[Pages S13491-S13500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Also under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of H.R. 434, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment
policy for sub-Saharan Africa.

Pending:

Lott (for Roth/Moynihan) amendment No. 2325, in the nature
of a substitute.
Lott amendment No. 2332 (to amendment No. 2325), of a
perfecting nature.
Lott amendment No. 2333 (to amendment No. 2332), of a
perfecting nature.
Lott motion to commit with instructions (to amendment No.
2333), of a perfecting nature.
Lott amendment No. 2334 (to the instructions of the motion
to commit), of a perfecting nature.
Lott (for Ashcroft) amendment No. 2340 (to amendment No.
2334), to establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes of debate equally
divided between the two leaders.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I might ask my colleague to yield 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from South
Carolina. I thank him for all his fine work in this Chamber.
Mr. President, I want to divide my remarks in 5 minutes and deliver
them in two parts. In the first part, I will talk about the African-
Caribbean trade bill. I want to repeat two points I made

[[Page S13492]]

during the course of this debate. There are some very good Senators who
in very good conscience can have different viewpoints on this
legislation.
For my own part, the first point I will make is that I actually do
not believe this is about whether or not we as a nation are in an
international economy; we are. And I don't think it is about whether or
not we are actively involved in trade; we are. It is more about the
terms of the trade. I do believe it is a flaw, a fundamental flaw, of
this legislation that, again, we have trade legislation that does not
have any enforceable labor protections or enforceable environmental
protections. At the very minimum, it would seem to me we have to get
serious about having clear language in these agreements which gives
people the right in countries with which we are trading to be able to
organize and bargain collectively for themselves and their families.
The same thing can be said for the environment, the same thing can be
said for child labor, and the same thing can be said for human rights
as a part of these labor agreements.
I think basically what this African and Caribbean trade agreement
says is two things. It says to workers, to wage earners in our country:
If you should decide you want to organize to be able to bargain
collectively and get a better wage and better working conditions for
yourself so you can do better for your family, then just understand
that these companies, these businesses, will just go to other parts of
the world where they don't have to deal with you at all. They don't
have to deal with the right of the workers to be able to organize. What
it says to poor people and what it says to working people in African
countries and Caribbean countries is, the way you get the investment is
to be willing to work for jobs that pay less than 30 cents an hour, or
whatever the case might be, because that is the only way it is going to
happen because there are in these agreements no protections, no
enforceable labor code--child labor, right to organize, right to
bargain collectively--no enforceable environmental code. That is the
first point.
The second point I will make about this legislation is that I think
it is a terrible message to send as we move to the WTO gathering in
Seattle. I am in profound disagreement with the administration on this.
They think we should pass this and that would be important. To me, I
hear the administration, Democrats--I am a Democrat--saying to labor,
and saying to environmentalists, and saying to nongovernmental
organizations, and saying to a whole lot of other people: Listen, we
have a real chance at this WTO gathering of moving toward
enforceable labor codes, enforceable environmental protection. Well, if
you can't do it in a bilateral agreement, how in the world are you
going to do it in a multilateral agreement, multinational agreement? It
is not going to happen. So I oppose this legislation on substantive
grounds.

I hope my colleagues, especially Democrats, will vote against cloture
because we have again been shut out of the opportunity to introduce
amendments that really go to the heart of whether we can represent
people in our States.
I have talked about the right to fight for family farmers for 8
weeks. The majority leader said the other day he filled up the tree one
time. I said I thought the record would show more than that. I think in
the last year it has been 9 or 10 times we have been shut out of the
opportunity to even have an up-or-down vote. What is relevant to me is
the pain and agony of the family farmers and all the producers who are
being driven off the land, and to not have the opportunity to consider
amendments, to have a debate and up-or-down votes, and to fight for
people back in my state to try to make a difference for family farmers.
And other Senators feel the same way.
I also said I do not think the debate about campaign finance reform
is over. To me, the energy is at the State level. To me, the energy is
toward clean money and clean elections, and I want an opportunity to
offer an amendment that would give States the authority to have a
clean-money, clean-election initiative that would apply not only to
State races but to House and Senate races as well.
This debate is not over. Just because there are Senators here who
block reform, we will not go away. I want to offer an amendment which
gives States the ability to pass sweeping campaign finance reform and
that would apply to our elections as well. I think that is where the
energy is going to be.

If we are not going to do it here, if the powerful financial
interests are going to block reform, let the States do it. I have an
amendment on that. I want to be able to bring up the amendment for
debate. That is what the Senate is all about. We are not the House of
Representatives. Therefore, I hope Senators will vote against cloture
around this fundamental principle that the Senate should be the Senate
and we debate and fight for the people in our States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 434,
the African Growth and Opportunity Act and Caribbean Basin Trade
Enhancement Act and urge my colleagues to reject the cloture motion to
end debate on this ill-advised legislation.
Today's proposal offers a unilateral opening of the U.S. market in
exchange for no market access commitments from the countries affected.
Unlike NAFTA, no negotiations are required for these benefits contained
within the legislation to take effect. It is no wonder that the
governments of the impacted countries argue in favor of this
legislation.
This legislation contains limited protections for Caribbean and
African workers and offer no protections for the environments in either
region. It is essentially an invitation for companies to leave the
United States and exploit African and Caribbean workers and the
environment.
Moreover, today's proposal disrupts a carefully balanced transition
in textile and apparel manufacturing industries from a quota system to
a less regulated market.
Five years ago, in adopting NAFTA and the WTO we established a
textile and apparel policy that was designed to be implemented over a
10-year period. We are now halfway through that implementation.
Manufacturers, workers, and families made investments and planned
their future based on that scheme. It is grossly unfair to all involved
to alter that plan in the middle of its implementation.
Specifically, the Africa portion of the legislation alters the
generalized system of preferences program by permitting increased
access to imports from Africa into areas that have traditionally been
limited because they are import sensitive.
Let me restate that.
This package essentially lifts the protections for the most import
sensitive products. In short, that means that U.S. workers will lose
jobs as a result of this legislation.
The protections that this legislation will erase have long been
recognized in U.S. trade policy. Proponents of this bill will argue
that the ITC has conducted a study that suggests that U.S. job loss
will be less than 1,000 jobs. I do not believe the study and will offer
an amendment to this legislation that would suspend benefits when
textile and apparel job loss exceed 1,000 workers.
Moreover, this legislation contains few assurances that the products
coming from Africa be made in Africa. In fact, for most products, a
minimum of 20 percent of the work can be done in Africa and the
benefits of the legislation will still apply to the product.
Traditionally, I have expressed concern on a variety of trade
initiatives and most particularly with regard to those impacting the
textile and apparel complex.
South Carolina has 93,000 workers in our textile and apparel
industries including 73,000 in the textile industries and 20,500 in the
apparel industries.
The proposal before the Senate today would essentially condemn the
20,500 employees in the apparel industry (and the 666,000 apparel
workers nationally) to unemployment by permitting the duty-free entry,
quota free entry of apparel products from Africa and the Caribbean that
are made from American fabric--the so-called 807-a, 809 exception.
Many will claim that such a provision aids the U.S. textile industry
and for a brief time it may. Unfortunately, it decimates the U.S.
apparel sector. If the apparel sector is undermined, eventually the
textile industry will erode as

