic self-reliance through increased trade and investment
opportunities. Economic development is promoted by establishing a new
trade and investment partnership between the U.S. and the democracies
of sub-Saharan Africa. There are many steps to promoting sustainable
development. This initiative, which has strong bipartisan support,
moves this process forward by promoting trade while supporting debt
reduction and increased development aid for African countries.
Let me point out some of the important and salient points regarding
the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA):
AGOA would increase U.S.-Africa high-level dialogue. AGOA creates a
U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum to facilitate such
high-level discussion on trade arrangements. The bill also improves
private sector and non-governmental dialogue by encouraging U.S.
private sector and NGOs to host annual meetings with their respective
sub-Saharan Africa counterparts.
AGOA supports debt relief by expressing the sense of Congress that
the Administration should forgive concessional debt owed to the U.S. by
the poorest sub-Saharan countries.
AGOA expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), a corporation that I believe to be very
effective in promoting exports, should initiate more equity funds in
support of sub-Saharan African countries, as well as revising the
composition of the OPIC board of directors to require at least one of
the eight presidentially-appointed directors to have extensive sub-
Saharan Africa private sector experience.
AGOA improves current workers rights. The trade benefits within this
bill are extended under our Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),
which contains workers protections. The GSP statute requires
beneficiary countries to have taken or be taking steps to afford
internationally recognized workers rights, defined as freedom of
association, the right to organize and bargain collectively,
prohibition against forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the
employment of children, and acceptable conditions of work with respect
to minimum wages, hours of work and occupational health and safety.
This bill expands trade opportunities by increasing access to the
U.S. market for non-import sensitive goods and textiles. Of course,
Africa must make continual progress toward achieving the bill's
economic criteria, while maintaining the same requirements--as always--
for existing trade and aid benefits to Africa.
I support trade and investment in Africa, and I hope you do too. I
will be the first to acknowledge among my colleagues that while AGOA is
not perfect, AGOA is a step in the right direction. For the first time
in this century, Congress is taking real and positive steps toward
ensuring that Africa is a fair trading partner with the United States.
My colleague, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has a worthy bill,
sections of which I hope can be incorporated within AGOA as it moves
forward this Congress. I would personally like the canceling of even
more African debt and requiring multinational companies in Africa to
abide by U.S. environmental standards in Africa. I do believe, however,
that AGOA is moving in the right direction by increasing the vital
dialogue and interaction that is needed on all levels. This dialogue
only helps the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa to learn about each other
and mutually beneficial business practices and opportunities. It is
time for Africa to move along the path to effective economic self-
sufficiency. H.R. 434 is a start on the path to true economic self-
sufficiency for Africa that can only improve the lives of her people.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of H.R. 434. The
African Growth and Opportunity Act is a win-win for African and
American workers.
Africa is an untapped market of 700 million consumers for American
goods and services. H.R. 434 will encourage African economic reforms,
which will provide U.S. firms and workers with greater access to the
growing economies of Africa.
The U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa rose 8.4 percent in 1998 to
$6.7 billion. These exports support over 100,000 U.S. jobs, based on
the Department of Commerce estimates.
Furthermore, U.S. exports to Africa are intensive in high-wage
industries, such as aircraft and parts, construction machinery and
equipment, computers, motor vehicles, and telecommunications equipment.
Africa is also an important agricultural market for the United
States. In 1998, wheat and wheat flour was the fifth largest U.S.
export product to sub-Saharan Africa with a value of $262 million.
This legislation requires the President to develop a plan to enter
into free-trade agreements with sub-Saharan African countries and
provides an opportunity for regular meetings with African officials to
discuss trade liberalization.
H.R. 434 expresses support for the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation's, OPIC's, creation of infrastructure and equity funds for
projects in Africa.
But this legislation also benefits the Africans themselves. For
example, H.R. 434 establishes the U.S. trade policy with Africa.
Again, I urge my colleagues' strong support for this legislation.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
African Growth and Opportunity Act. More so than ever before, we are
seeing economic development in developing countries provide tremendous
prosperity to folks for whom hope was once outside their grasp.
This bill today will provide a very important tool to sub-Saharan
African countries to help empower men and women and their communities
to begin to support themselves and their families, begin to develop
their own businesses.
We spend a lot of time talking about how great our economy is, how
good our ideas and values are, but we have got to go further. We have
got to provide tools to countries so they can emulate our success. This
bill is not just about a good idea. It is about a very important tool.
There has been concern expressed about abuse and exploitation of
workers. Those are valid concerns. We constantly balance those concerns
as we foster our economy here. There are unions in these countries that
will work to protect workers. There are important provisions in these
bills.
This bill will allow the President to decertify these preferences
should there be abuses. This bill is balanced. We should support it. It
will empower our friends in these very important countries.
{time} 1230
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of House Resolution
434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Mr. Chairman, I am an original sponsor of this bill. I traveled
throughout Africa with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and others, and I spoke
privately and individually to the leaders of Africa. They want this
piece of legislation.
We must realize there may be some other outside sources who may have
some other benefits through the African Growth and Opportunity Act, but
I say to my colleagues that there are not any that inherently have in
them this investment in trade and arts, too, or any kind of
development. The Rangel act has very sound policies in it, and there
are things about it that will promote investment in Africa. Remember,
this is the first time that this has been done. We have to take the
first step.
I want to remind my colleagues that this is a critical step. After we
take this critical step, we can do some other things. But I ask my
colleagues to please support the Rangel bill and challenge any notion
that it is going to be bad for people. It is not going to be
[[Page H5724]]
bad. There is only a 4 percent impact in the event this bill does
pass.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and I would like to
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership in
bringing this legislation to the floor.
As we approach this next century, it is appropriate for us to atone
for the mistakes and our failed commitment to adequately engage Africa
in this century. As we move forward in the next century, it is
important that we move legislation such as this which will allow us to
expand trade and economic opportunities for Africans and Americans
alike.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act would provide a foundation for
economic growth and employment in sub-Saharan Africa by encouraging
this economic engagement in expanded trade and investment. The African
Growth and Opportunity Act is win-win legislation. It is a win for
African nations struggling to move forward and integrate into the
global economy. It is a win for the African people, who will benefit
from the new jobs and economic growth that this legislation is certain
to bring to their region. And it is a win for U.S. businesses and
workers alike, who will benefit from a growing African economy and its
increased purchasing power.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important
legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this continent has a long
history with the continent of Africa, and invariably it has been one of
exploitation.
Generations ago, we used the African people, brought them to this
country and enslaved them. And even after emancipation was granted, we
continued to enslave them through a legal system that discriminated
against them. We continued to exploit them to subsidize our
agricultural economy. And then we used the African nations as
surrogates in our Cold War with Russia.
Well, now, today, because of the initiative of indigenous leaders on
the continent of Africa, we are finally saying, ``Look, you are on an
equal basis with us. We need you. You need us. Let us work together on
a level playing field.'' They have come into their own.
This should have happened generations ago, but we should not miss
this opportunity today. This legislation is not patronizing. It is not
exploitative. It is the right thing to do. Let us pass it unanimously.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in wholehearted support of H.R. 434, the African
Growth and Opportunity Act, a landmark piece of legislation that is
long overdue.
I also want to applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and all of the others who have worked so
hard through several Congresses to bring us to this day.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has come to the aid of many
countries, some of which have not made the strides in democracy we are
seeing in many parts of the African continent. Today, with very little
impact on jobs in the U.S., we can begin a process that has the
potential to turn Sub-Saharan Africa into a model of economic progress.
Through enacting this important piece of legislation, we will also see
a win for this country in terms of increased trade and, thus, more
jobs, not less, as the charts next to me support.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to strongly support amendments which will
address what would be a major obstacle to the success we envision
through H.R. 434, that of AIDS in Africa, a pandemic which is
destroying families and decimating the populations of many of the
countries we seek to help. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this
bill and ask my colleagues to join us in the effort to bring affordable
medication and health care to the people of Africa and the rest of the
world.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to thank publicly the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) for his out standing efforts in allowing us the
opportunity to offer some critique to the African Growth and
Opportunity Act.
I also want to make it very clear that many of my colleagues have
stood here and said that this is a first step for Africa. Many of us
have been trying to raise the bar in this Congress about what an
appropriate first step would be. Not just a first step, we need to take
``the step'', the step that frees Africa and allows Africa to be an
equal partner. We cannot do that if we use crushing debt as a basis for
negotiating more favorable terms for U.S. corporations to grease the
market for foreign investment in Sub-Saharan Africa without our
standards and our values. Not just our money, we must also export our
values in this particular instance.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I will attempt to conclude this discussion by saying I really think
this is one of the finest hours that we have had in the House.
We have had serious differences of opinion, but I think the
overwhelming thought is that it has been too long that we not recognize
the great potential of our great friends in the continent of Africa.
A lot has to be said about the leadership provided by the President
of the United States, but of course we also have to recognize that the
former Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, was one of the first to come
before the Ways and Means, under the leadership of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer) and the subcommittee chairman of that committee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
And together, in working with the committees headed by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the leadership that we have had on both
sides, working with the representatives of the African countries to be
affected, I do not really think that we have ever had a stronger
coalition to begin this gigantic first step to bring some equity in the
relationship that we would have with those that have been neglected
morally and economically.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends and colleagues for their support.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, let me also commend the leaders in this
fight: the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel);
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson); the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce); and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) for the work that they have done.
But I also wish to acknowledge, quickly again, the ambassadors from
Africa who are here, and with this chart demonstrate what they have
said what they want. The ambassador from Djibouti, who says we are
sovereign and we would like to continue to have the support of this
bill; and Mrs. Sisulu from South Africa, who said their country
supports the bill, even under the late president of the country. Our
good friend, Mr. Mandela, and Mrs. Ssempala from Uganda talked about
Africa is interested in doing business. This is what they have said.
So what I am saying, as I last week went to the funeral of Joshua
Nkomo, one of the freedom fighters in Zimbabwe, who fought against the
white regime of Ian Smith; and while I was in Zimbabwe people were
coming up and saying, we are glad finally to see this bill come. And I
remember the
[[Page H5725]]
freedom fighters of Jomo Kunyata, Patrice Lumumba and people who fought
many years ago, Julius Nyere, those men who fought for independence of
that great nation, of that great continent; and the new leaders today
of Thabo Mbeki and Mr. Chissano in Mozambique; and we can move on and
on through the continent.
As they were trying to get it moving forward, then came the Cold War,
and our policies destroyed many countries in Africa. Our policies were
based on U.S. policy towards Russia. So now, after 50 years of
independence, let us give African leaders an opportunity. Let us
remember W.E.B. DuBois, who was the first panAfricanist, and Dellums
and Diggs, or Gray and Dellums, who fought against apartheid, and the
late Congressman Diggs, the first chairman of the African committee;
and let us remember our friend, Mickey Leland, who lost his life saying
that we should feed the children.
So, finally, we are here. We have seen peace coming to Sierra Leon,
and Nigeria electing a new president, Eritrea finally coming to some
accord. We are seeing the fact that Africa now has the opportunity to
move forward with growth and development and opportunity. Yes, there
are many problems in the continent. We need clean water, we need to
eradicate the guinea worm and deal with river blindness, we need to
have inoculations, but we also need to have jobs for people.
This is the first step. And people criticize and ask why it is such a
little step. Everyone knows that a trip of a thousand miles has to
begin with the first step. Let us start that step; let us support the
bill.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
let me open by expressing my appreciation to all that have been
involved in the advancement of what to me is one of the more
significant pieces of legislation that we have had before this body in
quite some time.
I think, with regard to some of the arguments that we have heard on
the negative side, that there are a couple of points that need to be
stressed and perhaps put into a better perspective than we have heard
today. And this especially has to do with the question of transshipment
and the threat of transshipment. This bill has the strongest language
ever that we have had in any trade legislation to protect against
transshipment.
And I think it is important to recognize also that the U.S. Customs
Service has not found Africa to be a significant source of any
transshipment at all in all of our trade relations worldwide. And the
International Trade Commission examined Sub-Saharan Africa textile and
apparel production capacity and found that the elimination of tariffs
and quotas, as provided in this bill, would have a negligible effect on
the U.S. economy. Furthermore, the ITC estimated that African exports
would not grow over the next 10 years to account for more than 3
percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports.
The World Trade Organization agreement on textiles and apparels will
eliminate all textile quotas worldwide by the year 2005. The bill's
textile provisions are intended to provide Africa with a necessary
transition period to develop its textile and apparel sector and to
prepare for global competition. Without these provisions, Africa will
be left behind.
And Africa, in terms of our trade relations with that continent, has
been left behind. This bill is designed to terminate that and to open
up that door and that window and to create improved relations for not
just the people in the African continent, it improves conditions for
Americans, too. It is a win-win proposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
{time} 1245
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. CHAIRMAN, I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African
Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999. This important legislation would
encourage expanded trade and investment between American companies and
manufacturers in sub-Saharan Africa, while also providing a strong
foundation of economic growth and employment for some of the poorest
countries in the world.
This bipartisan legislation would make significant progress in
opening markets in key-sub-Saharan African countries. It will encourage
greater U.S. investment in Africa, resulting in new jobs for African
workers, and more jobs for U.S. workers and producers of goods and
services. The U.S. will benefit by helping to build a consumer market
for 700 million people. As African incomes increase, we will see a
dramatic increase in U.S. exports. Today, more than 100,000 Americans
are employed as a result of our trade with sub-Saharan Africa, and
eight states have exported more than a billion dollars worth of
products to sub-Saharan Africa over the last five years.
Enactment of the African Growth and Opportunity Act is important for
U.S. businesses to compete with the already established European
businesses in Africa. The U.S. has trade agreements with almost every
country in the world--Asia, Europe, Israel and Mexico. Our European
business competitors have long understood the importance of investment
in sub-Saharan Africa. During the 1990's, British and French
investments were 300 percent to 200 percent higher, respectively, than
U.S. investment in Africa.
The United States has an important interest in a stable and
prosperous Africa. This bill encourages African countries to continue
fundamental reform in return for greater trade benefits, while
providing protections for worker rights. As a result, this legislation
will bolster African democracies, increase political stability and
minimize the need for international humanitarian and disaster relief.
By encouraging reform, supporting investments and increasing
opportunity for trade, this legislation will stimulate the growth of
the African private sector. One of the important provisions of this
bill is the creation of OPIC-supported equity and investment funds to
assist African entrepreneurs develop private sector enterprises. These
funds will assist American companies seeking to establish a presence in
the region, which will lead to long-term U.S. exports to the region.
This bill is clearly not enough to rescue Africa's poorest countries.
We should go further by considering H.R. 1095, a bill which I have
cosponsored to accelerate debt relief for highly indebted poor
countries including those in sub-Saharan Africa. It is my hope the
House will do so soon as a compliment to this free trade bill. In fact,
few of these countries have the infrastructure to effectively compete
in the global economy. But these countries need some hope of moving
beyond aid dependency toward market-based economic development. This
can best be achieved by expanding trade and investment opportunities
for the nations in sub-Saharan Africa. This bill is a modest, but
important first step toward achieving the goal of full African
integration into the global economy, while assisting the U.S. to expand
and diversify our exports, create new jobs and continue the longest,
most stable growth period in our history.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and all those who have spent so much time moving
this historic legislation.
Let me also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and commend him
for the fine job he has done in doing that.
Let me just try to answer some of the concerns. As trade has
expanded, unemployment in the United States has gone down appreciably.
We have the highest employment numbers we have had in decades, and part
of this is because of the trade and engagement we have had. Our trade
exports to Africa have been going up by 8 percent a year. And yet, the
United States only has 4 percent of that market, only 4 percent of that
market.
This gives us an opportunity for win-win. It creates new jobs in the
United States, and it will create new jobs in sub-Saharan Africa. And
at the same time, it gives us tough language to combat illegal
transshipment, the strongest language that we have seen to date. If
there are violators, that country can be pulled out of the program and
those who do so are severely punished under this act, with severe
penalties.
In terms of Africa's sovereignty, that issue has been raised. Let me
reiterate that the African countries themselves, every one, supports
this bill. This bill limits eligible countries to those who
[[Page H5726]]
make progress with market-oriented economic reforms.
There is a human rights abuse screen that we have put in this bill,
and we took care of some of the labor concerns with the amendment
offered by the ranking member of the Committee on International
Relations.
Now, when it comes to China, if anything, this bill has the potential
of harming the Chinese textile industry, not helping it. Early this
year, Karen Fedorko executive vice president of MAST Industries,
testified to the Committee on Ways and Means that the bottom line is
that, under this bill, Africa would become significantly more
competitive and producers we currently work with in East Asia would
shift their orders away from Asian vendors and towards some of our new
contacts in Africa. Frankly, Africa's gain is China's loss under this
bill.
Let me reiterate. In many ways, Africa is in the balance. Without
efforts today to bring Africa into the world economy, without efforts
like the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Africa could become
permanently marginalized, Africans would suffer, and the American
people would not escape the consequences.
To reject this legislation is to say we do not have any room on the
economic map for Africa in the new century. I do not think my
colleagues want to go that way.
I ask for their support for this bipartisan legislation.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
434, the so-called African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Africa Trade Bill
I support the goals of this bill--to provide a foundation for a
strong democracy and to create economic development in Africa.
What cannot sanction, however, is legislation that promotes these
goals at the expense of African workers, the very sector of society
upon which future economic development rests.
At the very least, we must promote an economic foundation for Africa
which has as its cornerstone the provision of ample employment
opportunities for the indigenous citizens and permanent residents.
