[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1027-H1040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AFRICA GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 383

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1432) to authorize a new trade and investment 
     policy for sub-Saharan Africa. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution 
     and shall not exceed two hours, with one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations and one hour equally 
     divided and controlled

[[Page H1028]]

     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments 
     printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
     failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. 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 as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 383 is a structured rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1432, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, a 
bill designed to usher in a new era in U.S. African relations by 
stimulating market incentives and increasing trade.
  H. Res. 383 provides for 2 hours of general debate with 1 hour 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on International Relations, and 1 hour divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  The rule provides for the consideration of the Committee on Ways and 
Means' amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill 
as modified by the amendments printed in Part I of the report of the 
Committee on Rules as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and 
considered as read.
  H. Res. 383 also waives points of orders against the committee 
amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, that is, the 
rule on germaneness.
  The resolution also makes in order six amendments printed in Part II 
of the Committee on Rules' report. The amendments shall be considered 
only in the order specified in the report, may be offered only by the 
Member designated by the report, and shall be considered as read, shall 
be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided 
between a proponent and opponent, and the amendments are not subject to 
amendment.
  This rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting time after 
the first of the series of votes provided that the first vote is not 
less than 15 minutes. This provision will facilitate consideration of 
amendments.
  House Resolution 338 also provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is designed to reinforce the positive 
developments taking place in the sub-Saharan African region by 
promoting a United States trade policy with those countries that are 
committed to market incentives, human rights reforms, and private 
sector growth.
  The countries affected by this legislation are moving toward 
democracy and opening their economies. This legislation will help 
expand this move by encouraging sub-Saharan countries that are truly 
reform minded to expand their trade and investment ties with the United 
States.
  I think it is important to note that this bill requires the President 
to identify those countries that are moving toward the establishment of 
a market-based economy and that there is a strong eligibility criteria 
to ensure human rights and penalize those caught engaging in illegal 
behavior.
  These conditions will continue to be helpful in terms of reforms that 
might otherwise not be made because these nations view this as a 
partnership and an opportunity to improve relations with the United 
States.
  The United States has proven adept at providing developmental aid and 
humanitarian relief to this region in the past. However, as we move 
into the 21st Century, this legislation is part of a new strategy 
designed to stimulate growth by promoting free trade and market 
economies. If we do not open these new markets, I fear that we will 
lose valuable economic activities and thwart job creation for American 
business and workers.
  The Committee on International Relations informs us that trade 
between the United States and Africa can be greatly expanded with over 
11 million United States jobs, including one in five manufacturing jobs 
being supported by our exports. The potential for job creation is high.

                              {time}  1045

  Over the last 4 years alone U.S. exports have created 1.4 million new 
American jobs. However, if the United States continues to opt not to 
participate, we all know that other nations will move forward in our 
place, forge free trade agreements with those countries and leave us 
behind.
  With regard to the consideration of amendments, the Committee on 
Rules has done its best to permit the consideration of amendments to 
this legislation that do not touch upon the Committee on Ways and 
Means' portions of H.R. 1432. In testimony yesterday, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking minority 
member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, argued for the 
traditional protections for tax and trade provisions under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In permitting only 
these amendments, the committee has followed precedent during the 
consideration of Ways and Means bills in an effort to preserve the 
integrity of the trade laws.
  H.R. 1432 was ordered reported unanimously from both the Committee on 
International Relations' Subcommittee on Africa and the full Committee 
on International Relations. In addition, H.R. 1432 was ordered reported 
out of the Committee on Ways and Means unanimously with only a single 
amendment offered and considered.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may proceed with 
general debate and consideration of the amendments and the merits of 
this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last month I have been very impressed by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), my chairman, who has made in 
order open rule after open rule. Unfortunately, today, Mr. Speaker, it 
appears that that open rule streak has come to an end.
  The rule we are considering today is a modified closed rule for a 
very, very important bill to which Members really have a lot of 
amendments. But this closed rule, Mr. Speaker, will prohibit all but a 
very few amendments. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the rule.
  This African trade bill is designed to stimulate growth and reduce 
poverty in eligible sub-Saharan countries. It encourages investment in 
some African

[[Page H1029]]