[[Page S13493]]

well, because manufacturers will always move to be near their
customers.
Moreover, it is unlikely that the strict provisions that exist in the
legislation will remain, once the conference committee completes a
reconciliation of this bill with the much more expansive proposal from
the House of Representatives.
In addition, the principles underlying this legislation assumes that
the current tariff situation remains unchanged as result of the new WTO
Seattle Round negotiations. Such an outcome is unlikely.
This legislation merely continues the ongoing assault by the current
administration on America's strong manufacturing base. It will further
weaken an already besieged U.S. textile and apparel industry and cost
the jobs of countless American workers.
This administration has become enchanted by the false promise of
``free trade,'' to the detriment of numerous U.S. industries. While
expanding global commerce and benefiting less developed nations are
admirable goals, we cannot afford to pursue them if it means
dangerously weakening our industrial complex and putting American
laborers out of work.
I have often spoken on behalf of the beleaguered textile and apparel
industry, one that is critical to maintaining a strong U.S.
manufacturing base. Currently the United States imports $21 million
worth of apparel and fabric for every $6 million that it exports. This
margin will likely increase substantially with the implementation of S.
1387.
American textile companies cannot compete with the increasing amount
of cheap imports that are flooding our markets. Just in the past 17
months, 50 plants have been forced to close their doors, displacing
30,000 workers. And as disturbing as they are, these are just the most
recent figures. I use them to underscore the seriousness of a much
larger, longer-term problem.
In large part it is our previous free trade agreements that are to
blame for the losses in textile jobs. During the 36 months prior to
implementation of the NAFTA agreement, just 2,000 jobs were lost in the
American textile sector. The ensuing 56 months saw job losses rise to
305,000. To put these numbers in perspective, that is over 300,000
families who have lost their major source of income in just the past
year and a half.
The deterioration of the textile and apparel job market is not only
harmful to South Carolina, but is devastating for many parts of the
United States. In my State, the past 10 years has seen the number of
jobs in the apparel sectors drop from 45,000 to 20,500, a decrease of
more than 50 percent. Similarly, Pennsylvania's textile and apparel
jobs have dipped from 80,000 jobs to 34,800 since 1989.

Some might argue that in place of these jobs, many comparable new
jobs have been created through the growth of the retail industry. This
fact appears to be true on the surface, but closer examination shows it
to be deceiving. Textile jobs pay 63 percent more than retail jobs.
While the average mill worker receives wages of $440.59 a week, retail
positions pay only $270.90.
Furthermore, as an indication of the value of textile sector jobs,
one can look at the increase in wages earned by mill workers over the
past ten years. The $440.59 figure is up from $308.15 in 1989.
In effect, well-paying jobs are being replaced with significantly
lower paying jobs. This is a serious problem, particularly when many of
these workers provide the only source of income for their families.
Considering the difficulties of the domestic textile market, the last
thing America needs is to increase the amount of cheap imports coming
into our country. Yet this is exactly what S. 1387 does. It provides
the perfect loophole for Asian countries to circumvent U.S. import
restrictions.
With the implementation of the Africa trade bill and the Caribbean
Basin initiative, Asian companies will be able to easily conduct
illegal textile transshipments from both African and Caribbean nations.
Once they build manufacturing plants on the Caribbean islands, their
products will be automatically accepted into the U.S. with low duties
and no quotas. The restrictions contained in the Africa trade
legislation will be subverted in a similar manner. Illegal
transshipments already hurt American textile companies, and making them
easier will just exacerbate the problem.
This decimation of one of America's most important manufacturing
sectors is unacceptable. I agree, as most of us do, that increased
economic development in Africa and the Caribbean Basin is an important
international objective, and is ultimately in America's best interest.
Further, it is important that we assist these regions in implementing
effective policies for this development. However, to do so at the
expense of the textile and apparel industries and the American workers
in those industries is irresponsible and foolhardy.
The opportunity we are offering to the countries covered by this
legislation is enormous. We are allowing them open access to our
markets, giving them the opportunity to export their products to the
United States at will. Meanwhile, more American workers will lose their
jobs because foreign laborers are willing to work for much lower wages.
Effectively, we are opening our doors to cheap imports and
unemployment, all in the name of helping these poor nations to
establish a firmer economic footing.
In return for this favor we ask for nothing. We are agreeing to give
away our employment and our money, and yet we want nothing in exchange.
This is bad economics and poor policy-making.
It seems clear to me that we should ask for something in return. We
should ask that, at the very least, these nations treat their citizens
decently and with respect. The human rights records of the countries
included in this trade bill range from marginal to abominable. It
should not be too much to expect for their governments to take steps to
improve the living conditions of their people.

Women suffer unequal and often violent treatment in many of the
African countries and Caribbean nations. It is common in these
societies to accept physical violence as a means of resolving domestic
disputes. The result of this toleration is that women are routinely
battered, raped, and assaulted. For example, human rights workers
estimate that 20 percent of the female population in Nigeria has been
subjected to physical abuse in the home. Furthermore, many African
tribes force their female members to undergo rituals of severe
violence, which are often life-threatening. In some countries, such as
Sierra Leone, such brutal acts have been practiced on almost 100
percent of females.
Obviously, these women are considered inferior citizens. That
inequality is clear in the labor laws of many of these countries. If
they are allowed to work at all, women make far lower wages than their
male counterparts. In Kenya, women's average monthly wages were a
striking 37 percent below those of men in 1998.
Many of the children of these nations suffer similarly dismal fates.
Street children, often orphaned by the loss of their parents to the
AIDS virus, are sold into prostitution or, in some cases, into slavery.
In El Salvador, as many as 270,000 children fit into this category.
More ``fortunate'' minors are put to work as street vendors or domestic
servants to help support their families financially. Most of these
countries maintain the pretense of compulsory education and child labor
laws, but few conscientiously enforce them.
The plight of unskilled laborers in Africa and the Caribbean is also
problematic. Only a handful of the countries covered by S. 1387 have
established minimum wages that are sufficient to allow workers to
support their families. To state one example, unskilled and
agricultural laborers in Burundi are forced to survive on an
astonishingly low 35 cents per day! Not surprisingly, this amount has
been deemed inadequate for a worker and his family to maintain a decent
standard of living.
Clearly, the citizens of African and Caribbean countries are being
subjected to numerous and often brutal human rights abuses. It is
absurd that we are proposing to help these nations economically while
turning a blind eye to the violence and inequality that goes on within
their borders. If Congress and the administration insist on expanding
``free trade'' and granting open access to our markets to developing
states, let us at least make such