Unfortunately, this bill requires African countries to meet strict
IMF-style austerity measures in order to receive limited trade
benefits. Even after these conditions are met, there are few provisions
to ensure that African citizens actually benefit from the duty-free,
quota-free access to the U.S. market that the bill provides for garment
manufacturers. Only 20 percent of a garment's value would need to be
added in Africa.
Further, the bill would allow foreign contract workers to be exported
to Africa to make the trade-preferenced products.
My colleagues say that the bill's provisions are stringent enough,
that transshipment's not going to happen, that it is not possible, that
the ocean is too far.
Well, let me explain to my colleagues about the over $1 billion
garment industry in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--a
pacific island U.S. Territory that receives duty free, quota free
access to the U.S. market.
Chinese garment makers send to the U.S. duty free goods woven in
China cut in China, and assembled in the Northern Marianas by Chinese
workers. We see in the Northern Marianas a workforce that is totally
controlled, that is indentured, that is bonded, where the young women
are forced into abortions and into prostitution.
It is a simple matter for the Chinese to do the same thing in Africa,
because it is very clear why they would go there. In Africa, they can
get there under the U.S. quota.
Today, in the Northern Marianas, 98 percent of the private sector
jobs are held by foreign contract workers. Obviously, local workers in
the Northern Marianas aren't the true beneficiaries of access to the
U.S. market, just as the workers in Africa wouldn't benefit if this
bill passes.
H.R. 434 represents the failed status quo model of trade that rewards
multinational corporations but does little to protect workers or the
environment.
The bill would further accelerate the global race to the bottom with
corporations seeking locales where they can pollute at will and pay
workers pennies an hour.
Forutnately, there is an alternative, that my colleagues, Rep. Jesse
Jackson, Jr., has introduced. It contains many of the worker-protection
provisions I planned to offer--but was not allowed to offer--when this
bill was debated last year.
Rep. Jackson's bill, the HOPE for Africa Act, provides a new model
for trade that combines expanded trade with protections for workers an
the environment. HOPE for Africa aims to raise living standards, foster
capital accumulation in Africa, and prevent the types of abuses that
are rampant in the Northern Marianas.
In order to receive the bill's trade benefits, companies must employ
80% African workers, add 60% of a product's value in Africa, and be at
least 51% owned by African citizens. Labor and environmental standards
must be followed as well.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 434 as a failed model of the past
and to support Representative Jackson's vision for the future of trade.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, once again Congress demonstrates that it has
no fundamental understanding of free trade or the best interests of the
taxpayer. The Africa Growth & Opportunity Act is heavy-laden with the
Development Assistance (foreign aid), debt forgiveness (so much for the
balanced budget), OPIC expansion (thus putting the taxpayers further at
risk), and of course a new international regulatory board to be funded
with ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Additionally, the costs of this
bill are paid by raising taxes on charity. Free trade, Washington
style, is evidently not free for the taxpayer!
So what exactly is ``free trade'' and how far removed from this
principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade,
in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent
intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals
are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade
is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries,
economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which
governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of
protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic
industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention)
expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the
transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those out-
competed) from the exchange who might have benefitted by being a party
to it who can be relied upon to engage in some coercive activity to
prevent the transaction in the hopes that their trading position will
become more favorable by ``default.''
Because governments have for so long engaged in one variety of firm-
or-industry-benefitting protectionism or another, my ``trade free of
intervention'' definition of free trade is currently quite out of favor
with beltway-dominant pundits. Such wrongheaded thinking is not limited
to government. In academia, a widely-used undergraduate economics text,
authorized by David C. Colander, describes a ``free trade association''
as a ``group of countries that allows free trade among its members and
puts up common barriers against all other countries' goods''--thus here
we have free trade associations putting up barriers. (An economic
textbook only Orwell could love.)
An example of what now constitutes ``free trade'' Washington style
can be found within the US ENGAGE Congressional Scorecard. It is
insightful to consider what USA ENGAGE regards as pro-free trade
against the backdrop of the non-interventionist notion of free trade
outlined above.
China Most Favored Nation (MFN), while politically charged, is
perhaps the cleanest genuine free trade vote chosen by USA ENGAGE. The
question posed by this legislation is whether tariffs (taxes on U.S.
citizens purchasing goods imported from China) should be lower or
higher. In other words, when American and Chinese citizens engage in
voluntary exchanges, should Americans be taxed. Clearly the free trade
position here is not to raise taxes on Americans and interfere with
trade.
The Vietnam Waiver vote classification as a pro-free trade position
is particularly indicative, however, of what now constitutes free trade
in the alleged minds of the beltway elite. When government forces
through taxation, citizens to forego consumption of their own
choosing (in other words forego voluntary exchanges) so that government
can send money to foreign entities (i.e. trade promotion), this in the
mind of Washington insiders constitutes ``free trade.'' In other words,
when demand curves facing the corporate elite are less than those
desired, government's help is then enlisted to shift the demand curve
by forcing taxpayers to send money to various government and private
entities whose spending patterns more favorably reflect those desired
by those ``engineering'' such ``free trade'' policies in Washington.
Much like tax cuts being a ``cost to government'' and ``free trade
associations'' whose purpose it is to erect barriers, free trade has
become government-coerced, taxpayer-financed foreign aid designed to
result in specific private spending and private gains.
The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGE's Congressional
scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but
the free-trade arguments are most relevant and illustrative here. The
fast-track procedure
[[Page H5727]]
bill sets general international economic policy objectives, re-
authorizes ``Trade Adjustment Assistance'' welfare for workers who lose
their jobs and for businesses which fail (a gentler, kinder
``welfarist'' form of protectionism), and creates a new permanent
position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the
United States Trade Representative. Lastly, like today's legislative
mishap, the bill ``pays'' the government's ``cost'' of free trade by
increasing taxes on a set of taxpayers further removed from those
corporatists who hope to gain by engineering favorable international
trade agreements.
Constitutional questions aside, like today's H.R. 434, the fast track
bill contained provisions which would likely continue our country down
the ugly path of internationally-engineered, ``managed trade'' rather
than that of free trade. As explained by the late economist Murray N.
Rothbard, Ph.D.:
[Genuine free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its
deformed cousin, a `trade agreement'; NAFTA is called an
agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of
approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment
truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our
numerous tariff, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other
American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign
policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of ``free trade''
fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine
free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer
(each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective
of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big
business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider
exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in
general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. The
mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the
expense of all consumers--be they domestic or foreign.
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can
more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the
interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in
the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and
central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their
regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead
taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from
states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal
government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority
(like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the
socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the
super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced
low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average
or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of
``fairness,'' a ``level playing field,'' and ``upward harmonization,''
so too will the international trade governors and commissions be
empowered to ``upwardly harmonize,'' internationalize, and otherwise
usurp laws of American state governments.
The harmonization language in the last Congress' Food and Drug
Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization
language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary
negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to
unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill
removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police
powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same
time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review
medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be
made up of ``objective'' industry experts appointed by national
governments. Instead of the ``national'' variety, known as the
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the ``good reason'' of
protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates,
only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions
to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the
same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale
soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical
corporations.
The late economist Ludwig von Mises argued there is a choice of only
two economic systems--capitalism or socialism. Intervention, he would
say, always begets more interventionism to address the negative
consequences of the prior intervention: thus, necessarily leading to
yet further intervention until complete socialism is the only possible
outcome. This principle remains true even in the case of intervention
and free trade.
To the extent America is non-competitive, it is not because of a lack
of innovation, ingenuity, or work ethic. Rather, it is largely a
function of the overburdening of business and industry with excessive
taxation and regulation. Large corporations, of course, greatly favor
such regulation because it disadvantages their smaller competitors who
either are not in a position to maintain the regulatory compliance
department due to their limited size or, equally important, unable to
``capture'' the federal regulatory agencies whose regulation will be
written to favor the politically adept and disfavor the truly
productive. The rub comes when other governments engage in more laissez
faire approaches thus allowing firms operating within those
jurisdictions to become more competitive. It will be the products of
these less-taxed, less-regulated firms which will be the consumers'
only hope to maintain their standard of living in a climate of domestic
production burdened by regulation and taxation. The consumers' after-
tax income becomes lower and lower while relative prices of domestic
goods become higher and higher. Free trade which provides the poor
consumer an escape hatch, of course, is not the particular brand of
``free trade'' espoused by the international trade organizations whose
purpose it is to exclude the more efficient competitors internationally
in the same way federal regulatory agencies have been created and
captured to do the equivalent task domestically.
Until policy makers can learn enough about trade and voluntary
exchange to distinguish them from taxpayer-funded aid to bolster
corporate revenues, OPIC, Export-Import funding, Market Access Program,
and other forms of market intervention (each of which are quite the
opposite of genuine free trade), the free trade discussion will remain
at worst, a delusional discussion, and, at best, a hollow one.
For these reasons and others, I oppose the so-called free-trade-
enhancing Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment.
It has been a priority of mine and the rest of the Congressional
Black Caucus to bring some of the many resources of this country and of
the profits of our corporations to help fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS
in Africa.
In this regard I applaud my colleagues, Mrs. Jackson-Lee and also Mr.
Olver for their amendments. I would be remiss not to also recognize our
former distinguished colleague, Mr. Dellums for his leadership in this
arena.
Mr. Chairman, to date AIDS has killed more than 11 million people and
continues to infect over 22 million of our brothers and sisters in sub-
Saharan Africa. Millions of children are orphaned and countless
families are destroyed.
In supporting this amendment, and asking for its passage, I take this
opportunity to call on the administration, this Congress and our
corporations to not only reach for our better selves, but into our very
full pockets to help our fellow human beings who are in such great
need.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by
commending Mr. Olver for initiating this important and timely
amendment.
Africa is in crisis. The continent is home to one out of every ten
people on the planet. Yet more than eight out of every ten deaths from
AIDS have occurred in Africa. Health officials in Zimbabwe report over
3,000 AIDS deaths each week. This is a country that has a population
roughly the size of the State of Ohio. In Kenya, 200,000 people will
die from AIDS in 1999.
AIDS is destroying not only individual lives, but the social,
political and economic fabric of the nations of Africa. In Zambia, more
than half of the country's children have lost at least one parent to
AIDS. How will these children survive? Africans between the ages of 15
and 40 have the highest AIDS infection rate. Who will remain to support
Africa's families and grow Africa's economies? Right now, AIDS is
reported to be rampant in the militaries of Zimbabwe and other Southern
African countries. How will the political stability of Africa be
secured?
This crisis demands the attention of the United States Congress. As
we debate a bill that intends to strengthen our economic ties with the
African continent, this is the right time and the right place for us to
begin to think about the impact of AIDS on both the African people and
our mutual long term interests.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act requires a lot of African
countries. We need to hold up our end of the bargain. It is our
responsibility to shine a spotlight on the issue of AIDS in Africa and
to demonstrate our interest, not only in trade but in the long term
stability of the nations of Africa and the health of her people.
By making it a Sense of Congress that addressing the AIDS crisis be a
central component of our foreign policy in Africa; by recognizing the
importance of AIDS prevention and treatment to our long term trade
relationship with Africa; and by acknowledging that the African AIDS
crisis merits expanded efforts by both public and private institutions
as well as Congress to address the issue, this amendment represents an
important step.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver-
Pelosi-Foley Amendment to express the sense of Congress
[[Page H5728]]
that addressing the AIDS crisis in sub-Sahara Africa must be a central
component of U.S. foreign policy.
Throughout Africa, AIDS is destroying entire families and
communities. It is tearing apart the social, and economic foundations
of the continent.
In May, USA Today dedicated a series of articles focusing on the
human face of this devastation--outcast children, dying infants,
destroyed families. And the statistics alone are numbing. In all, 11.5
million people have died in sub-Saharan Africa since the disease
emerged in the early 1980's and 22.5 million now living with the HIV
virus are expected to die in the next ten years. By the end of 1997, at
least 7.8 million children in this area of Africa alone were left
orphans by the age of 14 due to AIDS.
This amendment addresses the tragedy and the urgency of this crisis
and affirms that addressing the HIV/AIDs epidemic must be a central
part of our foreign policy now and in the next century. We cannot
expect to make progress on economic development in Africa unless our
policies sufficiently address the catastrophe of AIDS. I strongly urge
my colleagues to vote for the Olver-Pelosi-Foley Amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, at this point, whether
U.S. intervention in helping to rebuild the economy of the African
continent is important is moot. Every thinking person recognizes the
historic significance of rebuilding Europe and Japan after World War
II. No one can or will dispute the prescience of the many plans
currently on the table to rebuild war torn Yugoslavia. During the
debate on NAFTA, member after member came down to the well of this body
and sang the praises of strengthening the economies of our neighbors to
our North and South.
The intentions behind H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity
Act are altruistic and well within the spirit of fostering growth and
development among our international neighbors in the emerging global
economy. However, as is the case in many situations, the road to hell
is paved with good intentions, and H.R. 434 is simply another
cobblestone on that ill-fated pathway.
This legislation is fraught with missteps and although it is heralded
as a new, innovative approach to bringing Africa, economically, onto a
level playing field in the twentieth century, it clearly builds on many
of the same blunders that have haunted U.S. trade policies in the past.
This bill has been called the ``African Recolonization Act,'' ``NAFTA
for Africa,'' and it is opposed by former South African President,
Nelson Mandela. President Mandela even went so far as to say, that the
bill is ``not acceptable to us.''
With all of these red flags waving around, how can Congress forge
ahead full speed with this legislation and with blatant disregard for
people of Africa and the additional Americans who will lose their jobs
as a result of this legislation? Jobs in the textile and apparel
industry have been hit especially hard by failed American trade
policies. Since 1981, almost 700,000 jobs in the textile and apparel
industry have been lost to foreign countries; 118,000 in the last 12
months alone.
The majority of these textile workers, who currently find themselves
unemployed are women and minorities. With that in mind, another
situation that confuses me about this debate is why so many women and
minority members have come down to the floor in support of this
legislation.
Africa is the cradle of human civilization--the birthplace for the
entire world. For too long we have allowed this continent to be raped
and plundered by the world's various interests, but finally the time
has come to help our shared motherland stand on her own feet. The
unfortunate truth about the time we have wasted debating this
legislation today is that it will not do any of the things that need to
be done in order to achieve the tasks so desperately needed to
revitalize Africa.
I challenge the members of this body to bring substantive legislation
to the floor that will seriously address the problems facing Africa and
restore the nobility and dignity of this magnificent continent.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, once again I have to vote against this bill
despite the fact that I support its premise. Just last year Congress
made almost the same mistakes on this important legislation that we are
making this year. The result of the mistakes the House of
Representatives made resulted in stalemate and the loss of an
opportunity to benefit the people of Africa.
I always prefer giving someone a hand up, rater than a hand-out. This
is the point of this legislation. However, as this bill is written, I
cannot vote for it. I will gladly vote for a motion to send it back to
the committee of jurisdiction to amend it, because I know that there
are simple ways for it to be improved.
It is important that we do what we can to help these desperately poor
nations develop economically. By helping them create industry and
develop into mature trading partners, we would like reduce the overall
need for direct foreign aid. The authors of this bill have chosen to
ignore the very real problem of trans-shipment of goods produced
outside Africa. There is ample evidence that certain countries and
companies around the world will exploit the ability to ship goods
through the Africa continent to avoid duties and quotas that they would
otherwise face. This is not fair, and I want to ensure that we address
the issue in a way that protects our industries and workers. Not only
is it unfair to our workers, it is unfair to the very countries this
bill hopes to assist. Their domestic industries would not develop if
other nations are using the provisions of this bill to circumvent
internationally recognized rules of fair trade.
I hope that the Senate will generate a similar bill--but take the
needed steps to safeguard the intent of the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this Bill, because, I
believe, we can help people abroad without hurting people at home.
This bill will hurt people at home.
I want to commend our colleagues who offer this legislation, for
seeking to provide economic growth and development in Sub-Saharan
Africa. I support that.
But, this Bill does not do that.
It is important to establish factories in Africa, to train its
workers, to initiate production there.
But, this Bill does not do that.
It is equally important to save factories in America, to retrain our
workers and to continue production here.
This Bill does not do that.
The economy in America is booming, but textile and apparel production
is slumping.
No other industry is suffering like the textile and apparel industry.
Some 700,000 jobs have been lost since 1981; 118,000 have been lost
in the past 12 months alone.
And, while this Bill could cause the further loss of jobs, it will
not result in the gain of jobs to Africa.
What it will do is make it easier and cheaper for other nations to
conduct illegal transshipments through Africa.
And, that will hurt Africa and hurt America.
Our colleague, Mr. Bishop, proposed perfecting language to this Bill,
but the Rule offered and passed does not permit its consideration.
Mr. Chairman, let's help workers in Africa.
But, in so doing, let's not hurt workers in America.
Oppose this Bill.
It has the right aim, but the wrong focus.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
misguided bill and ask for my friends and colleagues to really consider
what we are doing here. Once again I find myself having to protect my
cotton farmers and textile workers against trade policies that have
left many in my district with their heads spinning from the loss of
jobs.
I do support fostering economic development in Africa and crating an
economic partnership between those nations, but not at the expense of
American cotton farmers and textile workers. The textile and apparel
provisions of this bill will not promote jobs and economic growth in
Africa; they will instead promote massive transshipments from China
into this country. The bill will unnecessarily cost thousands of U.S.
jobs in the cotton and textile industries while providing limited
incentive for increased manufacturing capacity in the Sub-Saharan.