countries which are already turning out to be rich markets for American 
technologies and exports. It also enables African countries to have the 
kind of trade consideration that countries in Europe, Asia, Mexico and 
Canada have enjoyed for years. Mr. Speaker, that is to say, it is about 
time.
  But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, unless we can make some major changes 
in this bill, any help this bill gives African countries will be at the 
expense of American workers, particularly American textile workers. 
Unless we change this bill, huge Asian textile corporations will be 
able to transship their products through Africa and will avoid an 18 
percent import duty. Mr. Speaker, that does not help African workers 
and it sure does not help American workers.
  They can make the clothes in Asia, in Chinese sweatshops if they 
want. They can ship them to Africa to be packaged and avoid all kinds 
of quotas, all kinds of tariffs. Meanwhile, slave trade in China 
continues to flourish, African workers do not get much of anything to 
do, and American workers are laid off left, right and center.
  But since my Republican colleagues have closed the rule to keep us 
from improving this bill, we cannot require progress on workers' 
rights, on child labor. We cannot prevent transshipping, we cannot 
require African countries to open markets for American goods like 
clothing, footwear and yarn.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues thought NAFTA was bad for American 
workers' rights, if they thought NAFTA would cause irreparable 
environmental damage, wait until they get a load of this African trade 
bill. It looks like we have not learned anything from NAFTA's mistakes.
  This bill helps powerful Asian manufacturers at the expense of both 
African workers and American workers. It turns a blind eye to child 
labor, to basic workers' rights, and it will hurt the American textile 
business.
  This bill purports to help Africans, which it may not, and it does so 
at the expense of African Americans who make up one-third to one-half 
of all textile and apparel workers here in the United States.
  In the past few years, there has been a remarkable economic and 
political transformation in sub-Saharan Africa. President Clinton is 
going to Africa in less than 2 weeks. He would like to open up more 
trade. But right now, Mr. Speaker, he can do that only at a very high 
price to American taxpayers and to American workers.
  So in the interest of all working people, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this closed rule. We can send the bill back to the Committee on 
Rules, we can make these improving amendments in order, and this would 
vastly improve the bill. Mr. Speaker, I think we should.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear the words coming out of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the former chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, criticizing this rule as a closed rule. I just have 
to remind the membership, Mr. Speaker, that I labored for 6 years under 
the tutelage and the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), and time after time after time he took to this floor and 
said we must not, under any circumstances, open up a Ways and Means 
section of any bill to amendment, because the Tax Code in this country 
is so complicated that we must make sure that hearings have been held 
before we ever, ever allow amendments on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I have simply followed the leadership of my chairman, 
which means so much.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the gentleman has watched too 
closely. But also he may remember the most-favored-nation status China 
trade bill that I opened the rule because there were some very-much-
needed amendments, and it is very reminiscent of what we are doing 
today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I do not recall that, and I will discuss it with the 
gentleman later. But, Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this is a 
controversial bill. I have a lot of concerns about it myself. I am 
concerned with the people that used to work in the trade, of making the 
shirts that we are wearing on our backs today. I was in several 
department stores and several discount stores like Kmart and Wal-Mart 
not too long ago, looking at all the shirts, the dress shirts like 
these that they had on display, and there were nine different countries 
that have brought these shirts into this country. I could not find one 
American shirt being manufactured here.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) used to represent a lot of 
those people in New York City, I represented them in the Hudson Valley. 
There are practically none left.
  But notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. What we 
have done is to make every amendment in order, every single amendment 
coming out of the Committee on International Relations, the committee 
of jurisdiction. We have made amendments for the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) we made 3 amendments in order, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis), all Democrats. Every single amendment that was filed with the 
Committee on Rules was made in order except those that would interfere 
with the U.S. Tax Code.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), sitting over there, had 
several amendments that were good amendments and that I would support, 
but we just cannot bring those amendments to the floor under these 
circumstances because it would open up the U.S. Tax Code. Therefore, I 
would ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), I know she is 
chairman of the Black Caucus, I would ask her when she comes over here 
to urge support of this rule because it is a fair rule.
  We need to at least debate this issue on the floor and then let the 
chips fall where they may. But please come over and support the rule. 
It is a very fair rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  One of the reasons why certain amendments were not allowed under the 
rule is because it would preclude the African people from exporting 
their goods to the United States. It would seem to me that if we are 
going to have a trade bill, then certainly removing the ability of 
people that are really trying to build up some industry in these poor, 
impoverished countries, that we should not deny them the opportunity to 
develop their own fabrics, sew them together and send them to the 
United States.
  Under the amendment that was not accepted by the Committee on Rules, 
the African workers in these countries would not be able to manufacture 
their own goods. They would have to accept American-manufactured goods, 
cut in America, sent across the Atlantic, sewed together and sent back 
over. They say, ``Well, it's been done in Mexico.''
  There is a big difference between the line on the map between Mexico 
and the United States and the Atlantic Ocean, and it is just not 
feasible. The amendment would have precluded all of the GSP provisions 
in the trade bill. And so let us not hear that if we had had a better 
rule, we would have voted for the African trade bill. What would be 
better to say is that if you want to kill the African Growth and 
Economic Opportunity bill, if you want to deny the people in this part 
of the world participation in world trade, then you deny us the 
opportunity to bring it on the floor. And if you do not want the bill 
on the floor, then you have to vote against the rule.
  The rule gives us an opportunity to vote up or down. It denies us the 
opportunity to take a lot of amendments and to change what the bill 
was.
  And about transshipment. Transshipment is an international problem.