[[Page S13494]]

action contingent upon the equitable and decent treatment of their
people. We have a powerful tool at our disposal, and we would be
foolish not to use it.
This legislation defies common sense. By passing it, we would further
erode our manufacturing base and sacrifice important jobs, while
receiving nothing in return. To you who represent farmers, I ask that
you join me today in opposing this legislation, just as I and the
textile workers have stood with you during the current crisis. To those
who represent steel, I remind you that we supported you during your
crisis as well. Please stand with me in voting against this proposal.
Mr. President, to sum up:
The bill decimates the apparel sector. It permits duty-free, quota-
free imports from the CBI/Africa when made from United States fabric.
It targets import-sensitive sectors by altering the rules for the
imports of products from Africa.
It provides limited protections for African workers and limited
protections for Caribbean workers.
Unilateral action requiring that countries benefiting take no real
action to obtain the benefits.
It provides no protection for the environment. Unlike the NAFTA side
agreement, there are no side agreements to protect labor.
It undermines the textile and apparel policy adopted as part of GATT.
This Congress has no continuity of mind and attention. We passed a
10-year phaseout in the GATT agreement on textile quotas. Now, 5 years
into the agreement, we want to cut it out. Investments made on the
national policy of a 10-year phaseout are cut short. How do we pay for
the machinery?
Since we have a limited time, I will bring the issue into focus. This
could be called the Fruit of the Loom job flight bill or the campaign
finance bill because this proves the efficacy of soft money.
I have an article from today, Friday, October 29, from the Washington
Post, entitled ``Will Capitol Crusade Bear Fruit? Ailing Underwear
Maker Gives Freely as Senate Mulls Tariff Cut.''

Fruit of the Loom Inc. is feeling deep pain these days. The
company whose name has long been synonymous with underwear
has lost money in the last three quarters. Its stock has
dropped from $40 in 1997 to below $3 yesterday.
So a bill that would eliminate tariffs that it and other
companies pay to bring in certain garments from their
factories in the Caribbean looks awfully attractive.

That is what we will be voting on.

On Capitol Hill, the company that industry people simply
call Fruit has emerged as a prime promoter of the Senate
bill, which is part of the United States' Caribbean Basin
Initiative. The company also has become a big contributor to
Republican causes.
Contribution records show that Fruit gave $350,000 in
``soft money'' to GOP groups, $265,000 of it to the National
Republican Senatorial Committee, in the 1997-98 election
cycle. That placed the company in the same league as the
National Rifle Association and much bigger companies, such as
drugmaker Novartis Corp. and Atlantic Richfield Co.
Fruit also gave almost $90,000 in ``soft money to the
Democratic cause, all of it to the Democratic Senate Campaign
Committee.
Contributions have continued in 1999. Records show an
additional $73,000, all of it to Republicans.
At the same time, Fruit's chairman, William Farley, has
been an active donor to key Republicans, giving $2,000 in May
to the group Trent Lott for Mississippi, which supports the
Senate majority leader, and $2,000 to the Keep Our Majority
Political Action Committee, which supports GOP candidates.

Mr. President, we are not dealing with jobs and dealing with trade.
We are dealing with campaign finance.
I continue:

``It's a company in bad shape giving money fairly lavishly
to the [political] process, with incredible things to gain,''
said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for
Public Integrity.
Fruit doesn't deny the bill would help it--a spokesman said
it expects to gain $25 million to $50 million a year if the
Senate bill is enacted--but argues it will also help American
industry and jobs.
``We don't look on this bill as corporate welfare,'' said
Ronald J. Sorini, Fruit senior vice president for government
affairs.
Sorini said that his company and the industry are ``getting
hammered'' by imports from Asia and that the Senate version
of the bill, which limits import benefits to clothes made
abroad from U.S.-produced textiles, would help the company
compete by helping team its U.S. textile workers with its
low-cost garment stitchers overseas. The House bill does not
require use of American cloth.

Mr. President, as an aside, the ATMI disapproves this particular bill
because it marries the House bill with the Senate bill and does not
require the Senate language.
Reading on:

He denied the contributions are targeted at the Caribbean
bill, saying Fruit has more issues than that to worry about
in Congress. ``We support those who generally support our
industry,'' he said.
The Clinton administration also backs the Senate bill, as
does the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, which
represents companies that make cloth.
The Senate bill, along with one to offer similar tariff
benefits to Africa, was caught up in maneuvering last night,
with a vote to limit debate set for today. The measure is
opposed by a coalition of labor groups and companies that
still make garments in the United States. They contend it
will further erode U.S. garment jobs and unfairly reward
companies like Fruit that have sent garment jobs overseas.
Fruit's U.S. employment has fallen from 33,000 to 17,000
people, the company says. About 3,500 Fruit employees are
based in Kentucky, and the bill has caused a split between
the state's two senators, Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning,
both Republicans.
McConnell favors it. ``It's not unusual for a senator to
support the interests of a major employer in his or her
state,'' said Kyle Simmons, his chief of staff.
McConnell heads the Republican committee that has been the
beneficiary of Fruit's soft-money contributions. Simmons said
the money has no connection to McConnell's position, adding
that he has always been a ``free-trader.''
Bunning has spoken out against the bill, on the grounds
that too many jobs are going abroad.
All in all, the bill would cost the Treasury about $1
billion in lost tariff revenue over five years.

Mr. President, if there is any pride in being a Senator, they would
withdraw this bill.
I yield the floor and I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I rise one last time to implore my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support the motion to invoke cloture. Frankly, it
would be unconscionable to block progress on a bill that enjoys the
support of at least 80 Senators from both sides of the aisle. It would
be unconscionable to block progress on what the President has described
as one of the most significant initiatives of his presidency. It would
be unconscionable to block progress on a bill that enjoys the support
of the vast majority of political, civic and religious leaders in this
country and the support of each of the nations that would benefit from
its passage.
But, most importantly, it would be unconscionable to block progress
on a bill that would create 121,000 jobs in the American textile
industry over the next 5 years. I have emphasized again and again in
this debate that this is not a bill that is good just for our neighbors
in the Caribbean and Central America or our partners in Africa. This is
a bill that is good for our workers here at home!
Let me remind my colleagues that it is no benefit to workers in the
textile industry if you raise the minimum wage when they don't have a
job. It is of no use to American textile workers if you debate mergers
and acquisitions in the agribusiness sector if we do not open markets
for their products. It is of no use to the American textile workers if
we debate, yet again, reform of campaign finance laws when they headed
for the unemployment line.
I was not elected by my constituents in Delaware to look out for the
short-term political advantage. I was not elected by my constituents in
Delaware to win debating points and I have never sought the floor for
that purpose.
I have drafted a bill here that is a benefit to workers and industry
here in the United States, as well as neighbors in the Caribbean,
Central America, and Africa. It is a ``win-win'' situation economically
for American workers and our friends abroad.
The bill is also a victory for an outward looking foreign policy. It
is a statement about American leadership in an age that cries out for
us to lead in positive ways that ensure peace and stability around the
world.
Let me remind my colleagues that no state in Africa or the Caribbean
or Central America is politically stable if people cannot feed
themselves!
In recent weeks, I have heard an unending cavalcade of criticism
about the Senate's vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Isolationists!