The bill, as is, opens the door for Asian textile and apparel
manufacturers to use Africa merely as an export platform for sending
their own textile and apparel products to the U.S. Incredibly, only 35
percent of the value must be added on the ground in Africa to qualify
for quota free and duty free access. That doesn't sound like its going
to benefit Africa, but China instead. When you remove tariffs on these
imported products, you exponentially increase the incentive for both
illegal and legal transshipment. Under this legislation, it would be
totally legal for the Chinese to use their own yarn, fabric and
possibly even imported Chinese labor to comply with 35 percent final
value threshold. Once again, good for China, bad for American workers
and Africa.
What makes me angry though is that we had a way of making this bill
acceptable for those who want to promote Africa's growth, and for those
of us who want to protect our textile workers and farmers, but that was
denied by the Rules Committee. This legislation will create a trade
policy that's going to hurt my cotton farmers and my textile workers so
the Chinese can import more goods through Africa into the U.S. I urge
all members to vote no on this misguided legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 434, the
African Growth and Opportunity Act. This measure is long overdue, and
will help strengthen the economies of the world's poorest continent.
This bill presents very little threat to American industries in the
short run, and holds a huge upside potential for American jobs and
profits to increase in the long run.
[[Page H5729]]
The most important part of this bill is that it will make a huge
difference for the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa by giving them
tariff reductions under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), as
long as they are cooperating with international labor and transshipment
standards.
At a time when military action is something to be avoided and there
are real questions about what economic assistance we should provide
around the world, this bill allows us to directly participate with and
help strengthen other countries through global trade. I believe it will
ultimately be the best long-term investment for the American taxpayer.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will for the first time
focus the attention of the U.S. government on a comprehensive trade
strategy towards Africa. We have neglected this continent too long only
to the benefit of their former European colonial powers. With the
anemic growth in our exports because of the economic crisis affecting
Asia, Russia, and Brazil, the U.S. needs to look at every possible
market opportunity to improve trade relations.
Many may be surprised to learn that U.S. exports to Africa have been
growing at a steady rate. Exports from Illinois to South Africa grew
from $269 million in 1995 to $413 million in 1998--a 54 percent
increase? Illinois exports more to South Africa than it does to Spain
or India.
The specific African trade picture for Rockford is even better.
Exports from Rockford to all of Africa more than doubled, going from
$2.9 million in 1995 to $6.2 million in 1997. Some of these exports
came from companies like Etnyree of Oregon, which sold asphalt making
equipment to the Ivory Coast and Kenya; Newell's International Division
in Rockford, which sold office and home products to Zimbabwe and South
Africa; Wahl Clipper of Sterling, which sold barbershop hair clippers
to South Africa and Nigeria; and Taylor of Rockton, which sold soft ice
cream machines to South Africa and Nigeria.
African trade also extends to McHenry County--RITA Chemical of
Woodstock sold industrial inorganic chemicals for the cosmetic industry
in South Africa and Motorola of Harvard, a manufacturer of cellular
phones that are used even in the remotest parts of Africa.
This represents the tip of the iceberg of what can happen if we build
better trade relationships with the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
All these companies agree that if there is a more active effort on the
part of the U.S. government to help develop and open the markets in
Africa, they would benefit through increased sales.
While this bill is not a cure-all for our trade deficit or for
solving all of Africa's problems, it represents one beginning step in
the right direction. It has the support of our exporting community. It
has the support of all--I repeat--all of the sub-Saharan African
countries. It's a win-win for all sides. I urge you to join them in
supporting this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, it shall be in order to consider the amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2489 as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule
which, without objection, is considered read.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2489
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 ``African Growth and
Opportunity Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that it is in the mutual economic
interest of the United States and sub-Saharan Africa to
promote stable and sustainable economic growth and
development in sub-Saharan Africa and that sustained economic
growth in sub-Saharan Africa depends in large measure upon
the development of a receptive environment for trade and
investment. To that end, the United States seeks to
facilitate market-led economic growth in, and thereby the
social and economic development of, the countries of sub-
Saharan Africa. In particular, the United States seeks to
assist sub-Saharan African countries, and the private sector
in those countries, to achieve economic self-reliance by--
(1) strengthening and expanding the private sector in sub-
Saharan Africa, especially women-owned businesses;
(2) encouraging increased trade and investment between the
United States and sub-Saharan Africa;
(3) reducing tariff and nontariff barriers and other trade
obstacles;
(4) expanding United States assistance to sub-Saharan
Africa's regional integration efforts;
(5) negotiating free trade areas;
(6) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade
and Investment Partnership;
(7) focusing on countries committed to accountable
government, economic reform, and the eradication of poverty;
(8) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa
Economic Cooperation Forum; and
(9) continuing to support development assistance for those
countries in sub-Saharan Africa attempting to build civil
societies.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
The Congress supports economic self-reliance for sub-
Saharan African countries, particularly those committed to--
(1) economic and political reform;
(2) market incentives and private sector growth;
(3) the eradication of poverty; and
(4) the importance of women to economic growth and
development.
SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--A sub-Saharan African country shall be
eligible to participate in programs, projects, or activities,
or receive assistance or other benefits under this Act if the
President determines that the country does not engage in
gross violations of internationally recognized human rights
and has established, or is making continual progress toward
establishing, a market-based economy, such as the
establishment and enforcement of appropriate policies
relating to--
(1) promoting free movement of goods and services between
the United States and sub-Saharan Africa and among countries
in sub-Saharan Africa;
(2) promoting the expansion of the production base and the
transformation of commodities and nontraditional products for
exports through joint venture projects between African and
foreign investors;
(3) trade issues, such as protection of intellectual
property rights, improvements in standards, testing, labeling
and certification, and government procurement;
(4) the protection of property rights, such as protection
against expropriation and a functioning and fair judicial
system;
(5) the protection of internationally recognized worker
rights, including the right of association, the right to
organize and bargain collectively, a prohibition on the use
of any form of forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for
the employment of children, and acceptable conditions of work
with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and
occupational safety and health;
(6) appropriate fiscal systems, such as reducing high
import and corporate taxes, controlling government
consumption, participation in bilateral investment treaties,
and the harmonization of such treaties to avoid double
taxation;
(7) foreign investment issues, such as the provision of
national treatment for foreign investors, removing
restrictions on investment, and other measures to create an
environment conducive to domestic and foreign investment;
(8) supporting the growth of regional markets within a free
trade area framework;
(9) governance issues, such as eliminating government
corruption, minimizing government intervention in the market
such as price controls and subsidies, and streamlining the
business license process;
(10) supporting the growth of the private sector, in
particular by promoting the emergence of a new generation of
African entrepreneurs;
(11) encouraging the private ownership of government-
controlled economic enterprises through divestiture programs;
and
(12) observing the rule of law, including equal protection
under the law and the right to due process and a fair trial.
(b) Additional Factors.--In determining whether a sub-
Saharan African country is eligible under subsection (a), the
President shall take into account the following factors:
(1) An expression by such country of its desire to be an
eligible country under subsection (a).
(2) The extent to which such country has made substantial
progress toward--
(A) reducing tariff levels;
(B) binding its tariffs in the World Trade Organization and
assuming meaningful binding obligations in other sectors of
trade; and
(C) eliminating nontariff barriers to trade.
(3) Whether such country, if not already a member of the
World Trade Organization, is actively pursuing membership in
that Organization.
(4) The extent to which such country has a recognizable
commitment to reducing poverty, increasing the availability
of health care and educational opportunities, the expansion
of physical infrastructure in a manner designed to maximize
accessibility, increased access to market and credit
facilities for small farmers and producers, and improved
economic opportunities for women as entrepreneurs and
employees, and promoting and enabling the formation of
capital to support the establishment and operation of micro-
enterprises.
(5) Whether or not such country engages in activities that
undermine United States national security or foreign policy
interests.
(c) Continuing Compliance.--
(1) Monitoring and review of certain countries.--The
President shall monitor and review the progress of sub-
Saharan African countries in order to determine their current
or potential eligibility under subsection (a). Such
determinations shall be based on quantitative factors to the
fullest extent possible and shall be included in the annual
report required by section 15.
(2) Ineligibility of certain countries.--A sub-Saharan
African country described in paragraph (1) that has not made
continual
[[Page H5730]]
progress in meeting the requirements with which it is not in
compliance shall be ineligible to participate in programs,
projects, or activities, or receive assistance or other
benefits, under this Act.
SEC. 5. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA TRADE AND ECONOMIC
COOPERATION FORUM.
(a) Declaration of Policy.--The President shall convene
annual high-level meetings between appropriate officials of
the United States Government and officials of the governments
of sub-Saharan African countries in order to foster close
economic ties between the United States and sub-Saharan
Africa.
(b) Establishment.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President, after consulting
with Congress and the governments concerned, shall establish
a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic
Cooperation Forum (hereafter in this section referred to as
the ``Forum'').
(c) Requirements.--In creating the Forum, the President
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The President shall direct the Secretary of Commerce,
the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and
the United States Trade Representative to host the first
annual meeting with the counterparts of such Secretaries from
the governments of sub-Saharan African countries eligible
under section 4, the Secretary General of the Organization of
African Unity, and government officials from other
appropriate countries in Africa, to discuss expanding trade
and investment relations between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa and the implementation of this Act including
encouraging joint ventures between small and large
businesses.
(2)(A) The President, in consultation with the Congress,
shall encourage United States nongovernmental organizations
to host annual meetings with nongovernmental organizations
from sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with the annual
meetings of the Forum for the purpose of discussing the
issues described in paragraph (1).
(B) The President, in consultation with the Congress, shall
encourage United States representatives of the private sector
to host annual meetings with representatives of the private
sector from sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with the annual
meetings of the Forum for the purpose of discussing the
issues described in paragraph (1).
(3) The President shall, to the extent practicable, meet
with the heads of governments of sub-Saharan African
countries eligible under section 4 not less than once every
two years for the purpose of discussing the issues described
in paragraph (1). The first such meeting should take place
not later than twelve months after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(d) Dissemination of Information by USIA.--In order to
assist in carrying out the purposes of the Forum, the United
States Information Agency shall disseminate regularly,
through multiple media, economic information in support of
the free market economic reforms described in this Act.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(f) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
authorized under this section may be used to create or
support any nongovernmental organization for the purpose of
expanding or facilitating trade between the United States and
sub-Saharan Africa.
SEC. 6. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA FREE TRADE AREA.
(a) Declaration of Policy.--The Congress declares that a
United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Free Trade Area should be
established, or free trade agreements should be entered into,
in order to serve as the catalyst for increasing trade
between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa and
increasing private sector development in sub-Saharan Africa.
(b) Plan Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The President, taking into account the
provisions of the treaty establishing the African Economic
Community and the willingness of the governments of sub-
Saharan African countries to engage in negotiations to enter
into free trade agreements, shall develop a plan for the
purpose of entering into one or more trade agreements with
sub-Saharan African countries eligible under section 4 in
order to establish a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Free
Trade Area (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Free Trade Area'').
(2) Elements of plan.--The plan shall include the
following:
(A) The specific objectives of the United States with
respect to the establishment of the Free Trade Area and a
suggested timetable for achieving those objectives.
(B) The benefits to both the United States and sub-Saharan
Africa with respect to the Free Trade Area.
(C) A mutually agreed-upon timetable for establishing the
Free Trade Area.
(D) The implications for and the role of regional and sub-
regional organizations in sub-Saharan Africa with respect to
the Free Trade Area.
(E) Subject matter anticipated to be covered by the
agreement for establishing the Free Trade Area and United
States laws, programs, and policies, as well as the laws of
participating eligible African countries and existing
bilateral and multilateral and economic cooperation and trade
agreements, that may be affected by the agreement or
agreements.
(F) Procedures to ensure the following:
(i) Adequate consultation with the Congress and the private
sector during the negotiation of the agreement or agreements
for establishing the Free Trade Area.
(ii) Consultation with the Congress regarding all matters
relating to implementation of the agreement or agreements.
(iii) Approval by the Congress of the agreement or
agreements.
(iv) Adequate consultations with the relevant African
governments and African regional and subregional
intergovernmental organizations during the negotiations of
the agreement or agreements.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 12 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
prepare and transmit to the Congress a report containing the
plan developed pursuant to subsection (b).
SEC. 7. ELIMINATING TRADE BARRIERS AND ENCOURAGING EXPORTS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The lack of competitiveness of sub-Saharan Africa in
the global market, especially in the manufacturing sector,
make it a limited threat to market disruption and no threat
to United States jobs.
(2) Annual textile and apparel exports to the United States
from sub-Saharan Africa represent less than 1 percent of all
textile and apparel exports to the United States, which
totaled $54,001,863,000 in 1997.
(3) Sub-Saharan Africa has limited textile manufacturing
capacity. During 1999 and the succeeding 4 years, this
limited capacity to manufacture textiles and apparel is
projected to grow at a modest rate. Given this limited
capacity to export textiles and apparel, it will be very
difficult for these exports from sub-Saharan Africa, during
1999 and the succeeding 9 years, to exceed 3 percent annually
of total imports of textile and apparel to the United States.
If these exports from sub-Saharan Africa remain around 3
percent of total imports, they will not represent a threat to
United States workers, consumers, or manufacturers.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) it would be to the mutual benefit of the countries in
sub-Saharan Africa and the United States to ensure that the
commitments of the World Trade Organization and associated
agreements are faithfully implemented in each of the member
countries, so as to lay the groundwork for sustained growth
in textile and apparel exports and trade under agreed rules
and disciplines;
(2) reform of trade policies in sub-Saharan Africa with the
objective of removing structural impediments to trade,
consistent with obligations under the World Trade
Organization, can assist the countries of the region in
achieving greater and greater diversification of textile and
apparel export commodities and products and export markets;
and
(3) the President should support textile and apparel trade
reform in sub-Saharan Africa by, among other measures,
providing technical assistance, sharing of information to
expand basic knowledge of how to trade with the United
States, and encouraging business-to-business contacts with
the region.
(c) Treatment of Quotas.--
(1) Kenya and mauritius.--Pursuant to the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing, the United States shall eliminate the
existing quotas on textile and apparel exports to the United
States--
(A) from Kenya within 30 days after that country adopts an
efficient visa system to guard against unlawful transshipment
of textile and apparel goods and the use of counterfeit
documents; and
(B) from Mauritius within 30 days after that country adopts
such a visa system.
The Customs Service shall provide the necessary technical
assistance to Kenya and Mauritius in the development and
implementation of those visa systems.
(2) Other sub-saharan countries.--The President shall
continue the existing no quota policy for countries in sub-
Saharan Africa. The President shall submit to the Congress,
not later than March 31 of each year, a report on the growth
in textiles and apparel exports to the United States from
countries in sub-Saharan Africa in order to protect United
States consumers, workers, and textile manufacturers from
economic injury on account of the no quota policy.
(d) Customs Procedures and Enforcement.--
(1) Actions by countries against transshipment and
circumvention.--The President should ensure that any country
in sub-Saharan Africa that intends to export textile and
apparel goods to the United States--
(A) has in place a functioning and effective visa system
and domestic laws and enforcement procedures to guard against
unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel goods and the
use of counterfeit documents; and
(B) will cooperate fully with the United States to address
and take action necessary to prevent circumvention, as
provided in Article 5 of the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing.
(2) Penalties against exporters.--If the President
determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter
has willfully falsified information regarding the country of
origin, manufacture, processing, or assembly of a textile or
apparel article for which duty-free treatment under section
503(a)(1)(C) of the Trade Act of 1974 is claimed, then the
President shall deny to such exporter, and
[[Page H5731]]
any successors of such exporter, for a period of 2 years,
duty-free treatment under such section for textile and
apparel articles.
(3) Applicability of united states laws and procedures.--
All provisions of the laws, regulations, and procedures of
the United States relating to the denial of entry of articles
or penalties against individuals or entities for engaging in
illegal transshipment, fraud, or other violations of the
customs laws shall apply to imports from Sub-Saharan
countries.
(4) Monitoring and reports to congress.--The Customs
Service shall monitor and the Commissioner of Customs shall
submit to the Congress, not later than March 31 of each year,
a report on the effectiveness of the visa systems described
in subsection (c)(1) and paragraph (1) of this subsection and
on measures taken by countries in Sub-Saharan Africa which
export textiles or apparel to the United States to prevent
circumvention as described in Article 5 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing.
(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
SEC. 8. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.
(a) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
Section 503(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--The
President may provide duty-free treatment for any article set
forth in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) that is the growth,
product, or manufacture of an eligible country in sub-Saharan
Africa that is a beneficiary developing country, if, after
receiving the advice of the International Trade Commission in
accordance with subsection (e), the President determines that
such article is not import-sensitive in the context of
imports from eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This
subparagraph shall not affect the designation of eligible
articles under subparagraph (B).''.
(b) Rules of Origin.--Section 503(a)(2) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--For
purposes of determining the percentage referred to in
subparagraph (A) in the case of an article of an eligible
country in sub-Saharan Africa that is a beneficiary
developing country--
``(i) if the cost or value of materials produced in the
customs territory of the United States is included with
respect to that article, an amount not to exceed 15 percent
of the appraised value of the article at the time it is
entered that is attributed to such United States cost or
value may be applied toward determining the percentage
referred to in subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) the cost or value of the materials included with
respect to that article that are produced in any beneficiary
developing country that is an eligible country in sub-Saharan
Africa shall be applied in determining such percentage.''.
(c) Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation.--Section
503(c)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(c)(2)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Least-developed beneficiary developing countries and
eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any least-developed beneficiary developing
country or any eligible country in sub-Saharan Africa.''.
(d) Extension of Program.--Section 505 of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 505. DATE OF TERMINATION.
``(a) Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.--No duty-free
treatment provided under this title shall remain in effect
after June 30, 2009, with respect to beneficiary developing
countries that are eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
``(b) Other Countries.--No duty-free treatment provided
under this title shall remain in effect after June 30, 1999,
with respect to beneficiary developing countries other than
those provided for in subsection (a).''.
(e) Definition.--Section 507 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2467) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Eligible country in sub-saharan africa.--The terms
`eligible country in sub-Saharan Africa' and `eligible
countries in sub-Saharan Africa' mean a country or countries
that the President has determined to be eligible under
section 4 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on July 1, 1999.
SEC. 9. INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEBT
REDUCTION.
(a) Better Mechanisms To Further Goals for Sub-Saharan
Africa.--It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary
of the Treasury should instruct the United States Executive
Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the African
Development Bank to use the voice and votes of the Executive
Directors to encourage vigorously their respective
institutions to develop enhanced mechanisms which further the
following goals in eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa:
(1) Strengthening and expanding the private sector,
especially among women-owned businesses.
(2) Reducing tariffs, nontariff barriers, and other trade
obstacles, and increasing economic integration.
(3) Supporting countries committed to accountable
government, economic reform, the eradication of poverty, and
the building of civil societies.
(4) Supporting deep debt reduction at the earliest possible
date with the greatest amount of relief for eligible poorest
countries under the ``Heavily Indebted Poor Countries''
(HIPC) debt initiative.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that relief provided to countries in sub-Saharan Africa which
qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt
initiative should primarily be made through grants rather
than through extended-term debt, and that interim relief or
interim financing should be provided for eligible countries
that establish a strong record of macroeconomic reform.
SEC. 10. EXECUTIVE BRANCH INITIATIVES.
(a) Statement of Congress.--The Congress recognizes that
the stated policy of the executive branch in 1997, the
``Partnership for Growth and Opportunity in Africa''
initiative, is a step toward the establishment of a
comprehensive trade and development policy for sub-Saharan
Africa. It is the sense of the Congress that this Partnership
is a companion to the policy goals set forth in this Act.
(b) Technical Assistance To Promote Economic Reforms and
Development.--In addition to continuing bilateral and
multilateral economic and development assistance, the
President shall target technical assistance toward--
(1) developing relationships between United States firms
and firms in sub-Saharan Africa through a variety of business
associations and networks;
(2) providing assistance to the governments of sub-Saharan
African countries to--
(A) liberalize trade and promote exports;
(B) bring their legal regimes into compliance with the
standards of the World Trade Organization in conjunction with
membership in that Organization;
(C) make financial and fiscal reforms; and
(D) promote greater agribusiness linkages;
(3) addressing such critical agricultural policy issues as
market liberalization, agricultural export development, and
agribusiness investment in processing and transporting
agricultural commodities;
(4) increasing the number of reverse trade missions to
growth-oriented countries in sub-Saharan Africa;
(5) increasing trade in services; and
(6) encouraging greater sub-Saharan participation in future
negotiations in the World Trade Organization on services and
making further commitments in their schedules to the General
Agreement on Trade in Services in order to encourage the
removal of tariff and nontariff barriers.
SEC. 11. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.
(a) Initiation of Funds.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation should
exercise the authorities it has to initiate an equity fund or
equity funds in support of projects in the countries in sub-
Saharan Africa, in addition to the existing equity fund for
sub-Saharan Africa created by the Corporation.
(b) Structure and Types of Funds.--
(1) Structure.--Each fund initiated under subsection (a)
should be structured as a partnership managed by professional
private sector fund managers and monitored on a continuing
basis by the Corporation.
(2) Capitalization.--Each fund should be capitalized with a
combination of private equity capital, which is not
guaranteed by the Corporation, and debt for which the
Corporation provides guaranties.
(3) Infrastructure fund.--One or more of the funds, with
combined assets of up to $500,000,000, should be used in
support of infrastructure projects in countries of sub-
Saharan Africa.
(4) Emphasis.--The Corporation shall ensure that the funds
are used to provide support in particular to women
entrepreneurs and to innovative investments that expand
opportunities for women and maximize employment opportunities
for poor individuals.
SEC. 12. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND EXPORT-
IMPORT BANK INITIATIVES.
(a) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--
(1) Advisory committee.--Section 233 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Advisory Committee.--The Board shall take prompt
measures to increase the loan, guarantee, and insurance
programs, and financial commitments, of the Corporation in
sub-Saharan Africa, including through the use of an advisory
committee to assist the Board in developing and implementing
policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to
sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the advisory committee shall
make recommendations to the Board on how the Corporation can
facilitate greater support by the United States for trade and
investment with and in sub-Saharan Africa. The advisory
committee shall terminate 4 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection.''.
(2) Reports to the congress.--Within 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually for each of
the 4 years thereafter, the Board of Directors of the
[[Page H5732]]
Overseas Private Investment Corporation shall submit to the
Congress a report on the steps that the Board has taken to
implement section 233(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (as added by paragraph (1)) and any recommendations of
the advisory board established pursuant to such section.
(b) Export-Import Bank.--
(1) Advisory committee for sub-saharan africa.--Section
2(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b))
is amended by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13)(A) The Board of Directors of the Bank shall take
prompt measures, consistent with the credit standards
otherwise required by law, to promote the expansion of the
Bank's financial commitments in sub-Saharan Africa under the
loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the Bank.
``(B)(i) The Board of Directors shall establish and use an
advisory committee to advise the Board of Directors on the
development and implementation of policies and programs
designed to support the expansion described in subparagraph
(A).
``(ii) The advisory committee shall make recommendations to
the Board of Directors on how the Bank can facilitate greater
support by United States commercial banks for trade with sub-
Saharan Africa.
``(iii) The advisory committee shall terminate 4 years
after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
(2) Reports to the congress.--Within 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually for each of
the 4 years thereafter, the Board of Directors of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States shall submit to the Congress
a report on the steps that the Board has taken to implement
section 2(b)(13)(B) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (as
added by paragraph (1)) and any recommendations of the
advisory committee established pursuant to such section.
SEC. 13. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the position of Assistant United States Trade
Representative for African Affairs is integral to the United
States commitment to increasing United States--sub-Saharan
African trade and investment.
(b) Maintenance of Position.--The President shall maintain
a position of Assistant United States Trade Representative
for African Affairs within the Office of the United States
Trade Representative to direct and coordinate interagency
activities on United States-Africa trade policy and
investment matters and serve as--
(1) a primary point of contact in the executive branch for
those persons engaged in trade between the United States and
sub-Saharan Africa; and
(2) the chief advisor to the United States Trade
Representative on issues of trade with Africa.
(c) Funding and Staff.--The President shall ensure that the
Assistant United States Trade Representative for African
Affairs has adequate funding and staff to carry out the
duties described in subsection (b), subject to the
availability of appropriations.
SEC. 14. EXPANSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN
COMMERCIAL SERVICE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and Foreign Commercial Service
(hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Commercial
Service'') plays an important role in helping United States
businesses identify export opportunities and develop reliable
sources of information on commercial prospects in foreign
countries.
(2) During the 1980s, the presence of the Commercial
Service in sub-Saharan Africa consisted of 14 professionals
providing services in eight countries. By early 1997, that
presence had been reduced by half to seven, in only four
countries.
(3) Since 1997, the Department of Commerce has slowly begun
to increase the presence of the Commercial Service in sub-
Saharan Africa, adding five full-time officers to established
posts.
(4) Although the Commercial Service Officers in these
countries have regional responsibilities, this kind of
coverage does not adequately service the needs of United
States businesses attempting to do business in sub-Saharan
Africa.
(5) The Congress has, on several occasions, encouraged the
Commercial Service to focus its resources and efforts in
countries or regions in Europe or Asia to promote greater
United States export activity in those markets.
(6) Because market information is not widely available in
many sub-Saharan African countries, the presence of
additional Commercial Service Officers and resources can play
a significant role in assisting United States businesses in
markets in those countries.
(b) Appointments.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, by not later than December 31, 2000, the
Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary
of Commerce and Director General of the United States and
Foreign Commercial Service, shall take steps to ensure that--
(1) at least 20 full-time Commercial Service employees are
stationed in sub-Saharan Africa; and
(2) full-time Commercial Service employees are stationed in
not less than ten different sub-Saharan African countries.
(c) Commercial Service Initiative for Sub-Saharan Africa.--
In order to encourage the export of United States goods and
services to sub-Saharan African countries, the Commercial
Service shall make a special effort to--
(1) identify United States goods and services which are not
being exported to sub-Saharan African countries but which are
being exported to those countries by competitor nations;
(2) identify, where appropriate, trade barriers and
noncompetitive actions, including violations of intellectual
property rights, that are preventing or hindering sales of
United States goods and services to, or the operation of
United States companies in, sub-Saharan Africa;
(3) present, periodically, a list of the goods and services
identified under paragraph (1), and any trade barriers or
noncompetitive actions identified under paragraph (2), to
appropriate authorities in sub-Saharan African countries with
a view to securing increased market access for United States
exporters of goods and services;
(4) facilitate the entrance by United States businesses
into the markets identified under paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(5) monitor and evaluate the results of efforts to increase
the sales of goods and services in such markets.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter
for five years, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall report to the Congress on
actions taken to carry out subsections (b) and (c). Each
report shall specify--
(1) in what countries full-time Commercial Service Officers
are stationed, and the number of such officers placed in each
such country;
(2) the effectiveness of the presence of the additional
Commercial Service Officers in increasing United States
exports to sub-Saharan African countries; and
(3) the specific actions taken by Commercial Service
Officers, both in sub-Saharan African countries and in the
United States, to carry out subsection (c), including
identifying a list of targeted export sectors and countries.
SEC. 15. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
The President shall submit to the Congress, not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not
later than the end of each of the next 6 1-year periods
thereafter, a comprehensive report on the trade and
investment policy of the United States for sub-Saharan
Africa, and on the implementation of this Act. The last
report required by section 134(b) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3554(b)) shall be consolidated and
submitted with the first report required by this section.
SEC. 16. DONATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT TO
ELIGIBLE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
It is the sense of the Congress that, to the extent
appropriate, the United States Government should make every
effort to donate to governments of sub-Saharan African
countries (determined to be eligible under section 4 of this
Act) air traffic control equipment that is no longer in use,
including appropriate related reimbursable technical
assistance.
SEC. 17. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES AND INCREASED FLEXIBILITY TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT FUND
FOR AFRICA.
(a) Use of Sustainable Development Assistance To Support
Further Economic Growth.--It is the sense of the Congress
that sustained economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa depends
in large measure upon the development of a receptive
environment for trade and investment, and that to achieve
this objective the United States Agency for International
Development should continue to support programs which help to
create this environment. Investments in human resources,
development, and implementation of free market policies,
including policies to liberalize agricultural markets and
improve food security, and the support for the rule of law
and democratic governance should continue to be encouraged
and enhanced on a bilateral and regional basis.
(b) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress makes the
following declarations:
(1) The Development Fund for Africa established under
chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2293 et seq.) has been an effective tool in
providing development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa since
1988.
(2) The Development Fund for Africa will complement the
other provisions of this Act and lay a foundation for
increased trade and investment opportunities between the
United States and sub-Saharan Africa.
(3) Assistance provided through the Development Fund for
Africa will continue to support programs and activities that
promote the long term economic development of sub-Saharan
Africa, such as programs and activities relating to the
following:
(A) Strengthening primary and vocational education systems,
especially the acquisition of middle-level technical skills
for operating modern private businesses and the introduction
of college level business education, including the study of
international business, finance, and stock exchanges.
(B) Strengthening health care systems.
(C) Supporting democratization, good governance and civil
society and conflict resolution efforts.
[[Page H5733]]
(D) Increasing food security by promoting the expansion of
agricultural and agriculture-based industrial production and
productivity and increasing real incomes for poor
individuals.
(E) Promoting an enabling environment for private sector-
led growth through sustained economic reform, privatization
programs, and market-led economic activities.
(F) Promoting decentralization and local participation in
the development process, especially linking the rural
production sectors and the industrial and market centers
throughout Africa.
(G) Increasing the technical and managerial capacity of
sub-Saharan African individuals to manage the economy of sub-
Saharan Africa.
(H) Ensuring sustainable economic growth through
environmental protection.
(4) The African Development Foundation has a unique
congressional mandate to empower the poor to participate
fully in development and to increase opportunities for
gainful employment, poverty alleviation, and more equitable
income distribution in sub-Saharan Africa. The African
Development Foundation has worked successfully to enhance the
role of women as agents of change, strengthen the informal
sector with an emphasis on supporting micro and small sized
enterprises, indigenous technologies, and mobilizing local
financing. The African Development Foundation should develop
and implement strategies for promoting participation in the
socioeconomic development process of grassroots and informal
sector groups such as nongovernmental organizations,
cooperatives, artisans, and traders into the programs and
initiatives established under this Act.
(c) Additional Authorities.--
(1) In general.--Section 496(h) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2293(h)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Democratization and conflict resolution
capabilities.--Assistance under this section may also include
program assistance--
``(A) to promote democratization, good governance, and
strong civil societies in sub-Saharan Africa; and
``(B) to strengthen conflict resolution capabilities of
governmental, intergovernmental, and nongovernmental entities
in sub-Saharan
Africa.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 496(h)(4) of such Act,
as amended by paragraph (1), is further amended by striking
``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''.
SEC. 18. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the terms ``sub-Saharan Africa'',
``sub-Saharan African country'', ``country in sub-Saharan
Africa'', and ``countries in sub-Saharan Africa'' refer to
the following or any successor political entities:
Republic of Angola (Angola)
Republic of Botswana (Botswana)
Republic of Burundi (Burundi)
Republic of Cape Verde (Cape Verde)
Republic of Chad (Chad)
Democratic Republic of Congo
Republic of the Congo (Congo)
Republic of Djibouti (Djibouti)
State of Eritrea (Eritrea)
Gabonese Republic (Gabon)
Republic of Ghana (Ghana)
Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Guinea-Bissau)
Kingdom of Lesotho (Lesotho)
Republic of Madagascar (Madagascar)
Republic of Mali (Mali)
Republic of Mauritius (Mauritius)
Republic of Namibia (Namibia)
Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria)
Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome and
Principe)
Republic of Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone)
Somalia
Kingdom of Swaziland (Swaziland)
Republic of Togo (Togo)
Republic of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)
Republic of Benin (Benin)
Burkina Faso (Burkina)
Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon)
Central African Republic
Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros (Comoros)
Republic of Cote d'Ivoire (Cote d'Ivoire)
Republic of Equatorial Guinea (Equatorial Guinea)
Ethiopia
Republic of the Gambia (Gambia)
Republic of Guinea (Guinea)
Republic of Kenya (Kenya)
Republic of Liberia (Liberia)
Republic of Malawi (Malawi)
Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania)
Republic of Mozambique (Mozambique)
Republic of Niger (Niger)
Republic of Rwanda (Rwanda)
Republic of Senegal (Senegal)
Republic of Seychelles (Seychelles)
Republic of South Africa (South Africa)
Republic of Sudan (Sudan)
United Republic of Tanzania (Tanzania)
Republic of Uganda (Uganda)
Republic of Zambia (Zambia)
SEC. 19. LIMITATION ON USE OF NON-ACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.
(a) In General.--Section 448(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for services) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``in fields described in paragraph
(2)(A)'' after ``services by such person'', and
(2) by inserting ``certain personal'' before ``services''
in the heading.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
over a period (not greater than 4 taxable years) beginning
with such first taxable year.
SEC. 20. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN VACCINES AGAINST STREPTOCOCCUS
PNEUMONIAE TO LIST OF TAXABLE VACCINES.
(a) In General.--Section 4132(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining taxable vaccine) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(L) Any conjugate vaccine against streptococcus
pneumoniae.''
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) Sales.--The amendment made by this section shall apply
to vaccine sales beginning on the day after the date on which
the Centers for Disease Control makes a final recommendation
for routine administration to children of any conjugate
vaccine against streptococcus pneumoniae.
(2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in the case
of sales on or before the date described in such paragraph
for which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date
shall be considered the sale date.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall prepare and submit a report to the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate on the operation of the
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund and on the adequacy of
such Fund to meet future claims made under the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except
those printed in House Report 106-236. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 106-236.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 3, line 5, strike ``and''.
Page 3, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 3, after line 8, add the following:
(10) encouraging the establishment and development of small
businesses in sub-Saharan Africa and encouraging trade
between United States small businesses and these newly-
established small businesses in sub-Saharan Africa.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
[[Page H5734]]
Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of economic activity in Africa comes
from small entrepreneurs. I just wanted to express my support for the
thoughtful amendment offered by the gentlewoman because it recognizes
that fact and encourages trade between small businesses.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that small businesses are the backbone of
America. As we hold up a map of the United States, I am very proud to
say that we are noting that 15 States export at least $100 million or
did export it in sub-Saharan Africa in 1998. But if we look at this
colorful map, we will see that America does business with sub-Saharan
Africa.
What I want to have happen today is a vote on an amendment that says
small businesses will do business with sub-Saharan Africa and, as our
amendment said, to encourage the creation and development of small
businesses in sub-Saharan Africa for them to likewise do business with
our business community. The language is an attempt to eliminate, or at
least minimize, the intimidation that typically goes along with the
business of international trade.
Succinctly, the bill helps gun-shy businesses make overseas ventures
that will grow our economy well into the next millennium. This
amendment will assist in our ensuring that all viable businesses may
access the tremendous trade opportunity created by this bill.
Specifically, it will target small businesses that up until now have
little incentive to go abroad in their search for steady streams of
income.
Mr. Chairman, what it says to all the advocates of this bill is that
we have an extra responsibility with the larger corporate community to
insist on the participation of the small businesses; we have the
responsibility to promote in the Department of Commerce the Ron Brown
Center in South Africa that works very hard to put American businesses
together with African businesses. This amendment is to emphasize that
importance.