[[Page S13495]]

That's what the opponents of this bill called those of us who thought
more about our national security than we thought of our political
expediency.
Where are those voices now? Where is the one or two voices that would
argue now for an outward looking foreign policy agenda? Where are those
one or two votes in favor of engagement with the world, rather than a
sterile debate about senatorial privileges?
This is not a debate about the minority party's rights. This is a
tyranny of the small minority on each side of the aisle that wants to
kill this bill. We must see our way clear to a vote against
partisanship. We must rise above the parochial and focus on our
national interest and the world around us.
Let me remind my colleagues that this bill enjoys the support of one
of the strongest bipartisan majorities I have seen in the Senate. The
cloture vote on the motion to proceed was 90-8.
This is a measure that the distinguished minority leader himself
initiated in 1994. This is a measure that the distinguished majority
leader has fought for and made room for at a time on the legislative
calendar when the hours are precious. This is a measure that the
President has indicated in his State of the Union Address is at the top
of his agenda.
This bill has the support of the strongest coalition of political,
civic, and religious leaders of any measure I have seen in years.
That said, I want to give credit where credit is due. Those who want
to kill this bill--those who have appeared so frequently on the floor
of the Senate this week to talk about anything but this bill--have done
a masterful job.
Does it strike anyone as an odd coincidence that Time magazine runs
an article during the week of this debate that suggests that this bill,
which would do so much for both Africa and the Caribbean and for
workers in the United States, is the work of a single company? Does it
strike anyone as an odd coincidence that someone named John Burgess in
the Washington Post, who erroneously reported last week that Nelson
Mandela opposed this legislation, regurgitates that Time magazine
article in this morning's edition of the Post?
Those articles ignore the bipartisan push that has brought this bill
to the floor of the Senate. A bipartisan push in the House of
Representatives led by the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and
Means Committee. And, the strong bipartisan push in the Senate as well.
My friends, each day this week, the Ambassadors of the 47 African
countries that would benefit from this bill have watched this debate
from the Senate gallery. Each day this week, members of the American
public have looked on as we discussed our privileges, rather than their
business. They have read the misreporting of the bill in the popular
press. They have seen the pleas of the President to vindicate his
foreign policy initiatives in Africa and the Caribbean go unheeded as
the discussion of process, rather than substance, has dragged on.
The real question before us is whether we can look up into the Senate
gallery and look those people in the eye if we fail to move this bill.
There will be a time to debate an increase in the minimum wage. There
will be a time to debate consolidation in the food processing industry.
There will be--and there has been--ample time devoted to the issue of
campaign finance reform. A vote for cloture does not preclude that
debate.
What would it do? It would leave us with a solid bill that is good
for Africa and the Caribbean and good for the United States. It would
also leave us with another two days to debate the merits of this bill
and offer any germane amendments that would improve the legislation
before us.
What is wrong with that? What is wrong with sticking to the subject
at hand and getting our job done?
I implore my colleagues to vote for cloture on this bill. I implore
my colleagues to vote in favor of an open engagement with the world
around us, rather than a fearful isolationism that hides behind
protective walls. I implore my colleagues to support this initiative
with a vote in favor of the motion before us.
Make your stand here. Vote for the motion.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Who yields time? The Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, much of the controversy surrounding U.S.
trade policy arises from differences in opinion about the economic
benefits achieved from trade agreements. Trade agreements, in
principle, have winners and losers. In recent years, regrettably, U.S.
trade agreements seem to be pitting U.S. conglomerates and foreign
policy interests against the traditional American workers. By
traditional worker, I mean craftsmen, artisans, and laborers who, in
this information age, still actually make things. Man cannot live on
information alone--we still need clothes, shoes, dishes to eat from,
watches, and tangible items. I believe the underlying issue for the
traditional American worker is the question of who benefits from our
trade negotiations. I believe that the traditional American worker
perceives that a selected few U.S. industries keep winning, while other
domestic industries keep losing, and that the promised trickle down of
benefits from the winners to the losers never happens.
Certainly, this is the case with the trade legislation now before the
Senate. The same industries keep losing. Under the African and
Caribbean provisions in the bill, the losers will likely be textile and
apparel, footware, glass, electronics, handbags, along with canned tuna
and petroleum. In this decade alone, the Senate approved two major
trade bills, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and in each of these
bills the losers were many of the same players. The deemed ``losers''
were workers in traditional industries such as textile and apparel
production, footware, glass, electronics, watches, and handbags.
I believe that many in the textile and apparel industry understand
only too well about the stigma of losing so often in trade agreements.
I am bothered by the ``loser'' sign that has been placed on the
traditional U.S. workers, and the lack of concern about workers who
lose their jobs as a result of a trade agreement. I believe that the
so-called ``losers'' in U.S. trade policy ought not to be thoughtlessly
discarded.
In the U.S. trade policy process, we have become heartless,
insensitive, merciless, and numb to the potential pain that these trade
agreements can inflict on Americans--on mothers, fathers, brothers,
sisters, and children. The so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance
program falls woefully short in providing meaningful benefits to the
workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements, and I hope
that members are not fooling themselves about the true hardships that
are ahead for many workers as a result of the trade legislation that we
are considering today. Yes, today the economy is booming, in most parts
of the United States. I hope this state of well-being lasts forever.
However, we know it will not.
Many of my colleagues eagerly point toward the benefits in the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. TAA is touted as the sure thing to
make a winner out of the loser from a trade agreement. Under TAA, in
return for their years of contributions to the local and national tax
bases, workers who can prove that their company went under as a result
of foreign trade might get a federal extension of unemployment checks,
which is approximately $250 a week in West Virginia, and two years of
``approved'' retraining. Possibly, if no ``approved'' jobs are
available in the area, these workers might also be eligible for a one-
way ticket to another region or state, with a whopping $800 from the
federal government to start them off in their new lives. With good
reason, most workers do not want TAA. They want to earn full wages,
with benefits, and two years of unemployment does not cut it.
Advocates of the trade bill proclaim that we have to think about the
future U.S. relations with Africa and the Caribbean basin, and that we
have to accept the fact that many traditional industries are a thing of
the past in the United States. There are numbers of members who dismiss
the textile and apparel industries, as sure to go the way of covered
wagons or the steam locomotive. Advocates want to make the

[[Page S13496]]

case that you are either for the trade bill before us, or against U.S.
relations with Africa and the Caribbean. I support meaningful economic
development in Africa and the Caribbean, but I also care about what
happens to the traditional worker here in the United States that might
lose his or her job as a result of this bill, and I simply have not
received any reasonable assurance that these workers will receive the
support they deserve.
From my years in the Senate, I have a very strong viewpoint on
accepting winners and losers as deemed by the Administration--any
administration--or by the committee of jurisdiction. I can tell you
that there are many, many industries that would be at risk, if certain
special tax or procurement provisions failed to exist. In my view, the
main reason that textile and apparel workers are so-called ``losers''
is because decade after decade we have chipped the tariffs away,
allowing our trading partners to enter the U.S. market under very
advantageous conditions. This strategy was called free trade, but, in
reality, I believe that it was mostly a heyday for our trading partners
who had no labor or environmental standards. Regardless, decade after
decade, this country has relentlessly chipped away at the textile and
apparel manufacturing base, mostly on the grounds that this is a
natural procession of development, like the demise of the covered wagon
and steam locomotive. My staff informs me that advocates of the African
and Caribbean trade provisions actually use the metaphor of the covered
wagon and steam locomotive as evidence that this is just the way the
world works. I guess someone forgot to educate this group that, unlike
covered wagons and steam locomotives, Americans will likely continue to
wear and use textile and apparel products!