For those unconvinced that small businesses drive our economy, I
would like to share with them some statistics. Small businesses in the
United States represent 99.7 percent of all employers, a truly dramatic
number. Fifty-three percent of the private workforce in the United
States is employed by small business.
For those unwilling to concede that small businesses must play a role
in our trade overseas, please take note that small businesses represent
fully 96 percent of all exporters.
Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand about 10 pages that show how many
different cities do business with sub-Saharan Africa: Gary, Indiana;
Green Bay, Wisconsin; Harrisburg, Lebanon, Carlysle, Pennsylvania;
Hickory, Morgantown, North Carolina; Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas;
Jackson, Mississippi; Kansas City, Missouri; Knoxville, Tennessee.
Incorporated in all these cities, of course, are small businesses.
There are a great number of Africans that want to help themselves. I
have met with them. I have met with the ambassador core. I have seen
the small businesses in Africa. They are ready and waiting. I have seen
the flour packing factory. I have seen the fish packing factory. These
employees in Africa want to work, and more of them want to access
capital to ensure that they can provide and have the opportunity to
construct their businesses.
Small businesses in the United States are a principal source of our
new domestic jobs. I want to see small businesses in sub-Saharan Africa
being the principal source of jobs as well in sub-Saharan Africa.
Small firms hire a larger proportion of employees who are younger
workers, older workers, women workers; and that is what we expect in
sub-Saharan Africa with the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Let me also acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that OPIC is committed to
helping small business. OPIC has indicated that 1999 is the year of
small businesses at OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
This represents dollars for small businesses.
With that, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I hope my colleagues will
vote for this amendment. How can we turn our backs on small businesses
when we are opening the opportunity and the doors for trade with
Africa?
Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 434, the
African Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999. This amendment encourages
and recognizes the need for U.S. and African small business
opportunities and investments in Sub-Saharan Africa through the
mechanisms provided by the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
H.R. 434 is embedded with clearly written language in an effort to
restore stability and promote trade between the United States and Sub-
Saharan Africa. That language is an attempt to eliminate, or at least
minimize, the intimidation that typically goes along with the business
of international trade. Succinctly said, the bill helps gun-shy
businesses make overseas ventures that will grow our economy well into
the next millennium.
This amendment will assist in our ensuring that all viable businesses
may access the tremendous trade opportunities created by this bill.
Specifically, it targets small businesses that up until now, have had
little incentive to go abroad in their search for steady streams of
income. As a result, the amendment ensures that the gains brought about
by this bill are spread generously to all segments of our economy--and
the economy of Sub-Saharan Africa as well.
For those unconvinced that small business drives our economy, I would
like to share with you some statistics. Small businesses in the United
States represent 99.7 percent of all employers--a truly dramatic
number. Fifty-three (53) percent of the private work force in the U.S.
is employed by small business. For those unwilling to concede that
small businesses must play a role in our trade overseas, please take
note that small businesses represent fully 96 percent of all U.S.
exporters. Furthermore, I have little doubt that our encouragement of
the development and enhancement of African small businesses can yield
similar economic statistics within Sub-Sahara Africa. They need that
growth, and frankly, so do we if we are to expand and diversify our
economy.
There are a great number of Africans that want to help themselves,
and we would be remiss if they would be locked-out of the benefits of
increased trade with the United States. Countries like Botswana,
Nigeria and South Africa have experienced a great deal of success
fostering small businesses within their bounds, and they do so partly
because it benefits their economy. In light of this fact, we must
realize that the best way to assist these countries is to encourage
them to continue with these successful practices.
The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act must make clear: our U.S. small
businesses are welcomed and indeed encouraged to participate in trade
with Africa--and specifically, in trade with South African small
businesses.
Small businesses in the United States are our principal source of new
domestic jobs. Because there are approximately 23 million small
businesses in the U.S. they are able to provide virtually all of the
new jobs added to the economy. In 1997, the U.S. economy created nearly
3 million new jobs. Six our of ten of the industries adding those new
jobs were small business dominated industries. Being an integral part
of the African trade relationship will ensure small businesses continue
to play a vital role in the economics of the United States.
Small firms hire a larger proportion of employees who are younger
workers, older workers, women or workers who prefer to work part time.
They provide nearly 55 percent of the innovations that drive our
economy. These businesses are an asset to our country, and we cannot
leave them out of the fold with this bill!
It makes good business sense to ensure that our small businesses have
no doubt that they are welcomed and encouraged to seek the
opportunities created by the African Growth and Opportunity Act. They
must take advantage of the provisions giving them access to the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). They must know about
lowered tariffs on goods. These are things to be taken advantage of for
the betterment of our economy, let us make sure that everyone,
therefore, can take advantage of them.
This amendment is but a start, I will admit. And we must follow up on
this issue if we are to ensure that our goal will be achieved. We must
ask the Department of Commerce to emphasize and utilize the newly
opened Ron Brown Investment Center located in Johannesburg, South
Africa.
We must ask trade associations that represent small businesses to
establish and encourage foreign investment through use of this bill.
Those associations should additionally assist and provide technical
assistance for those small businesses that seek the aid of OPIC, the
Department of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration so that
they can enter into ventures overseas easily and successfully.
I truly believe that we will be making history today. Let us make
sure that when that history
[[Page H5735]]
is reviewed, that small businesses can be found in the main body of the
text, and not in a footnote. I therefore respectfully urge you to vote
aye on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
in opposition to the amendment, although I support it.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will
control the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It will encourage the
development of small business in Africa. It reiterates what this bill
is trying to accomplish by promoting trade and investment.
I have had the opportunity to travel to Africa with the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). We together had the opportunity to see
small businesses across the continent at work. Small businesses in
Africa are thriving. And we are building partnerships with small
businesses in the United States. And this bill, improved with this
amendment, will advance these goals.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), a very distinguished member of
the Committee on International Relations.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed that some U.S.
corporations trading in Africa have blood on their hands.
On May 27, a group of Nigerian citizens filed an action against
Chevron in a U.S. District Court. They accuse Chevron of assisting
Nigerian security forces to commit murder, injure protesters, and
ransack and burn villages of the indigenous Nigerians. These protesters
were objecting to the destruction of their environment and the
plundering of their resources.
Unfortunately, evidence gathered by a number of highly respected
international human rights and environmental groups support these
claims.
These types of allegations are a part of a growing list of crimes
being committed against the underprivileged peoples of the world.
The most serious offenders are the giant oil companies who are hungry
to take advantage of the rich oil and mineral resources in Africa.
Incredibly, these corporations now deny responsibility for their
actions.
Our corporations should be required to conduct themselves according
to a strict corporate code of conduct that ensures our U.S.
corporations become good corporate citizens of the world.
I support this amendment because it encourages the development of
small business opportunity in Africa and, therefore, protects Africa
from the bad elements of corporate America.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me the time.
Let me say that I think that small business, whether it is here or
abroad, is really the wave of the future. In this Nation, small
business comprises 85 percent of employment in this country.
Most of the new jobs created today are small business. Whether they
are high-tech, whether they deal with intellectual properties, most of
these are done with small businesses. And so, in order to move this
Nation, this continent, forward in the area of entrepreneurship, small
business is where it ought to be.
We also should support the micro-economics, some of the very, very
small businesses that women in Africa are in charge of. Women are the
main driving force in many villages, as they are the barterers and they
are the deal makers. And so, it is keenly important that we not only
connect small business people on the Continent of Africa but in this
Nation of small business people, minority women, minority-owned
businesses.
I think this is a great connection. I think that the Continent of
Africa is looking for partnerships or looking for people to work as
equals together.
I believe that the historic 12-day, 6-country tour that President
Clinton made last year sent a message that the U.S. is ready to stand
up, stand forward to create the climate that is necessary to see this
continent finally in the new millennium take its rightful place in the
world.
I am very encouraged by this amendment. I think we should all urge
the House to adopt this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, on the small
business amendment.
{time} 1300
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to publicly
thank the gentlewoman from Texas for all of the work that she has done
for the people on the continent of Africa as well as to improve the
economy of those of us in the United States of America. She not only
has worked hard in the committee and in the subcommittees to make
certain that small businesses were the beneficiaries but she has
actually gone around the world, especially on the continent, to get a
better understanding of the problems and then be able to come forth
with the solution to those problems. She has gained the support and the
friendship of the people of both sides of the aisle. She is to be
congratulated. I support the amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and ask unanimous consent that
she be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to
congratulate the outstanding leadership that the gentlewoman from Texas
is providing for not only the women here in America but for the women
of Africa. It is so important that we have the nexus between the
businesses here and businesses in Africa. We recognize that women make
up the majority of businesses, especially microenterprises in Africa,
and it is indeed important that we begin to move the agenda for those
women so that they can provide the type of support for their families.
I am excited to be here as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Empowerment of the Committee on Small Business to support this
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. First let me thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Africa of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me the
time.
I want to remind those individuals who have listened to this debate,
my colleagues, that we would not let this bill proceed without
embracing the backbone of America. As I indicated, 99.7 percent of the
new jobs and jobs created in America in this very good economy have
been created by small businesses. I think it is important to note that
there is not one State in the United States that does not have a
coloration to indicate that they are not doing business in Africa. I
think it is also important when we begin to analyze this bill that we
see Africa in multicolors. It would almost be like taking a portrait
that our very esteemed African-American artist John Biggers paints, he
paints with a lot of colors, going in and looking at the painting and
saying, ``It looks like there is all blue.''
We realize that there is poverty in Africa, that there is need for
education, health care, running water and electricity. When we speak to
the heads of government, they are prepared to engage internationally to
secure those particular needs of their people. Why can we not as we
recognize how much we do with Africa provide the forum and the vehicle
for not only the large corporations but our small businesses? I hope
that the large corporations, I hope that OPIC, the Department of
Commerce, the Small Business Administration, are listening. Just for
information, let me note that OPIC has a small business advocacy team,
a small business hotline, a web page, how-to materials only for small
businesses to do business in Africa.
[[Page H5736]]
I believe that if we really pay attention to what is going on, we
will see the numbers of pages of the many cities throughout America
that are reflected in this map that shows that there is not one country
left out. Let us not take a second step to Europe. I would ask that we
pass this amendment and support the idea of small businesses having a
piece of the pie of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 106-236.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
Page 24, strike line 13 and all that follows through line
18 on page 25 and insert the following:
SEC. 11. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA EQUITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS.
(a) Initiation of Funds.--The Overseas Private Investment
Corporation shall, not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, exercise the authorities it has to
initiate 1 or more equity funds in support of projects in the
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in addition to any existing
equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the
Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Structure and Types of Funds.--
(1) Structure.--Each fund initiated under subsection (a)
shall be structured as a partnership managed by professional
private sector fund managers and monitored on a continuing
basis by the Corporation.
(2) Capitalization.--Each fund shall be capitalized with a
combination of private equity capital, which is not
guaranteed by the Corporation, and debt for which the
Corporation provides guaranties.
(3) Types of funds.--One or more of the funds, with
combined assets of up to $500,000,000, shall be used in
support of infrastructure projects in countries of sub-
Saharan Africa, including basic health services (including
AIDS prevention and treatment), including hospitals, potable
water, sanitation, schools, electrification of rural areas,
and publicly-accessible transportation in sub-Saharan African
countries.
(c) Additional Requirements.--The Corporation shall ensure
that--
(1) not less than 70 percent of trade financing and
investment insurance provided through the equity funds
established under subsection (a), and through any existing
equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the
Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act, are
allocated to small, women- and minority-owned businesses--
(A) of which not less than 60 percent of the ownership is
comprised of citizens of sub-Saharan African countries and 40
percent of the ownership is comprised of citizens of the
United States; and
(B) that have assets of not more than $1,000,000; and
(2) not less than 50 percent of the funds allocated to
energy projects are used for renewal or alternative energy
projects.
Page 25, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 6
on page 28 and insert the following:
SEC. 12. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND EXPORT-
IMPORT BANK INITIATIVES.
(a) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--Section 233
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(e) Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Board shall establish and work
with an advisory committee to assist the Board in developing
and implementing policies, programs, and financial
instruments with respect to sub-Saharan Africa, including
with respect to equity and infrastructure funds established
under section 11 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The advisory committee established under
paragraph (1) shall consist of 15 members, of which 7 members
shall be employees of the United States Government and 8
members shall be representatives of the private sector.
``(B) Appointment.--The members of the advisory committee
shall be appointed as follows:
``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives
of the private sector and 1 member who is an employee of the
United States Government.
``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are
employees of the United States Government.
``(C) Additional requirements.--Of the 8 members of
advisory committee who are representatives of the private
sector--
``(i) at least 4 members shall be representatives of not-
for-profit public interest organizations;
``(ii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in development issues;
``(iii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in human rights issues;
``(iv) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in environmental issues; and
``(v) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an
organization with expertise in international labor rights.
``(D) Terms.--Each member of the advisory committee shall
be appointed for a term of 2 years.
``(3) Meetings.--
``(A) Open to public.--Meetings of the advisory committee
shall be open to the public.
``(B) Advance notice.--The advisory committee shall provide
advance notice in the Federal Register of any meeting of the
committee, shall provide notice of all proposals or projects
to be considered by the committee at the meeting, and shall
solicit written comments from the public relating to such
proposals or projects.
``(C) Decisions.--Any decision of the advisory committee
relating to a proposal or project shall be published in the
Federal Register with an explanation of the extent to which
the committee considered public comments received with
respect to the proposal or project, if any.
``(4) Environmental impact assessments.--The Corporation
shall carry out environmental impact assessments with respect
to any proposal or project not later than 120 days before the
advisory committee, or the Board, considers such proposal or
project, whichever occurs earlier.''.
(b) Export-Import Bank Initiative.--Section 2(b)(9) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(9)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(9) For purposes of the funds allocated by the Bank for
projects in countries in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in
section 17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act):
``(A) The Bank shall establish an advisory committee to
work with and assist the Board in developing and implementing
policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to
such countries.
``(B) The members of the advisory committee shall be
appointed as follows:
``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives
of the private sector and 1 member who is an officer or
employee of the Federal Government.
``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are
officers or employees of the Federal Government.
``(C)(i) At least half of the members of the advisory
committee who are representatives of the private sector shall
be representatives of not-for-profit public interest
organizations.
``(ii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall be a representative of an organization with expertise
in development issues.
``(iii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall be a representative of an organization with expertise
in human rights.
``(iv) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall be a representative of an organization with expertise
in environmental issues.
``(v) At least 1 of such private sector representatives
shall have expertise in international labor rights.
``(D) Each member of the advisory committee shall serve for
a term of 2 years.
``(E)(i) Members of the advisory committee who are
representatives of the private sector shall not receive
compensation by reason of their service on the advisory
committee.
``(ii) Members of the advisory committee who are officers
or employees of the Federal Government may not receive
additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their
service on the advisory committee.
``(F) Meetings of the advisory committee shall be open to
the public.
``(G) The advisory committee shall give timely advance
notice of each meeting of the advisory committee, including a
description of any matters to be considered at the meeting,
shall establish a public docket, shall solicit written
comments in advance on each proposal, and shall make each
decision in writing with an explanation of disposition of the
public comments.
``(H) The Bank shall complete and release to the public an
environmental impact assessment with respect to a proposal or
project with potential environmental effects, not later than
120 days before the advisory committee, or the Board,
considers the proposal or project, whichever occurs earlier.
``(I) Section 14(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act shall not apply to the advisory committee.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H5737]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, one of the primary barriers to investment in Africa is
the lack of physical infrastructure; unnavigable roads, lack of
electricity and no access to hospitals. These are just some of the
examples of underdevelopment that make Africa less welcoming to
investors. Support for investment projects in Africa must grapple with
these fundamental barriers.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act includes Overseas Private
Investment Corporation financing in the amount of $500 million for
projects in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there is no guarantee that
this money will be used for projects that improve the standard of
living for Africans in ways such as increased access to education,
health care facilities, potable water and sanitation services. There is
also no guarantee that African firms themselves will benefit from the
financing. The fact that the gentlewoman from Texas had to offer an
amendment for small firms is a good indication of where the present
emphasis of the bill is left out and who is not included.
I, therefore, offer this amendment to improve the OPIC provisions in
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It authorizes the same amount
for OPIC funds, $500 million, but ensures that this financing benefits
partnerships. The amendment would also target the financing and
insurance to small firms. Multinational corporations do not need
another handout. This amendment would make OPIC relevant to smaller
firms in the U.S. and Africa that really need the investment support.
The amendment would also ensure that projects supported by OPIC
respect the environment and the local community. In the past, foreign
investment in Africa has often led to development projects that drive
people off their land and destroy the environment and the livelihoods
of local residents. The African Growth and Opportunity Act should shoot
higher for Africa. Infrastructure should be targeted for existing
initiatives aimed at increasing citizens' access to schools, hospitals,
electricity and potable water. This amendment will thus change the
structure of OPIC and Export-Import Bank advisory boards to make OPIC
funding accountable to these goals. The advisory boards will include
experts in human rights, the environment, labor rights and development
issues. This oversight will increase the likelihood that U.S. support
for investment overseas will contribute to overall development
objectives, facilitate business development in Africa, be responsive to
local communities and respect the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his
concern for enhancing the infrastructure for sub-Saharan Africa, but I
do regret that I must oppose his amendment. It would impose
unrealistic, unworkable requirements on the OPIC investment fund that
would be the centerpiece of U.S. efforts to help the African private
sector and would encourage free market economies.
This amendment imposes specific quotas for U.S.-led investment and
restrictions on the types of investment. It would prevent African
entrepreneurs from making their own decisions about how best to utilize
the investment encouraged by H.R. 434.
In addition, the Jackson amendment imposes additional, burdensome
requirements on the creation of new advisory panels to OPIC and to the
Export-Import Bank. The Congress and our Committee on International
Relations as well as other committees already have adequate tools for
proper oversight of these institutions. The proposed additional
requirements would ultimately reduce their proven effectiveness.
Although I do not question the good intentions of the gentleman from
Illinois in presenting this amendment, I must vigorously oppose its
passage and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson
amendment which promotes small business development and protects
affirmative action by providing that 70 percent of trade financing and
investment insurance provided by OPIC be allocated to small women and
minority-owned businesses having at least 60 percent African ownership.
This amendment would ensure that, at the very least, a majority of our
OPIC funds in Africa would be used for the benefit of the African
people.
I commend the gentleman for this amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson
amendment because it is unrealistic in the light of how OPIC funds work
and in the light of what we are trying to do here with this $500
million infrastructure fund.
The expectation is that there will be large amounts of investments,
perhaps $35 million each at a minimum, to invest in telecommunications,
in banking, in transport infrastructure, in large infrastructure
projects. There is no reason to tie the hands of these private fund
managers as they try and bring Africa to the global economy in these
areas which require huge investments. Frankly, the $500 million
investment figure for this fund is fairly modest considering the
investment needs of Africa and the lack of investment capital flowing
into the country. So to say that this must be undertaken by small
businesses only and undertaken by minority businesses only is to put
Africa at a disadvantage in trying to develop its economy.
In so many cases the gentleman from Illinois has said that the bill
is too modest and understates its promises to Africa. In this case his
amendment is too modest. It takes into account things that cannot work
in Africa because they are too small-minded to work under the situation
where we are looking for capital investment in major investment
projects, in infrastructure. It limits the Africans too much. I really
think that he has not thought it through well enough. I therefore
oppose the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield,
can he can respond to any provision in the bill that specifically
facilitates with economic incentives small business investment or
participation in partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa?
Mr. JEFFERSON. OPIC itself as the gentlewoman from Texas just talked
about at some great length is focused on small business investment and
development. It has not done that before. It is focused on it now to a
great extent. The bill calls for women-owned businesses to be enhanced.
In fact, that is where most of the empowerment provisions are. So I do
not think that is a problem.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman is referring to sense of
Congress provisions in the bill that have no binding implication.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is really where the rubber hits the
road. Whenever we talk about real dollars and real investment,
everybody can find reasons why it cannot be done. A sense of Congress
is not an amendment. It is not something that has any teeth. We tried
on this bill before as we wished to have done in the Committee on Rules
to have some substantive amendments that would ensure that there would
be business opportunities not only for Africans but for those small
businesspersons who want to couple with Africans as we move forward to
trade.
Here as we look at this amendment and we talk about and direct ways
by which we can help the infrastructure and AIDS, not a sense of
Congress on AIDS but real money that could be
[[Page H5738]]
used to deal with AIDS, again we find reasons why it cannot be done.
I want to tell my colleagues, no matter what happens with this bill,
I want the same Members, particularly on that side of the aisle, to
help me make aid for Africa a line item in the budget of the United
States of America and increase the aid to Africa that they care so much
about.
I rise in support of this amendment and I think everybody should
support it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on
Tax, Finance, and Exports.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson
amendment propounded by my good friend from Illinois. The problem with
the Jackson amendment is that it does not understand or address the
true nature of what OPIC is. OPIC is not foreign aid. It is not
government money. It is American money as to which there is a
guarantee, and insurance premiums are paid for that guarantee. That is
the very nature of it.
{time} 1315
Mr. Chairman, because it is private money, if we have all the strings
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) wants to attach to it,
we will not have any investors, and therefore the very countries in
Africa that Mr. Jackson is trying to help, he will end up hindering.
Now what does it do on small businesses? In Illinois, for example, in
the district I represent there is Ed Myers, there is Wall Clipper
Sterling, there is Taylor of Rockton, Rita Chemicals of McHenry. These
are all small to medium sized companies in Illinois that are being
directly impacted by OPIC guarantees to Africa, and I would encourage
the Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Jackson amendment.
While well-intended, it imposes a quota system on OPIC projects in
Africa.
Seventy percent of the investments made by OPIC's Africa fund must go
to small, women- and minority-owned businesses. In addition, 60 percent
of such investments must go to businesses owned by Africans. Finally,
all such businesses must not have assets greater than $1 million.
In the opinion of OPIC, it is impossible to dictate ownership
requirements on a privately managed fund. It would also be impossible
to raise $500 million in capital for a fund that makes investments in
companies with no more than $1 million in assets.
If the Jackson quota amendment is adopted, there will be no private
sector interest in OPIC's Africa fund. Without private sector
partnership, this amendment simply means: no new U.S. jobs, no new U.S.
exports to Africa, no new African jobs and expose OPIC and the taxpayer
to potential lawsuits.
Support the underlying bill that encourages the existing OPIC Africa
development fund that will: create 1,000 U.S. jobs, increase U.S.
exports to Africa by $500 million over five years, create 9,700 Africa
jobs; and operate at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
Defeat the Jackson amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as
I might consume.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 40
seconds.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the biggest criticism of the
Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is
that overwhelmingly these loans, as well as the insurance that is
provided by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation only goes to
very large multi national conglomerates in the United States. The
Jackson amendment specifically makes it possible for Ex-Im to lend
money to small businesses under $1 million and ensures the minority
part of a partnership with Overseas Private Investment Corporation
funds in order of establishment of a partnership between sub-Saharan
Africans and Americans might indeed be initiated, and so the use of Ex-
Im and OPIC in this particular instance is appropriate.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to add that I did because I find it
somewhat humorous that the many amendments that I offered, the only
amendment that I offered to this was accepted was this particular
amendment, and I received a letter early this morning as well as a
phone call.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. May I have an additional 15 seconds? This is
actually in support of the gentleman's point.
The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for
an additional 15 seconds on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15
seconds.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I received a letter very early
this morning from the Vice President of Congressional Affairs at the
Export-Import Bank who indicated in her letter that Ex-Im Bank is
officially opposed to the Jackson amendment, and I just take great
umbrage with that particular letter because the Vice President of
Congressional Affairs just happens to be my wife, Sandy, and so when I
go home this evening as a result of the vote on this amendment, one
Jackson is going to be extremely proud and one is going to be extremely
sad.
So I want all of my colleagues to know they will not disappoint me
one way or the other.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)
has expired, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to comment on the
amendment of my friend, and I much admire him, and I do not like to get
in between him and his wife, but his wife, I think, is right on this
one, and let me express why.
When I was in the foreign aid agency in the Carter years, an
assistant administrator, we wrestled with this issue of how to make
real these, not these, but the AID projects in Africa and other places
and not have them simply go for a lot of infrastructure that was
unrelated to the basic needs of the people in the country, and I think
that is what the gentleman from Illinois is trying to say here. The
problem is that the way OPIC is structured this would not work, and
also I think, and we need to work on this, is restructure these
amendments. We have to be sure that we are not taking away the
prerogatives of the country in whose domain the project is.
Now a lot of these infrastructure projects that are insured through
OPIC have to get the permits, the approvals, in one form or another
from within the country, and I think the impact of the gentleman's
amendment really is for us to dictate further than we want to what
African nations think is something useful for themselves.
Also, these 40 percent, and I will not call them quotas; I think what
the gentleman is trying to do is to get it down to the grass roots. I
think it is a good purpose, but with these stringent numbers and
percentages I think we are going to tie up investments the gentleman
would not. So I think the better course is not to pass this amendment,
but to work together to try to make sure OPIC funds go where they
should.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 106-236.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 38, after line 7, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 18. ASSISTANCE FROM UNITED STATES PRIVATE SECTOR TO
PREVENT AND REDUCE HIV/AIDS IN SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA.
It is the sense of the Congress that United States
businesses should be encouraged to
[[Page H5739]]
provide assistance to sub-Saharan African countries to
prevent and reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan
Africa. In providing such assistance, United States
businesses should be encourage to consider the establishment
of an HIV/AIDS Response Fund in order to provide for
coordination among such businesses in the collection and
distribution of the assistance to sub-Saharan African
countries.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I started out in debate earlier this morning
acknowledging how much I appreciated the fact that we are debating
Africa on the floor of the House in the context of what Africa has to
offer and what it has to offer its people, in particular, sub-Sahara
Africa, and I might just draw the attention of my colleagues to the
face of Africa, a young child, young and bright and energetic and ready
to be educated, to have potable water, to have electricity, to be able
to have access to capitol, to grow up and to be able to be part of a
thriving economy in the 48 States, 48 nations, that comprise sub-Sahara
Africa.
But juxtaposed against that face is a startling number, that by the
start of 1998 8.2 million children had lost their mothers to AIDS, and
many had lost their fathers as well, more than 9 out of 10 children
often by AIDS or in sub-Sahara Africa where the burden of care is
straining extended families and communities to breaking point in many
places.
We must declare a war on HIV AIDS.
I am very delighted to have had the opportunity to join the esteemed
Member from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the esteemed Member/colleague
from California (Ms. Lee) on a presidential mission solely dedicated to
studying and determining what we could do about HIV AIDS in sub-Sahara
Africa.
This amendment does as much as I believe in a trade bill we can
stretch on the question of HIV AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, I have said I am a supporter of debt relief, the E-8 is
a supporter of debt relief. We hope the IMF will come to its senses and
be a supporter of debt relief because we cannot take the money that is
being used to subsidize to bring down or to service debt and not be
able to shift it to more important resources and needs.
But this amendment speaks to the African Growth and Opportunity Act
for what it is, a trade bill with major multi nationals who will be
engaged in trade in Africa, and it calls upon the establishment of a
HIV response fund, the collaboration of resources with the multi
nationals to be able to shift those particular resources over to the
need for fighting AIDS. This is an HIV AIDS response which will allow
moneys from creditors to be able to use along with the corporate
community. In particular this is dealing with the corporate community
to supplement or to be able to utilize for prevention and treatment and
other desires of the sovereign nation as it relates to treating HIV
AIDS.
It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we can team up with
already the leadership in sub-Sahara Africa on the question of HIV
AIDS. We can team up with Uganda, team up with Zimbabwe, we can work
with South Africa and Zambia, and now we know we can work even more
because the New York Times has said we have found a $4 treatment for
AIDS that can be given to the woman to prevent the transmission of such
to the child.
We have a light at the end of the tunnel, and I would hope my
colleagues would support this amendment for what it is. It is an
acknowledgment and a recognition that we can do more than just talk
about AIDS, but we can begin to put the structures in place to take
private sector dollars to help us with a response fund that will fight
fight fight and win the war against AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 434, the
African Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999. This amendment expresses
the sense of Congress that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is a threat to the
success of this trade bill and that there must be a concerted effort in
order to properly and sufficiently address this threat.
My amendment encourages U.S. business to assist sub-Saharan Africa
with the HIV/AIDS problem and consider the establishment of a HIV/AIDS
Response Fund to coordinate and fund those assistance efforts.
HIV/AIDS is a global problem touching virtually every country and
every family around the world. More than 95 percent of the people with
HIV live in the developing world. It is estimated that by the year
2020, HIV/AIDS will be responsible for 37 percent of all adult deaths
form infectious diseases in the developing world.
There are 33 million cases of HIV/AIDS infections worldwide. Of
those, over 22 million of them or 66 percent, occur in sub-Saharan
Africa. As we debate trade and economic development for Africa, we must
acknowledge the fact that unless there are serious efforts to contain
the AIDS epidemic, and to reduce the number of those newly infected in
Africa, the development goals we seek for Sub-Saharan Africa will not
and cannot become reality.
AIDS is wiping out decades of progress on a variety of development
fronts in sub-Saharan Africa. In Tanzania, the World Bank predicts that
its gross national product (GNP) will be 15 to 25 percent lower as a
result of AIDS. South Africa alone estimates that AIDS will cost the
country 1 percent of its GNP each year.
Professionals are being particularly hard hit in Sub-Saharan Africa
as 34 percent of those with post-secondary education having been
diagnosed as HIV positive. As a comparison, those holding elementary-
level educations comprise but 18 percent of the HIV infected
population.
Business entities, critical to a successful trade policy, also are
witnesses to the devastation of HIV/AIDS. Uganda Railways has lost
5,600 employees to AIDS and has a labor turn over rate of 15 percent
annually, simply due to AIDS. Barclay Bank is now hiring two employees
for every one skilled job, assuming that one of those employees will
die of AIDS.
Economic growth can not happen without human resources. The sub-
Saharan workforce is being quietly eroded due to the rapid spread of
HIV/AIDS and its crippling effects. In 1994, the Indeni Petroleum
Refinery in Zambia spent more on AIDS-related costs than it declared in
profits. A study in South Africa found that at current levels of
benefits per employee, the total costs of benefits would rise from 7
percent of salaries in 1995 to 19 percent by 2005, once again, simply
due to AIDS.
HIV/AIDS is now threatening development gains that local and donor
governments, citizens, NGOs and international agencies have worked for
decades to achieve. By the year 2010, life expectancy in some sub-
Saharan countries could decrease by 30 years or more. True economic
development can not survive such a statistic.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act is a bill designed to quickly
bring sub-Saharan Africa into the global marketplace. U.S. business
will be primary benefactors of the rewards from this bill. However,
HIV/AIDS, if not handled correctly, will be an unexpected barrier to
growth and opportunity. U.S. business must be encouraged to recognize
the problem and join us in addressing it.
We have federal agencies now addressing the HIV/AIDS issue
internationally. The Department of State, Agency for International
Development, U.S. Information Agency, the U.S. Peace Corps, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Department of
Commerce, and the Defense Department each has addressed a component of
the HIV/AIDS problems of sub-Saharan Africa. But they cannot do it
alone.
There are some corporate and international efforts to tackle this
problem. They are good efforts. But we need our business community to
also recognize this issue and join us as partner in the war on HIV/AIDS
in sub-Saharan Africa. They must realize that they cannot gain the full
benefit of this bill unless Africa is strong.
We need those corporations who will benefit the most from the passage
of this bill to ante up. Corporations like Chevron, Mobil, Bank of
America, Oracle, SBC Communications, Eastman Kodak, Ford and Boeing--
all of whom support the passage of this bill, to do something for the
benefit of those upon whose shoulders they will find growth. I would,
like my amendment denotes, encourage them, together, to establish a
Reponse Fund. I would encourage them to work with African authorities
to educate their workforce and their children about the dangers of HIV.
Simply said, the onus of the responsibility should be on those who
will bear the fruit of this bill. Corporate America--I call you by
[[Page H5740]]
name. McDonalds, Motorola, Enron, General Electric--we need you to band
together, to use your resources to cement Africa's greatest resource,
it's people. Many corporate groups interested in this bill, like the
Constituency for Africa and the Africa Trade Council, list HIV/AIDS as
one of their top agenda items. That is encouraging, but we want more
than a list. We want a response--a Response Fund.
Mr. Chairman, we have before us a tremendous opportunity to work with
the private sector to harvest immediate and substantial resources to
aid those who are fighting HIV or AIDS. Let us not waste it. Let us
pass this amendment. I ask you each for your support on this issue, and
for your support in passing this Act.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following news article for printing in the
Record:
[From the New York Times, July 15, 1999]
New Means Found for Reducing H.I.V. Passed to Child
(By Lawrence K. Altman)
In an advancement that promises to significantly reduce the
incidence of AIDS in children in developing countries,
American and Ugandan scientists have found a simple new way
to prevent mother-to child transmission of the AIDS virus
that also is less costly and markedly more effective than the
standard therapy in the third world.
The more practical therapy comes from substituting one
marketed drug, nevirapine, for the standard drug, AZT. The
cost for the two doses of nevirapine was $4, compared with
$268 for the AZT regimen now used in developing countries and
$815 for the much longer and more complicated course used in
the United States and other developed countries, Federal
health officials said in releasing the finding yesterday.
The new treatment calls for both a mother and her infant to
take nevirapine just one time--a mother takes a pill once
during labor, and her baby is fed the drug as a syrup once
during the first three days of life.
Nevirapine, a drug used in combination ``cocktail''
treatments, has been marketed since 1996 in the United States
for treatment of H.I.V., the AIDS virus, and it was
remarkably safe in the study that was conducted by American
and Ugandan researchers. As babies reached 3 months of age,
nevirapine had cut the risk of mother-to-child transmission
of H.I.V. to 13 percent from the 25 percent for the standard
course of AZT in developing countries, or a reduction of 47
percent, United States and Ugandan health officials said.
Monitoring will continue for 18 months to determine adverse
effects that might show up later in infancy. The monitoring
will also help to determine how many babies will still become
infected through breast-feeding in the first months of life,
when such transmission is highest.
H.I.V. can be transmitted during pregnancy or during
delivery when bleeding occurs. Nevirapine is believed to be
able to block transmission of H.I.V. during the delivery, and
further studies will be needed to determine if transmission
can be stopped during breast-feeding.
Nevirapine targets the same enzyme in H.I.V. as AZT, but it
is a different class of drug.
The low cost of nevirapine makes it feasible or wide-scale
use in many developing countries, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who
heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, predicted in an interview. His Federal Agency paid
for the study.
Dr. Peter Piot, who heads the United Nations AIDS program
in Geneva, said the nevirapine study was ``a major gain''
because it ``approaches ideal prevention therapy'' for
developing countries, where 95 percent of the H.I.V.-infected
people live.