I wonder if members supporting this legislation recall that during
debate on GATT only five years ago, we implemented drastic cuts in the
textile and apparel tariff rates. We told the textile and apparel
industry that they would have to swallow the cuts, but that we would
phase the tariff reductions in over ten years to help them make
business decisions and adjust to the new rules. Let me repeat that:
five years ago this body implemented deep tariff cuts on textile and
apparel with the understanding that the cuts would be phased in over
ten years. Well, it is 1999, and here we are again, chipping
relentlessly away at the nominal base that the textile and apparel
industry has left. Does the word of this body have no meaning?
Under the African and Caribbean trade provisions, there are U.S.
industry ``winners,'' mostly retailers, most notably apparel retail
companies, and the bill would help U.S. fabric manufacturers and
growers. To those winners, I say ``good for you.'' I know the value of
a dollar. I spend my money carefully. I like the benefit of consumer
savings from our free-market economy. I have never been against trade
agreements on fair trade.
I am here to tell you, however, that the consideration of trade
agreements should be completed in a serious, deliberative, and
scrutinizing manner, as trade agreements have broad impacts, and
negative consequences. There has been only one relevant hearing held on
this legislation, and that hearing pertained solely to the Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act. There were no hearings on the Carribean
Basin Initiative, the Generalized System of Preferences, or on Trade
Adjustment Assistance during this Congress.
While the proponents argue in behalf of the potential long-term
benefits that the bill might provide to the United States, the fact
remains that this bill lacks real reciprocal benefits for the United
States. This bill is generally a foreign aid package financed on the
backs of a few industries, such as the textile and apparel industry. Is
that fair?
It is time for the Senate to be sensitive to the costs of trade
agreements. We are preparing to approve a bill that imposes enormous
costs on direct segments of our economy. TAA is a start, but it is not
the whole answer. I urge my colleagues to put a human face on workers
in industries such as textile and apparel, footware, glass,
electronics, watches, and handbags. I can put a human face on these
workers, and I put a value on their hopes and dreams, and on their
future prosperity.
I am a product of the coal fields of West Virginia. I have seen what
it is to work hard, physically hard, to sweat, and to toil. American
workers, traditional workers, are the soul of America. They are the
essence of our values. They bleed and hurt as U.S. trade policy
tightens around their necks. With proper review, hearings, and
consideration, I am convinced that we could find a better way to
achieve U.S. foreign policy goals for the fine people of Africa and the
Caribbean nations. I support a long and prosperous relationship with
our friends in the sub-Saharan African and the Caribbean Basin nations.
We need to restore the average American worker's faith in our trade
policy. We need to move forward on a trade process that provides fair
and equitable treatment to all Americans. We need to recognize that all
American workers should be able to depend upon our understanding and
regard for their position upon enactment of trade law. This bill is not
what we are looking for. It does not do these things. For these
reasons, I cannot support this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman talked of a
short-term political advantage. I have debated this issue for 33 years
in the Senate. When I started, I was not successful. We had 90 percent
of the production of textiles. We are down to one-third or less of the
critical mass. If we preempt the 10-year phaseout of the Multifiber
Arrangement, I can tell you right now, the industry is gone. The jobs
are gone.
He talks about the tyranny of the minority. He has not seen me. If I
could be a tyrant, I would be. The White House and an overwhelming
majority of Republicans and Democrats are all in favor of soft money.
The morning headline: ``Will Capitol Crusade Bear Fruit?'' ``Ailing
Underwear Maker Gives Freely as Senate Mulls Tariff Cut.''
It is not the jobs. The jobs have left Kentucky. Senator Bunning has
to protect the jobs so that no more of them leave. 7,000 have already
left Louisiana. The gentleman, Mr. William Farley, has moved his
headquarters to the Cayman Islands; so we can call this the Fruit of
the Loom job flight bill.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. My decision was difficult
because I wholeheartedly support provisions of the bill that would
reauthorize of two important trade-related programs--the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP). These programs provide vital benefits to the state of Maine and
the nation. Although on balance, I believe that H.R. 434 unfairly
damages Maine's economy, I take solace in the fact that the TAA and GSP
programs are one step closer to being reauthorized. I would like to
focus for a moment on these two programs.
The TAA aids workers and firms in global economic readjustments. By
providing funds to retrain workers, TAA's program offers both
opportunity and a lifeline to workers displaced by market changes
caused by imports. It helps firms threatened by increased imports
through grants to explore new technology, manufacturing methods, and
marketing techniques. I have seen the effectiveness and efficiency of
the TAA program firsthand in my state of Maine and strongly support
both its goal and methods.
Mr. President, I would like to recount just one TAA success story of
the many in Maine and the nation. Four years ago, when a shoe factory
in Old Town, Maine closed, one of the employees laid off was a woman in
her fifties. She had worked in shoe factories all of her working life.
With no high school degree, unemployed, and no skills other than making
shoes in an economy with few shoe-making jobs, this woman was in dire
straits until she qualified for TAA assistance. Fortunately, she seized
the retraining opportunity to earn her GED and then trained as a
nursing assistant. She recently proudly stopped by the local retraining
office to let them know of her new job as a nursing assistant. She now
works in home health care, making more money and enjoying greater
flexibility than when she worked in a shoe

[[Page S13497]]