But Dr. Piot said it was ``unrealistic to introduce it on a
large scale in developing countries without first using pilot
programs'' because drug therapy is only one part of a complex
effort to prevent H.I.V. Such pilot studies will begin soon
in developing countries, he said.
Most women in developing countries do not know that they
are H.I.V.-infected because testing programs are scarce. ``It
is still a logistical, economic and cultural challenge to
develop programs to encourage H.I.V. testing, counseling and
baby formula as a substitute for breast-feeding for infected
mothers,'' Dr. Piot said in an interview.
American and Ugandan scientists plan another study to see
if it would be more effective to give nevirapine to mother
and infant for longer periods. Also, a continuing study in
the United States and Europe aims to determine if adding
nevirapine to standard regimens will further lower the
transmission rate of H.I.V. from mother to child. Dr. Fauci
said there was no need to change the United States
recommendations until more studies are completed.
The United Nations AIDS group estimates that 1,800 babies
are born H.I.V.-infected every day in developing countries
where most women do not receive prenatal care. In some areas
of Africa, up to 40 percent of pregnant women are H.I.V.
infected, and from 25 percent to 35 percent of their infants
will be born infected if therapy is not provided.
Wide-scale use of nevirapine in developing countries
``could potentially prevent 300,000 to 400,000 newborns each
year from beginning life infected with H.I.V.,'' Dr. Fauci
said.
AZT and other anti-H.I.V. drugs have drastically reduced
mother-to-child transmission of the infection in the United
States since 1994, when a federally sponsored study showed
that AZT, taken for several weeks, could stop mother-to-child
transmission of H.I.V. The American regimen calls for the
pregnant woman to take AZT five times a day beginning as
early as the 14th week of pregnancy and continuing until
labor, when an intravenous injection of AZT is given. At
birth, the baby takes AZT four times a day for six weeks.
Because the American regimen was impractical and too costly
for third world countries, scientists sought a more
affordable therapy.
Researchers initially intended to enroll 1,500 women in the
study, conducted at Mulago Hospital and Makerere University
in Kampala, Uganda, beginning in November 1997. One part of
the study was dropped in February 1998 after another United
States-financed study conducted in Thailand found that AZT
used for a shorter period than in the United States was
effective in preventing mother-to-child transmission of
H.I.V.
The Ugandan study then involved 618 women in their ninth
month of pregnancy who had not taken anti-H.I.V. drugs and
their 631 infants. Of the 618 women, 308 took AZT and 310
took nevirapine. Enrollment stopped at the end of last April.
The women agreed to accept by random selection either of
two drug regimens. One regimen was single dose nevirapine
therapy for mother and infant. The other regimen involved
taking two AZT pills at the onset of labor and then one pill
every three hours until delivery. Infants born to mothers who
took AZT were given AZT twice a day during the first week of
life.
After two months, 59 infants born to mothers who took AZT
and 35 infants born to mothers took nevirapine were infected.
Statistical tests projected the 25 percent and 13 percent
infection rates, respectively.
The three deaths that occurred among mothers who took AZT
were due to AIDS and not the drug, the researchers said. No
deaths occurred among the mothers who took nevirapine.
Infection was the most common cause of adverse effects and
death among the infants whose mothers took the two drugs. The
adverse effects and deaths were not deemed drug related.
Scientists learned the findings on Monday at a meeting of a
committee that oversees the safety and effectiveness of such
studies.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition?
Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important for us to understand what we
do when we talk about a sense of Congress as opposed to actions that
are actually taken that would create public policy or appropriate
money. It is a good thing to be able to have language that says
something nice, and we do that from time to time. But I want to make
sure that everybody understands that this sense of Congress neither
appropriates money nor does it create public policy. We cannot play
around with this AIDS problem in Africa.
Since 1983, 85 percent of all of the debts in sub-Saharan Africa is
related to AIDS. We have only seen 1 percent of the medicine that they
need in this area. Seven out of 10 in sub-Saharan Africa, infected with
HIV or AIDS.
So I think it is nice to at least mention it in this trade bill, but
my colleagues have got to understand it means nothing to talk about
trade. Where are the workers going to come from if we do not have the
medicine, if we do not have the resources, if we do not have a real
commitment by this country to deal with AIDS?
I know the pharmaceuticals, the companies are all up in arms because
they do not want their patent stolen. They do not want people
replicating without their permission. They do not want them purchasing.
We see that fight going on now, and it is a fight that must go on.
But the fact of the matter is while colleagues are focused, while
colleagues are focused and we are saying nice things, we are sitting
over in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I as the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International
Monetary Policy in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, we
are trying to fashion AIDS as a factor in debt relief. We do debt
relief. We are going to get some debt relief for Africa this year. It
will not be done in anyplace else other than the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services. We do not want to send a message that we are
taking care of
[[Page H5741]]
AIDS in the trade bill and not get the opportunity to leverage what we
are doing so that we can truly do something about AIDS; so, know it for
what it is, and again, it is all right to say something nice and to try
and encourage people, but when I come back to my colleagues with the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others on debt relief where we are
factoring in AIDS in order to increase debt relief, and they are going
to be those who will be opposed to it, I do not want them to forget and
think, oh, we have already done something because my colleagues do
nothing today when they support this sense of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of us are deceiving
ourselves that we are dealing with the AIDS crisis in this legislation.
I also think there is nothing wrong with reminding the corporate world
they have got a responsibility.
{time} 1330
Bristol-Myers Squibb has committed $100 million to Africa. That is an
important start. It is a significant action. Other companies ought to
take the same kinds of action.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for bringing this amendment up. I think the more we
talk about AIDS, whether it is here or in sub-Saharan Africa, is
positive. I cannot believe that we would say that a sense of the
Congress, saying that we need to do something about it, is not the
first step.
Ten years ago we could not get a leader in Africa to admit that AIDS
was a problem. I have met with presidents and they said no, we do not
have that problem. I think we have to start with education. Just to
mention the word AIDS in some of these circles is a step in the right
direction. I compliment the gentlewoman and urge Members to support
this resolution.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is titled the Africa Growth and Opportunity
Act, but the single largest barrier to growth and opportunity on the
continent of Africa is the overwhelming AIDS epidemic that the U.S.
Surgeon General has compared to the plague of the 14th century.
Wherever Members are on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act,
passing or not passing, and all of us have various positions with
respect to this bill, including the process this bill has gone through
for amendments, we had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that
specifically prohibited the United States government from bringing
action against sub-Saharan countries that are attempting to buy drugs
cheaper or even produce generic drugs.
That amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules, apparently
overwhelmingly, but what was accepted was another AIDS amendment that
gives a sense of the Congress that we want to do something about it;
just a sense of the Congress, nothing binding, no appropriation, no
money.
Certainly there is going to be a problem for any U.S. investment in
sub-Saharan Africa that does not provide for relief in terms of
pharmaceuticals and drugs for sub-Saharan people. Again, regardless of
Members' position on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, we need a
commitment from the majority to advance the debt relief bills of the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach). It helps towards the AIDS crisis.
We need a commitment on more appropriations to make more funding
available to address the continent's most devastating disease. We need
a commitment toward AIDS education on the continent. With more than
1,500 languages, it is difficult to explain to many different people in
many different languages how devastating the disease is.
In Durbin, South Africa, Mr. Chairman, we just received a newspaper
article about a horrible rumor, a horrible rumor that if you have sex
with a virgin, that is the cure to AIDS. We have to fight this kind of
ignorance on the continent, and that will only come from more money,
more money and more appropriations.
I want to thank the gentlewoman for having the guts, really, to stand
up today and claim opposition to this amendment.
[From CNN Interactive, May 19, 1999]
In South Africa, Doctors, Courts Fight Brutal AIDS ``Cure''
(By Charlayne Hunter-Gault)
Durban, South Africa (CNN)--South Africa's northeastern
province of Kwazulu-Natal is blessed with a lush landscape--
and cursed with the country's highest AIDS rate.
The rolling hills and fertile valleys in the province of
8.5 million have spawned a myth of a terrible folk ``cure''--
a story that says having sex with a virgin will rid sufferers
of the disease. The widespread belief has left parents,
children, doctors and the courts struggling with a wave of
rapes, frequently of young girls.
Skhumbuza Mthembu, a 15-year-old peer counselor at a
village primary school in Mpophomeni, says he has heard of
the so-called cure from local men and boys. And he often
hears firsthand about the results.
Those who have been victims tell horror stories about being
raped by a teacher, or a brother, an uncle or even a father.
They tell of being assaulted in restrooms, in the forest or
the bush, or in bed while they were sleeping.
More and more stories like this are being told by younger
and younger children across this province and elsewhere. But
many, many more stories are not being told until it's too
late.
Dr. Gillian Key treats sexually abused children at the
Addington Children's Hospital in Durban, the harbor port of
Kwazulu-Natal.
``Unless you see the children within an hour or one or two
days, you're unlikely to find anything,'' Key said. ``It's a
pitiful thing.''
Some of the children receive good news--that they test
negative for HIV. For another family, the news wasn't good.
One such child key treated was raped when she was 2: She
tested HIV-positive and now is developing full-blown AIDS.
``It's hard every day,'' said her mother, who asked that
her family remain anonymous our of fear that her daughter
would be stigmatized. ``It's hard not knowing that one day
she might not grow up.''
In Durban, authorities have set up a special court to deal
with child abuse cases. It's difficult to establish which
rapes are connected to the cure myth, but prosecutors and
other say the abuse of younger children since it began
circulating has ``skyrocketed.''
Court officials try to ease the process for young victims
who must testify. They provide separate rooms for them to
testify on videotape so they don't have to face their
abusers. But the fact that there are so many of them, coupled
with their increasingly younger ages, makes it difficult to
obtain convictions.
``The youngest we can put a child on the stand is three
years and if we look for an actual trial date, it will be
something like six months away,'' said Durban prosecutor Val
Melis. ``You can't count on a child to remember details like
that that far down the line.''
Meanwhile, back in Mpophomeni, teen counselor Mtembu holds
another session to help youngsters cope with the trauma of
rape--and to teach them ways they can protect themselves.
But when asked what about that, one young girl answered:
``We just have to cry loudly and hope someone will hear us.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 30
seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Detroit, Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I strongly stand here to support the
amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). A sense of
the Congress is just that, that we sense that we ought to take an
action. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I want to
report that our subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), recognizes this, and we are going to and
have on the subcommittee the appropriations for HIV-AIDS in Africa.
It is a tremendous problem, but we are working on it. The sense of
the Congress is the first step. The action to get it done is the next,
and we are moving on that.
[[Page H5742]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify for a moment
that this is a sense of Congress that brings about a rapid response
fund that will be contributed to by corporations involved in the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, private sector investment.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Jackson-Lee amendment encouraging assistance of the American Business
Community to deal with the HIV/AIDS problem in Sub-Saharan Africa and
to consider the establishment of an HIV/AIDS response fund.
Anyone familiar with the HIV/AIDS problem knows of its tremendously
negative impact on life in Sub-Saharan Africa and how it is rampaging
throughout the area bringing death and destruction. Mr. Chairman, I've
been told that those to whom much is given, much is expected in return.
Therefore, many of our businesses and pharmaceutical companies are in a
great position to provide help and resources to those with the greatest
need in our world.
This is a great opportunity to give the greatest of all gifts, the
gift of life.
I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for introducing this amendment and
urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 106-236.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Olver
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the
rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 106-236 offered by
Mr. Olver:
Page 38, after line 7, insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 18. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO HIV/AIDS CRISIS IN
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Sustained economic development in sub-Saharan Africa
depends in large measure upon successful trade with and
foreign assistance to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
(2) The HIV/AIDS crisis has reached epidemic proportions in
sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 21,000,000 men, women,
and children are infected with HIV.
(3) 83 percent of the estimated 11,700,000 deaths from HIV/
AIDS worldwide have been in sub-Saharan Africa.
(4) The HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is weakening
the structure of families and societies.
(5)(A) The HIV/AIDS crisis threatens the future of the
workforce in sub-Saharan Africa.
(B) Studies show that HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa most
severely affects individuals between the ages of 15 and 49--
the age group that provides the most support for the
economies of sub-Saharan Africa countries.
(6) Clear evidence demonstrates that HIV/AIDS is
destructive to the economies of sub-Saharan Africa countries.
(7) Sustained economic development is critical to creating
the public and private sector resources in sub-Saharan Africa
necessary to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa
should be a central component of United States foreign policy
with respect to sub-Saharan Africa;
(2) significant progress needs to be made in preventing and
treating HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa in order to sustain a
mutually beneficial trade relationship between the United
States and sub-Saharan Africa countries; and
(3) the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is a global
threat that merits further attention through greatly expanded
public, private, and joint public-private efforts, and
through appropriate United States legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, sustained economic growth is desperately needed
throughout Africa. Expanded trade between African nations and the
United States, which is the goal of the legislation before us today,
must be a major part of sustained economic growth.
But sub-Saharan Africa is under siege from the HIV-AIDS epidemic.
Twelve million people have already died, and 20-plus million are HIV-
AIDS infected. I would just ask Members to look at this quickly, at
these maps, and imagine first that in 1977 a map like this up here
shows not a single case of AIDS identified in the continent of Africa.
In this map for 1987 we can see the growth of AIDS, and for 1997 we
can see the further growth, with a group of countries in the very dark
red where the average AIDS infection rate for people in the working
force, between 15 and 49, is average 25 percent, and for all these dark
orange countries it is in the range of 15 percent.
Mr. Chairman, if we think of that map, that is the very age group
that is necessary to build any economy anywhere in this world. So the
sense of Congress in our amendment simply states that solving the AIDS
crisis should be central to our foreign policy in sub-Saharan Africa;
number two, that this crisis is a global threat that warrants greatly
expanded effort at all levels, government, private, private-public
partnerships, including appropriate legislation by this Congress; and
number 3, that progress must be made on prevention and treatment for
HIV-AIDS if there is to be any real hope for sustained economic growth
or any mutually beneficial trading relationship with the nations in
sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I will
claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will
be recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I would like to urge my colleagues to support the Olver-Foley-
Pelosi-Horn-Lewis amendment to H.R. 434.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 434, and I appreciate the hard work of the
bill's chief cosponsors, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Both of my colleagues have
worked diligently to create a balance on a very difficult issue, laying
the groundwork for much needed trade policy with Africa.
This amendment is very relevant to the future success of our trade in
the sub-Saharan Africa and to economic growth in that region.
Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about HIV and AIDS in
Africa. Twelve million Africans have perished from HIV-AIDS, and 22.5
million are currently living with HIV. At this rate, the HIV-AIDS
epidemic will leave a path of destruction in sub-Saharan Africa,
destroying families, societies, and economies.
Individuals between the ages of 15 and 40 are hit hardest by HIV and
AIDS. That is the cross-section of the population responsible for
supporting the economy. As a member of the International AIDS Task
Force, I believe this epidemic is too powerful to ignore if we are
serious about expanding economic opportunity in Africa.
This is a nonbinding sense of the Congress amendment. I think it is
an essential part of the trade policy we are developing. I pledge my
support for H.R. 434, and think we can make this an even better piece
of legislation by passing this amendment to show the Congress
recognizes the force of HIV and AIDS to Africa.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
AIDS is an affliction which has had a fundamental and far-reaching
effect on the well-being of many nations, and I think this amendment
signifies the importance of our strong national commitment in
combatting this disease,
[[Page H5743]]
not only for this Nation's benefit, but for the benefit of all
humanity.
Though we continue to struggle in our efforts to understand AIDS and
to cure it, it seems to me entirely consistent with this Nation's
character, which teaches us to reach out to the weak and the sick, to
engage in this dilemma in an active and direct manner.
This amendment is reflective of this sort of approach, and it is my
hope that it will serve as a stepping stone for future congressional
action.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a severe problem, as has been pointed out. This
costs millions of lives. AIDS has cost millions of lives in Africa. It
does threaten economic development of the continent. Members of the
House, including the coauthors of this particular amendment, are
working on this problem. I support this amendment. This amendment will
bolster our efforts on AIDS in Africa.
Let me also point out that the underlying bill will support sub-
Saharan nations' efforts to strengthen their economies, to promote
their strong growth, to promote job creation, and improve the standards
of living there. In these ways, the bill will strengthen the ability of
sub-Saharan countries to fight AIDS.
Already growth and economic reforms have helped to generate resources
for drug access programs. For example, Cote d'Ivoire has established a
$1 million solidarity fund from corporate contributions and nonprofit
insurance systems.
But this amendment will help us do more. I thank the authors for
offering this amendment, which we will support.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is also the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and thank him for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the
floor. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor.
Mr. Chairman, I want to borrow his chart to show the tragedy of the
spread of AIDS from 1987 to 1997. Much of this could have been
prevented. We cannot talk about commerce and the economic situation in
Africa without talking about HIV and AIDS.
As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
Export Financing and Related Programs for years I have urged the
administration to address the issue of AIDS in the developing world.
I thank gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has worked on
this issue from the perspective of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services to make the AIDS issue a top item on the G-7 and G-8
agenda. If they are dealing with the economies of the developing world,
they must deal with the issue of AIDS.
There have been success stories in Africa. Uganda is one of them. So
we must cooperate with Africa on the AIDS issue. We will do so in the
spirit of this sense of the Congress. I wish this could be a stronger
amendment and have the power of law. We must make it have the force of
law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to add my voice to those who are seeking
to find a solution, those who are seeking to bring resources, seeking
to bring progress to one of the greatest needs that exists on the face
of this Earth.
{time} 1345
We can give to Sub-Saharan Africa because we can give the greatest
gift of all, and that is the gift of life. We can do it through sound
trade policy, and we can do it through direct aid.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say any U.S. policy toward Africa must
recognize that not only is HIV and AIDS a health issue, but it is an
epidemic of enormous social and economic dimensions. Not only are there
humanitarian concerns which we must morally embrace, we must attack
this disease on a global basis, just as we did with polio and smallpox.
It is in our national interest to do so. Diseases know no boundaries.
This sense of the Congress resolution is an excellent first start, but
we must put our money where our mouth is.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Olver amendment addressing the
HIV/AIDS crisis. Addressing this crisis should be a central component
of America's policy with respect to Sub-Saharan Africa, if we are going
to have significant trade relations. This amendment speaks specifically
to the needs of African women who are the epicenter of the worldwide
AIDS epidemic. African women are the backbone of the vital informal and
microenterprise sectors that make up so much of African economies.
Mr. Chairman, this epidemic is decimating the pool of skilled
workers. I express my support to further bring attention to this
crisis.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be
granted 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) will each control 1 additional
minute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the work he has done on
this amendment. It has taken a lot of hard work, and I rise in support
of it.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment
brought by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) which focuses
on what poses the biggest threat to what we are trying to do through
H.R. 434. HIV/AIDS has killed more than 11 million people and continues
to infect more than 22 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Today, while we try to meet our obligation to help Africa
economically, we must not lose sight of this pandemic which is killing
and affecting individuals in the prime of their life. I urge passage of
this amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver-
Foley-Pelosi amendment. This amendment simply expresses the sense of
the Congress that addressing HIV/AIDS should be a central component of
our policy in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are approximately 750 million people in sub-Saharan Africa--
almost 500 million more people than live in the United States. It is
critical that the legislation we are considering, the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act includes language dealing with HIV/AIDS which are now
rampant throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Southern Africa is facing an
unprecedented emergency as the numbers of people becoming infected with
HIV continue to climb at alarming rates in many countries of the
region. This year, 1.4 million people between the ages of 15 and 49
were infected in nine countries of southern Africa.
In the four worst-affected countries of the region--Botswana,
Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe--between 20% and 26% of adults in this
age group are now estimated to be living with HIV or AIDS, and other
countries are catching up fast. Zimbabwe is especially hard-hit. In 23
HIV surveillance sites out of a total of 25, between 25% and 50% of all
pregnant women were found to be infected with HIV. At least a third are
likely to pass the infection on to their babies.
Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United National
Programme on HIV/AIDS has said that ``we now know that despite these
[[Page H5744]]
already very high levels of HIV infection the worst is still to come in
southern Africa. The region is facing human disaster on a scale it has
never seen before.''
Mr. Chairman, the wealthiest of nations would be financially
overwhelmed by the prospect of dealing with an AIDS crisis of this
magnitude. For sub-Saharan African nations, many with per capita
incomes of less than $500 per year and crushing debt service payments
monopolizing their budgets, the likelihood that they will be able to
provide adequate treatment to the exploding number of AIDS patients is
bleak. Without international cooperation in providing overall AIDS
education, prevention and treatment, future generations in sub-Saharan
Africa will face short, often agonizing lives.
The impact on society of this type of epidemic is so obvious. How can
we even think of passing legislation to increase trade and investment
in Sub-Saharan Africa without including this sense of the Congress
amendment that acknowledges the impact that HIV/AIDS has on
establishing stable trade and true economic growth? This amendment
should be an integral part of any equation when dealing with the
overall economic policy of this region. This amendment takes the first
step in acknowledging and expressing concern about the criticality of
treating and preventing the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
I urge support for this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I rise to support our
amendment to recognize the HIV/AIDS dilemma in Africa. This amendment
does not interfere with the trade provisions of the bill. It is
bipartisan and sensible. While this amendment is limited to non-binding
``sense of the Congress'' language, I think it is an essential part of
the trade policy we are constructing in this bill.
It is time to develop a new trade relationship with Africa. For U.S.
businesses and for the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the passage of
the African Growth and Opportunity Act will provide the safeguards and
incentives required for meaningful investments and partnerships. The
bill is good for America and Africa. However, something is lacking in
this legislation. Over 12 million Africans have died from AIDS and
currently over 22 million in sub-Saharan Africa are living with HIV.
Over 50% of the new HIV infections in Africa occur in women. Women also
carry the main burden of care of family members with HIV/AIDS.
Approximately 6 million women in sub-Saharan Africa are HIV positive.
Our Growth and Opportunity trade bill seeks to uplift the women
entrepreneurs and provide business and employment opportunities that
will guarantee a better quality of life. HIV/AIDS is a barrier to our
goals.
In 1998, sub-Saharan African experienced four million new HIV
infections. AIDS death tolls are rapidly rising. Sub-Saharan Africa
experiences an estimated 5,500 funerals per day.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic is leaving a path of destruction in sub-Saharan
African that is impacting all aspects of life. This is why it is
important as we consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act, we
include our concern about the HIV/AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa.
This region can not achieve economic prosperity or fully meet the
objectives of our bill, if the population is dying. The workforce will
not be available to staff the many new and developing businesses. The
cost of employee benefits will off set corporate profits and make any
economic growth less than stellar.
This amendment gives members the opportunity to voice their concerns
about HIV/AIDS and it calls upon the House to consider future
legislation addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis. I am pleased to offer this
amendment with my colleagues, Mr. Olver of Massachusetts, Mr. Foley of
Florida, Ms. Pelosi of California, Mr. Horn of California, and Mr.
Lewis of Georgia.
I know that the African Growth and Opportunity Act will be a better
bill with inclusion of this amendment, because this amendment will help
to ensure that the goals of the bill are achieved. The HIV/AIDS
epidemic is too threatening to ignore if we are serious about expanding
economic opportunity in Africa.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
So the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 434) to
authorize a new trade and investment policy for Sub-Saharan Africa,
pursuant to House Resolution 250, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on 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. Bishop
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bishop moves to recommit the bill H.R. 434 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike section 7 and insert the following:
SEC. 7. SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR APPAREL ARTICLES FROM
ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES.
(a) Special Access Program.--
(1) Establishment.--The President, in consultation with
representatives of the domestic textile and apparel industry
and with representatives of countries in sub-Saharan Africa
that are eligible under section 4 and after providing an
opportunity for public comment, shall establish a special
access program for imports of eligible apparel articles from
such eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa under which
imports of such eligible apparel articles are not subject to
duties or quotas.
(2) Program modeled on existing program.--The program under
paragraph (1) should be modeled on the existing program
providing for preferential tariff and quota treatment on
apparel articles originating in Mexico, consistent with the
international obligations of the United States under the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and other trade
agreements.
(b) Eligible Goods.--
(1) In general.--Apparel articles are eligible for the
special access program established under subsection (a) only
if the articles are--
(A) apparel articles classified under chapter 61 or 62 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that are
assembled in an eligible sub-Saharan African country from
fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States, from
yarns wholly formed in the United States, and sewn with
thread formed in the United States, whether or not such
articles were subjected to stone-washing, enzyme-washing,
acid-washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, bleaching,
garment-dyeing, embroidery, or other similar processes; or
(B) handloomed, handmade, or folklore articles of an
eligible sub-Saharan African country that are identified
under paragraph (2) and are certified as such by the
competent authority of that country.
(2) Determination of handloomed, handmade, or folklore
goods.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the President,
after consultation with the eligible sub-Saharan African
country concerned, shall determine which, if any, particular
apparel goods of the country shall be treated as being
handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described
in section 2.3(a), (b), or (c) or Appendix 3.1.B.11 of Annex
300-B of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
(3) Actions by president to prevent market disruption.--The
President may impose the normal trade relations rates of
duty, restrict the quantity of imports, or both, with respect
to imports of eligible goods under this subsection from any
eligible sub-Saharan African country if the President
determines that such action is necessary to prevent market
disruption or the threat thereof.
(c) Report.--The President shall include as part of the
first annual report under section 16 a report on the
establishment of the special access program under subsection
(a) and shall report to the Congress annually thereafter on
the implementation of the program and its effect on the
textile and apparel industry in the United States.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
SEC. 8. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS INVOLVING
APPAREL GOODS.
(a) Penalties.--Section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1592) is amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H5745]]
``(g) Penalties Involving Apparel Goods.--
``(1) Fraud.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the civil
penalty for a fraudulent violation of subsection (a) based on
a claim that apparel goods are eligible products of countries
in sub-Saharan Africa--
``(A) shall, subject to subparagraph (B), be double the
amount that would otherwise apply under subsection (c)(1);
and
``(B) shall be an amount not to exceed 300 percent of the
declared value in the United States of the merchandise if the
violation has the effect of circumventing any quota on
apparel goods.
``(2) Gross negligence.--Notwithstanding subsection (c),
the civil penalty for a grossly negligent violation of
subsection (a) based on a claim that apparel goods are
eligible products of countries in sub-Saharan Africa--
``(A) shall, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), be
double the amount that would otherwise apply under subsection
(c)(2);
``(B) shall, if the violation has the effect of
circumventing any quota of the United States on apparel
goods, and subject to subparagraph (C), be 200 percent of the
declared value of the merchandise; and
``(C) shall, if the violation is a third or subsequent
offense occurring within 3 years, be the penalty for a
fraudulent violation under paragraph (1) (A) or (B),
whichever is applicable.
``(3) Negligence.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the
civil penalty for a negligent violation of subsection (a)
based on a claim that apparel goods are eligible products of
countries in sub-Saharan Africa--
``(A) shall, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), be
double the amount that would otherwise apply under subsection
(a)(3);
``(B) shall, if the violation has the effect of
circumventing any quota of the United States on apparel
goods, and subject to subparagraph (C), be 100 percent of the
declared value of the merchandise; and
``(C) shall, if the violation is a third or subsequent
offense occurring within 3 years, be the penalty for a
grossly negligent violation under paragraph (2) (A) or (B),
whichever is applicable.''.
(b) Mitigation.--Section 618 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1618) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--Whenever'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Mitigation Rules Relating to Apparel Goods.--
``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Treasury may remit or mitigate any
fine or penalty imposed pursuant to section 592 based on a
claim that apparel goods are eligible products of countries
in sub-Saharan Africa only if--
``(A) in the case of a first offense, the violation is due
to either negligence or gross negligence; and
``(B) in the case of a second or subsequent offense, prior
disclosure (as defined in section 592(c)(4)) is made within
180 days after the entry of the goods.
``(2) Special rule for prior disclosures after 180 days.--
In the case of a second or subsequent offense where prior
disclosure (as defined in section 592(c)(4)) is made after
180 days after the entry of the goods, the Secretary of the
Treasury may remit or mitigate not more than 50 percent of
such fines or penalties.''.
(c) Seizure and Forfeiture.--Section 596(c)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) it consists of apparel goods that are claimed to be
eligible products of countries in sub-Saharan Africa
introduced into the United States for entry, transit, or
exportation, and
``(i) the merchandise or its container bears false or
fraudulent markings with respect to the country of origin,
unless the importer of the merchandise demonstrates that the
markings were made in order to comply with the rules of
origin of the country that is the final destination of the
merchandise, or
``(ii) the merchandise or its container is introduced or
attempted to be introduced into the United States by means
of, or such introduction or attempt is aided or facilitated
by means of, a material false statement, act, or omission
with the intention or effect of--
``(I) circumventing any quota that applies to the
merchandise, or
``(II) undervaluing the merchandise.''.
(d) Certificates of Origin.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, all importations of apparel goods that are
claimed to be eligible products of countries in sub-Saharan
Africa shall be accompanied by--
(1)(A) the name and address of the manufacturer or producer
of the goods, and any other information with respect to the
manufacturer or producer that the Customs Service may
require; and
(B) if there is more than one manufacturer or producer, or
there is a contractor or subcontractor of the manufacturer or
producer with respect to the manufacture or production of the
goods, the information required under subparagraph (A) with
respect to each such manufacturer, producer, contractor, or
subcontractor, including a description of the process
performed by each such entity;
(2) a certification by the importer that the importer has
exercised reasonable care to ascertain the true country of
origin of the apparel goods and the accuracy of all other
information provided on the documentation accompanying the
imported goods, as well as a certification of the specific
action taken by the importer to ensure reasonable care for
purposes of this paragraph; and
(3) a certification by the importer that the goods being
entered do not violate applicable trademark, copyright, or
patent laws.
Information provided under this subsection shall be
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the United States
rules of origin for textile and apparel goods.
Redesignate succeeding sections, and references thereto,
accordingly.
Page 18, line 19, insert after ``(b)'' the following:
``(other than apparel articles described in paragraph (1)(A)
of subsection (b))''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit. I want this House to
know that I would like to see us pass an Africa trade bill. I want
everyone to know that we believe that we ought to pass an Africa trade
bill, but it ought to be a good Africa trade bill, and it ought to
promote economic growth and the well-being of the people of Sub-Saharan
Africa, but not at expense of the people of America.
I am offering this motion to recommit so that we can send this bill
back to the committee and perfect it and do in the House what we expect
the Senate is going to do when it sees this bill. This bill will not
offer labor protections, it will not protect us against transshipped
textiles from China, it will not protect American jobs. Mr. Speaker, we
ought to do for Africa what we did for Europe. We need an African
Marshall Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes).
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, we are from Congress, we are here to help.
That is great. Let us help the American textile worker and family for a
change. Help Africa, of course, but not at the expense of American men
and women who depend on textiles for their livelihood.
For those who believe that the Sub-Saharan trade bill represents free
and fair trade, I invite them down to the 8th District of North
Carolina. I invite them to meet the most decent and hard-working people
in this great Nation. And I invite them to stand at the mill gate and
explain to them how wonderful this legislation will make their lives.
They have heard it before. They remember clearly the promises made to
them during negotiations of NAFTA and GATT, and they now know these
promises were hollow.
Mr. Speaker, we in rural, textile-rich America no longer have faith
in trade agreements which so obviously disregard the health of our
proud industry. We can fix this. All we have to do is vote to recommit
and support the Bishop-Myrick amendment.
Mr. Speaker, as it is now written, without a textile provision, no
one in Africa is helped by the massive transshipment industry created
for the Chinese. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) read their
press release, their game plan. Their plan is clear as a bell. Let the
transshipments begin. The only person helped may be someone selling
aviation fuel for the planes which will bring the foreign goods to bury
our textile industry and the men and women who depend on it. My
colleagues will complete the destruction of this industry, its jobs and
especially its people by allowing this bill to pass without the Bishop-
Myrick amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we saw fit to acknowledge the crisis in our steel
industry. I supported this measure. I did not support it because I have
a lot of steel manufacturers in my district, I supported it because it
was the right thing to do.
While the plight of the steel industry is serious, the plight of the
textile industry has been nothing short of tragic. While the steel
industry lost 17,000 jobs, the textile industry has lost 180,000 during
the same time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support American people, support
a true American industry, vote to recommit and fix this bill which, in
its present form, only serves to hurt African-Americans and others in
the U.S.A., taking their jobs. Help Africa, but help America first.
[[Page H5746]]
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, since 1995,
over 375,000 American textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs.
Many of these workers have been from the State of Georgia, a number of
them from the Third District of Georgia.
In June of 1999, headlines in the Third District newspapers read, and
I quote: ``Thomaston Mills Drops Bombshell: Textile Firm will Close
Local Plant, Leaving 145 Jobless.'' That may not seem like many jobs,
but that is the second largest employer in this particular community,
which was big to them.
And another headline: ``Closing will Affect All Taxpayers,'' meaning
a loss to the property digest in this county which is a great loss. In
addition to closing this plant, Thomaston Mills simultaneously shut
down factories in other neighboring counties and also offices in Los
Angeles and New York costing another 555 jobs.
Workers, their families, and the communities of the Third District of
Georgia are not ready to accept another trade deal that exports jobs
rather than goods, so I urge my colleagues, vote for the motion to
recommit.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to close
this out by simply saying that if we recommit, if we pass this motion
to recommit, we will then be in a position to perfect this bill and to
truly have a bill that would be beneficial for the people in Africa and
for the people in America, workers in the United States.
If we fail to pass this motion to recommit, then we will have to
depend upon the other body to do what we should have done ourselves
here in this body. It will not pass on the other side without the
provisions that we are trying to get in to protect both Africa and
American workers.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), our distinguished ranking minority member on the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit. It does not say that the African countries cannot export any
clothing to the United States. It does not say that. It merely says
that the clothing has to be assembled only with United States of
America fabric, only with United States of America yarn and only with
United States of America thread.
I really think that this is repugnant to everything that we think of
when we talk about trade. So manufacturers of clothes ship it across
the Atlantic, let them stitch up our fabric and yarn and thread, and
they will ship it back and try to sell it for a profit.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, transportation costs
involved with shipping fabric from the U.S. to Africa are prohibitively
high, and shippers rarely service African ports. Even if a U.S. fabric
requirement were economically feasible, it would discourage investment
in African fabric production which would prohibit Africa from ever
being able to compete in that sector. A U.S. fabric requirement is a
gutting proposal which will stifle African economic growth and
discourage job creation in America, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
Mr. TRAFICANT. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 163, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 307]
YEAS--234
Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Armey
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Cook
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kasich
Kelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--163
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Bachus
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonilla
Bonior
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Capuano
Carson
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Emerson
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Filner
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Hilleary
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hunter
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, George
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Price (NC)
Rahall
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sanford
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
[[Page H5747]]
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--37
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Boswell
Boucher
Burton
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Cooksey
Frost
Ganske
Gordon
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hobson
Istook
John
Largent
Latham
McDermott
McInnis
McNulty
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Ortiz
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Stark
Tauzin
Thurman
Wicker
Young (FL)
{time} 1419
Mr. CUNNINGHAM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No 307, I was unavoidably
detained, by traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.
____________________