factory. In a true tribute to the effectiveness of the TAA program, she
told the retraining officials, ``I wish I had been laid off sooner.''
This story exemplified why the TAA program must be expeditiously
reauthorized.
Similarly, the GSP program deserves swift reauthorization. It
establishes a mechanism for extending duty-free treatment of certain
products imported from designated developing countries. The GSP program
allows for participation by only those countries that adequately
protect intellectual and property rights, observe international
standards of labor rights, employ certain economic policies, and
satisfy other important criteria. Moreover, the GSP program is limited
to products that are non-import sensitive, meaning American jobs are
not threatened.
In fact, the GSP program helps create jobs in America. The Foreside
Company based on Gorham, Maine, depends on the GSP program to be able
to import product necessary to create jobs in Maine. The Foreside
Company, with over 150 employees, is one of the fastest growing
companies in Maine. The energetic entrepreneur who runs this company
tells me that if GSP is not renewed, it would harm this Maine business
to the point that it would jeopardize dozens of jobs.
I am disappointed that legislation reauthorizing the TAA and GSP
programs were incorporated in H.R. 434, and not passed as independent
bills. Unfortunately, H.R. 434 includes measures that I cannot support.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Carribean Basin
Initiative are both deeply flawed proposals that would hurt Maine
workers and companies.
I want the record to clearly show, however, that in spite of my votes
against H.R. 434, I remain strongly supportive of both the Generalized
System of Preferences Extension Act and the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Reauthorization Act and strongly advocate for reauthorization of both
programs.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on few occasions is this body faced with a
bill that is supported by such a vast, diverse, and a broad based list
of industries and organizations, such as the NAACP, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the Corporate Council on Africa, and the National Retail
Federation. The African Growth and Opportunity Act provides a real
chance for the U.S. to engage in new trading partnerships with the sub-
Sahara Africa, but also provides a mechanism to assist those countries
to bolster their own economies.
This bill is important not only because of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act, but for the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), the
Generalized System of Preferences Program (GSP), and the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs contained therein. It is essential
that the Senate reauthorize the GSP and TAA and discontinue the
practice of simply extending these programs year by year. This all
encompassing trade package, the result of three years of negotiation,
deserves passage.
What is also essential about this trade bill, is the manner in which
the United States can give a hand-up to the Caribbean Basin and sub-
Sahara Africa. After the death and destruction caused by Hurricane
Mitch, the Caribbean nations have been struggling to regain the
economic hold necessary not only to sustain their inhabitants, but to
continue to prosper in the world economy. Instead of providing blanket
financial assistance, the Caribbean Basin Initiative provides a
mechanism and an avenue for these nations to begin rebuilding their
economies. The tariff preferences provided in this bill, on products
not previously covered by the 1990 CBI, will allow this region to
expand economically, and integrate them into the international trading
system.
In addition, these Caribbean nations have asked and desire similar
treatment to those afforded Mexico in the North American Free Trade
Agreement. These nations aspire to have the ability to broker trade
deals with the United States in order to ensure their economic
longevity in the region.
Trade with Africa is just as significant. According to the Department
of Commerce, U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa in 1998 was
approximately $6.7 billion, or 1% of total U.S. exports. Conversely,
the U.S. imported approximately $13.1 billion from sub-Saharan Africa.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act establishes the protocol and
trade mechanisms necessary to engage in future endeavors with these
countries. The bill provides for benefits under the GSP for sub-Sahara
Africa as well as benefits for the textile and apparel industries. As
my colleagues know, these benefits were constructed not to inhibit, but
to enhance these industries in the United States. All garments and
apparel manufactured in Sub-Sahara Africa must consist of U.S. thread,
yarn, and other components.
For my own State of Washington, passage of this bill means additional
export markets for our highly sought after wheat, world-renowned
aircraft, and the various other commodities and goods and services that
has made Washington the most highly trade dependent state in the
nation. For example, the leading exports to sub-Saharan Africa include
aircraft, wheat, and aircraft parts. Incidentally, 68% of the aircraft
utilized in sub-Saharan Africa is produced by the Boeing Company.
Boeing estimates that these nations will eventually require at least
270 new aircraft valued at approximately $20 billion. Naturally, the
330 in the current fleet will require new parts and services. I cannot
over emphasize the importance of these numbers alone, not only to
Washington state, but to all the Boeing employees nationwide.
But free trade does not exist for the soul purpose of exports.
Through the mechanisms and tariff reductions provided in the CBI,
Northwest companies such as Nordstrom and Eddie Bauer have an
opportunity to expand and import new materials and apparel.
Mr. President, again I reiterate the importance not only of the
content of this trade bill, but of the far-reaching support for its
passage. Senators Roth and Moynihan have repeatedly reminded our
colleagues of the many, many organizations and entities that support
this bill. Religious leaders coupled with business, and agriculture
working with the apparel industry--these partnerships emphasize the
importance of expanding and enhancing free trade to sub-Saharan Africa
and the Caribbean. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this
omnibus trade bill.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we consider the African Growth and
Opportunity Act, I rise to speak about the status of the United States
textile and apparel industry. During my time in the Senate, there has
been an ever increasing effort to give away our textile and apparel
industry. This is done in the name of free trade, under the guise of
promoting market-based economies and democratic governments in
developing countries. In spite of all this, the textile and apparel
industry still ranks second among United States manufacturing
industries. Notwithstanding downsizing, automation, and unfair import
competition, this industry provides jobs for over one million two
hundred thousand American workers, and contributes nearly sixty billion
dollars per year to the Nation's Gross Domestic product.
Back in 1983 we passed the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.
This was an attempt to provide free market economic and democratic
political incentives to twenty-four Caribbean Basin countries. In 1994,
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect,
lowering our quotas and tariffs for imports of textiles and apparel
from Canada and Mexico. The following year, the United States made
further concessions upon joining the World Trade Organization. Now the
Senate is considering legislation, which, in my view, will further
impair the textile and apparel industry.
What has been the result of these trade agreements on the textile and
apparel industry in the United States? During the five-year period from
1994 to 1998, the trade imbalance (imports over exports) for textiles
increased an annual average rate of 17.5 percent. For apparel, the
trade deficit increased at an annual average rate of 9.8 percent.
During this time period, textile and apparel imports from Mexico rose
by 288 percent. Apparel imports from the Northern Marianas jumped by
300 percent. Additionally, the United States has endured a flood of
textile and apparel imports from Asia.
This flood of imports has had a significant impact on employment.
Since 1981, just prior to the initial Caribbean

[[Page S13498]]

Basin trade legislation, 874,400 American textile and apparel jobs have
been lost. In the five years since NAFTA, which supporters argued would
create more jobs in the United States, the domestic textile and apparel
industry has lost 437,000 jobs. While some of these jobs have been lost
as a result of restructuring and automation, major reductions in
employment levels are due to the elimination of our quotas and tariffs.
The textile and apparel industry is very important to my State of
South Carolina. Unfortunately, the loss of textile and apparel jobs in
South Carolina has been particularly devastating. Since 1987, textile
employment has decreased from a high of 108,000 to 73,000 this year.
This is a loss of almost 35,000 jobs, a reduction of nearly one-third
of all textile jobs in South Carolina.
During this same period, my State has also endured the elimination of
over 50 percent of all its apparel jobs. Apparel employment is down
from a high of 46,000 jobs in 1987 to 20,000 jobs today. This means
almost 26,000 apparel jobs have disappeared in South Carolina.
The employment impact has been felt in other States as well. More
recently, from 1993 to 1998, North Carolina lost over 70,000 textile
and apparel jobs; Tennessee nearly 35,000; Georgia almost 29,000;
Virginia and Alabama 18,000 each; Mississippi over 17,000; and in Texas
about 15,000 jobs have been lost. In Oklahoma, the entire textile and
apparel industry has been lost--8,300 jobs no longer exist.
What is the outlook for future employment in the textile and apparel
sector? There is great uncertainty, and a wide range of estimates. What
is known, Mr. President, is that by the year 2005, the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing will expire, and all quota restrictions will
lapse. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the impact of this
development to be at least 200,000 jobs. The American Textiles
Manufacturers Institute predicts employment losses as high as 650,000.
Mr. President, it does not make sense to give away American jobs. The
policy of the Federal Government should be to preserve and promote job
growth for Americans, not make them unemployed. I do not think that we
went through the process of reforming welfare just to add to the ranks
of the unemployed.

The loss of textile and apparel jobs is more than just numbers, Mr.
President. It affects the living conditions, health, and welfare of
individuals, families and the communities in which they live. In many
rural counties in South Carolina, where the textile plant or sewing
factory is (or was) the only source of employment, unemployment rates
range from 8 to 16 percent. Textile and apparel industries have been
the economic backbone of many of these rural Southern counties. These
communities have limited job opportunities. Furthermore, for a variety
of reasons, the residents of these communities cannot just pick up and
leave, nor is retraining a viable option in many cases.
Earlier during the floor debate on this bill, a report by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) was referenced during a discussion
of labor productivity in the textile industry. The CRS Report notes
that there has been productivity in the industry because of capital
investment in labor-saving machinery. The report states, ``Rapid
employment losses combined with stable output necessarily implies gains
in labor productivity.'' Furthermore, it concludes that ``Many textiles
factories have become almost completely machine-driven, leaving little
room for further labor-savings, and the apparel industry seems ill-
suited to such mechanization.'' So I wanted to clarify the record on
productivity in the industry. It has come at the expense of employment.
Let me now turn to a more general issue. We must consider trade
legislation in the context of our broader foreign policy objectives. To
a great degree, this is made more difficult given this Administration's
lack of clear foreign policy objectives. Nevertheless, let me discuss a
few items which I believe deserve closer review before final action on
this legislation is taken.
First, our foreign policy regarding Latin America and the Caribbean
is basically running on empty. The United States is suffering in its
own hemisphere strategically, politically, and economically. A good
example is our relationship with Haiti. Despite our intervention, Haiti
has advanced little toward establishing a minimally effective
government. After spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, United
States and Canadian troops are being pulled out.
Second, this Administration apparently cannot frame a coherent drug
policy. Currently, the United States spends $289 million on security
assistance to Colombia, the third-largest recipient of such aid. Aid
for Colombia and its Andean neighbors, Bolivia and Peru, was meant to
begin eliminating the sources which fuel the Caribbean drug trade. Yet,
according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Colombian traffickers
have taken over a major chunk of the United States heroin market from
Southeast Asian dealers. This is in addition to their dominance in the
cocaine market. It is no secret the drug criminal organizations look
for the easiest route of movement--which is through the Caribbean.
The closing of United States military bases in Panama this year has
severely reduced America's ability to monitor the byways traffickers
use to ferry drugs into the country. The biggest blow came with the
closing of Howard Air Force Base, the U.S. center for anti-drug
operations. Retired General George Joulwan, former commander of U.S.
military forces in Latin America, testified that Howard was the ``crown
jewel'' in our counter-drug operations because of its strategic
location and infrastructure. Since being booted out of Panama,
Administration officials have been scrambling for alternative sites to
use to monitor and intercept drug traffic through the Caribbean.
I am concerned that as we propose to drastically increase container
shipping through the Caribbean, we will be exposing our Nation to the
potential for a tremendous increase in illicit drug imports. Other
Senators have addressed the issue of how Custom Agents are presently
unable to adequately monitor imports. This situation is aggravated by
the movement toward paperless entry, where Customs forms are
electronically cleared after the foreign goods move through our ports.

Mr. President, the key to resolving many of our hemispheric problems
is coordinating our criminal justice efforts, defense requirements,
foreign policy, and economic and trade strategy toward Latin American
countries. We cannot afford to look at these in isolation of one
another.
Finally, let me highlight some of the more dangerous elements of
legislation which some in Congress are proposing. While the Senate bill
alleviates some of the worst of these issues, I want the record to be
clear on why these provisions must never become law. If, by some
chance, this bill moves to a conference with the House, there may be an
effort to incorporate some of these proposals. This would be a terrible
mistake.
There are some in Congress who would favor the quota-free entry into
the United States for apparel made in the Caribbean Basin countries
from fabric produced anywhere in the world. Such a provision would void
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
Another flawed proposal is the scheme to use Tariff Preference
Levels, whereby fabric produced anywhere in the world may be used in
apparel sewn in the Caribbean Basin countries and imported duty-free
and quota-free into the United States. Such preferences are permitted
under NAFTA. Canada has used its preferences to export into the United
States textile and apparel products made of non-North American yarns
and fabrics. This violation of NAFTA has permitted $300 million from
textile mills in Europe and Asia to severely damage U.S. manufacturers
of wool suits and wool fabrics as well as other U.S. producers.
Likewise, Mexico is now sending textiles and apparel made from cheap
Asian yarns and fabrics into the United States. Tariff Preference
Levels are bad for the American textile and apparel industry and for
its workers. They must not be permitted to be extended further.
Perhaps the worst provisions proposed in the House bill are those
related to transshipment. Transshipment is the practice of producing
textile and apparel goods in one country, and shipping it to the United
States using the

[[Page S13499]]

quota and tariff preferences reserved for a third country. The most
egregious part of the House bill is that it fails to include provisions
for origin verification identical to those in Article 506 of the North
American Free Trade Act. This could lead to Africa and the Caribbean
Basin being used as an illegal transshipment point by Asian
manufacturers. It would encourage the use of non-U.S. produced fiber
and fabric in apparel goods entering the United States duty-free.
Finally, the House bill grants overly generous privileges and
preferences to African and the Caribbean Basin countries in a
unilateral fashion. There is little incentive for these countries to
grant reciprocal access for products made in the United States.
I have outlined the current economic standing of the United States
textile and apparel industry. There is no question that unfair trade
policies have negatively impacted employment levels in this important
sector of our economy. There is no reason to believe the trade bills we
are debating will lead to a different result. Furthermore, these bills
raise serious national defense and foreign policy questions. Finally,
many provisions, which unfortunately might be included in the final
legislative product, would cause unnecessary harm to the textile and
apparel industry in the United States. The textile and apparel firms
may survive as they adapt to our legislative actions and changing
economic conditions. American textile workers may not be so fortunate.
This is my main concern--for those textile and apparel workers who work
hard, pay their taxes and raise their families. This is why I have
reservations about this bill.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the question before the Senate now--the
Africa trade package and enhancement of the (Caribbean Basin
Initiative) (CBI)--is a simple question of recognizing and seizing
opportunities for America.
As the world continues to open trade and reduce barriers with GATT
and various regional groupings and agreements the opportunity to gain
competitive advantage over Europe and the industrialized countries of
Asia could not be more starkly presented than with this package.
In terms of the Caribbean and Central America that opportunity begins
almost right off our Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. The mutual benefit of
those relationships is recognized across the board in both the United
States and in the region.
The American textiles industry, which has taken such a hit in the
past two decades, recognize the potential that CBI has with respect to
competing with Europe and Asia in the next 10 years. Many of the
companies see the future of the industry in America dependent on
gaining that advantage through CBI and other trade agreements. We
should recognize and seize that opportunity.
Sub-Saharan Africa presents an entirely different set of
opportunities and considerations.
We have also heard a great deal of concern about what this bill will
or will not do for Africa.
Much of that concern is because Africa truly sits on the margins of
our external trade relationships. It also sits on the margins of our
national interests. But it's not just us. Africa sits on the margins of
the global economy, where the gap between it and the developed world
continues to grow wider at a disturbing rate.
In the minds of many people it is a lost continent, typified by
extreme poverty and horrific brutality. The number of countries is
confusing, as are the fluid alliances and corrupt bases of power which
dictate the continent's life.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I must admit that
it is very difficult to associate the names of Somalia, Rwanda, Congo,
Angola, Burundi, Sierra Leone, and even Sudan with opportunity and
potential benefits to the United States. But the continent cannot be
viewed as a single entity, and, even in the midst of tragedy and
suffering, they still have such great untapped potential.
Sub-Saharan Africa has--depending on whom you ask--a collective
population approaching 700 million people. They are overwhelmingly poor
and quite often isolated. But take even half that number and view them
as potential consumers of American goods, and the opportunities for
beneficial trade look better.
In July I held roundtable discussion in the Africa Subcommittee with
some of the top fund managers, past and current Administration
officials, and economists, regarding the barriers to investment in
Africa. This group brought together very disparate interests and
somewhat differing views of how to address those barriers, but a
single, profound view was shared by all: Africa is truly the final
frontier for American investment and trade, and that the potential is
great enough that it must be given immediate and higher priority by
policy makers.

Although the continent is troubled and presents less immediate
returns than our expanded trade relationships with Latin America, Asia,
and Europe, the potential benefits to the United States 10 to 20 years
from now are so great that we would be remiss if we did not act now. We
have before us an opportunity to start diversifying and nurturing that
growth outside of the extractive industries, and to profoundly
influence the future of Africa.
The Africa trade legislation is not a comprehensive set of tools to
address those barriers and gain advantage in that last frontier--it has
never been billed as such and Senators should not consider it such when
they vote. But it is a good start. And, remarkably, it is a beginning
point upon which both Americans and Africans have agreed.
That is a remarkable opportunity in what has otherwise been a
troubled and neglected relationship.
But I differ with the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee and
the other well-meaning opponents that this effort is fatally flawed. I
differ as well on the idea that we must do all or nothing with respect
to our potential trade relationships and policies toward Africa on this
piece of legislation. That will be a long and difficult process and one
which will require much more than legislation.
The Africa trade bill also has virtues beyond the expansion of trade.
The United States' national interests in Africa are not clearly
understood, and, as a consequence, our policy goals are often ill-
defined. Even as the Secretary of State completed her trip to the
continent last week, we find a lack of a consensus on the security,
economic and humanitarian interests we have there.
One point that is clearly understood and agreed upon on both sides of
the aisle and throughout policy circles in the United States and the
entire developed world, is that our actions must promote greater
freedom and opportunity for Africans who suffer under some of the most
incompetent, corrupt and sadistic regimes on the face of the earth.
These regimes also affect our lives when organized crime, terrorists,
drug traffickers and disease have found fertile ground and purchase on
a continent that has been so ravaged.
In the post-cold-war era, the United States; approach to Africa has
been driven almost exclusively by foreign assistance packages. During
the cold war, the same was true, but we added the dimension of proxy
wars against Soviet and Cuban aggression. That approach was reasonable
at the time, considering what was at stake for us, but it did not leave
a good legacy on the continent.
We now have what is a tremendous opportunity to begin fundamentally
changing that legacy and, as I noted in the opening sentences of my
remarks, to seize opportunities.
If you consider the effectiveness of aid to Africa in achieving those
goals a continent-wide scale, the record is not good. Almost all of
Africa has seen a reduction in income and, now, life expectancy, since
we began direct assistance programs in the late 1950s to mid 1960s.
Regardless of that record, it is clear that monetary assistance alone
is not an acceptable foundation for our relations with an entire
continent.
This initiative, though, is quite different and it represents much
more than simply a ``trade not aid'' approach. Not only does it
potentially benefit us as well, it contains incentives for simple yet
critical changes in governance in Africa.
Those incentives and mutual benefits have the added and rather
dramatic quality of being backed by (literally) every single potential
participant on the continent. Every single one.

[[Page S13500]]

That includes former South African President Nelson Mandela, who has
been erroneously portrayed as opposing this bill.
I think it is paternalistic to assert that African nations do not
understand the effects this bill would have on them. And I do not
believe that these nations have unrealistic expectations of its
potential benefits.
Africans widely view their interaction with the outside world as one
that has been anything from exploitative at worst to unequal at best.
From the time of the first penetration of the African interior by
slavers and ivory hunters until today, that has been the case--
regardless of intent. Even benevolent missions were viewed as
unintentional but nonetheless effective entrees for colonial powers'
exploitation of the continent.
Interestingly, our own foreign assistance to the continent--which is
viewed as a product of goodwill and of shared goals with reformers--
does not escape that stigma.
As with any donor/recipient relationship, the recipient will always
be viewed as ``less equal'' than the donor. That fact is unavoidable
and, indeed, universal.
Although cash-strapped and desperately needy, Africans rightfully
view a purely donor/recipient relationship between us and them as
another manifestation of the treatment of Africans as less than equal--
again, that is regardless of intent.
This legislation is clearly viewed differently by Africans, and
that's why I am puzzled and unimpressed with the accusations by
opponents of this effort that it is ``exploitative.'' That somehow
American corporations are simply going to reinvent that age-old
relationship of Africa to the world and this will be their vehicle to
do so. This effort is about realizing opportunities to build new
mutually beneficial ties between the United States and Africa.
That is the Africans' view, at least. And that is why they bristle at
the idea that this effort is not in their best interest, that they must
be protected from something which they see as beneficial and positive.
In effect, it says to them that they must be protected from beginning
to build relationships with America where they can be equals, where
they are not simply something to pity and to patronize.
This bill will not change that attitude nor the continent overnight.
As I said earlier, it is neither comprehensive trade legislation for
Africa, nor is it a comprehensive policy toward Africa. It is a
beginning, though. An important beginning. And, despite its potential
flaws, it is critically important to pass this bill if we ever want to
help bring Africa away from the margins, away from the suffering and
human and environmental disasters and into the fold of developed and
free nations.
That effort will require American leadership, and that leadership
requires a first step. This effort is just such a first step, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to support it and to defend it from those
who would kill it, obstruct it or otherwise defeat it, either out of
protectionist or other outmoded sentiments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Delaware has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute
amendment to Calendar No. 215, H.R. 434, an act to authorize
a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa.
Trent Lott, Bill Roth, Mike DeWine, Rod Grams, Mitch
McConnell, Judd Gregg, Larry E. Craig, Chuck Hagel,
Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici, Don Nickles, Connie
Mack, Paul Coverdell, Phil Gramm, R.F. Bennett, and
Richard G. Lugar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2325 to H.R. 434, an act to authorize a new trade and
investment policy for sub-Saharan Africa, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Helms), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yes.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 342 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Bryan
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--8

Boxer
Dorgan
Hatch
Helms
Inouye
Kennedy
Lautenberg
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays 46.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may we have order. The chairman is about
to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.

____________________