[[Page H1030]]

 Let me make it abundantly clear that transshipment is a problem for 
the United States and that is the reason why special consideration was 
given in this bill where the offending countries are not only 
penalized, but it is governed by the International Trade Commission, 
the World Trade Organization, and if these countries in the sub-Saharan 
can manage to export and reimport the type of goods that the supporters 
of the amendments are talking about, we would know it in a hurry. 
Believe me, these countries are in such despair economically that they 
are only trying to participate.
  I ask Members to support the rule, give these African countries a 
chance. We promised it to them. Let us not deny it through a 
parliamentary procedure.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 1432, the 
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Unfortunately, the rule does not 
permit a perfecting amendment which would require that apparel 
receiving duty-free and quota-free treatment be constructed of U.S.-
manufactured yarn and fabric, as is the law today on imports from the 
Caribbean basin, another group of impoverished people.
  In its current form, H.R. 1432 poses a serious risk to our domestic 
textile industry and its employees. The bill does not prevent the 
illegal transshipment of apparel from other countries, particularly 
China that has avoided quotas in the past. In actuality, the bill could 
throw thousands of U.S. workers out of their jobs.
  Over my years in Congress, I have supported many trade agreements 
that have produced positive results. However, I believe trade 
agreements should give American workers a fair shake, not hurt them. As 
it stands, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act will only produce 
negative results.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I 
rise in strong opposition to the rule and H.R. 1432, the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act. This restrictive rule prevents most Members of 
Congress from offering any amendments to perfect this bill and to 
ensure that it is the people of Africa who will benefit from this 
legislation.
  This rule makes it impossible to require that the benefits provided 
by the United States under this legislation be granted only if the 
countries of Sub-Saharan Africa employ African workers in the 
production of goods granted preferential market access to the United 
States.
  I favor the goals of this bill to provide a foundation for strong 
democracy and a sustainable social and economic development in Africa. 
However, I cannot sanction legislation that, in its current form, 
promotes these goals at the expense of African workers, the very sector 
of society upon which future economic development relies. At the very 
least, we must promote an economic foundation for Africa which has as 
its cornerstone the provision of the ample employment opportunities for 
the indigenous citizens and permanent residents.
  Were this a fair rule, I would have been allowed to offer a simple 
but vital amendment. My amendment would have required that the benefits 
provided in this legislation, including duty-free and quota-free access 
to U.S. markets, only be afforded to those African countries if the 
goods produced were created by a work force that is composed of at 
least 80 percent permanent resident workers. In addition, my amendment 
would have required that these countries avoid the use of indentured, 
bonded, forced, convict or exploited child labor in the manufacture of 
these goods.
  My colleagues say that this is not going to happen, that this is not 
possible, that the ocean is too far. Well, let me explain to my 
colleagues that the Chinese garment makers send to the northern Mariana 
Islands goods woven in China, cut in China, and assembled in the 
northern Marianas by the Chinese workers, a totally controlled work 
force that is indentured, that is bonded, where the young people are 
forced into forced 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 are there. They can get there under the U.S. quota.
  This is just legalizing transshipment, and what happens is that those 
workers can be imported from China, from India, from Bangladesh, as 
they are in the Northern Marianas, and they will be there to do the 
work, to create the goods that my colleague held up here; they will not 
be created by African workers because those workers will work for far 
less than any of the wages that are offered to them in Africa.
  This is a fact of life. We deal with it now. Almost a billion and a 
half dollars worth of garments comes in quota-free, duty-free from the 
Marianas. We should not set up a parallel system. We should not set up 
a parallel system in Africa.
  This legislation should bestow the benefits of this bill on the 
African people, not on the corporations that will set up in these zones 
and then import their workers, workers who will have paid large amounts 
of money, who in fact become indentured and work for pennies a day in 
violation of all, all working conditions that we would consider 
acceptable. This bill should be sent back to the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. This 
is actually a very great day for this institution. I believe that the 
American people would be very proud of the process that went into 
fashioning this measure. It is clearly bipartisan; it crosses 
ideological lines. We have some of the most conservative Members of 
this institution strongly supportive of the measure, and some of the 
most liberal.
  On the Committee on Ways and Means we have the leadership, including 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) who is here on the floor, 
along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and others 
who have played a role in looking at this issue.
  And quite frankly, while we hear about this question of whether or 
not we are allowing for the free flow of ideas here on the floor, the 
opportunity existed there in the Committee on Ways and Means. And 
frankly, as this measure moved, there was very little debate, but 
opportunity for it, and we also saw that there were no amendments when 
this measure moved out on a voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also say that there is a complete open process 
with every germane amendment that is considered under the international 
relations portion, and I should praise my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, who has 
also worked long and hard on this.
  So what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is I believe a measure which is 
really based on goals that we as Americans and as Democrats and 
Republicans share. Every one of us clearly wants to help the poorest 
and most disadvantaged among us. Every one of us wants to encourage 
individuals to help themselves, and so this measure is really based on 
the proverb, ``Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him 
to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.''
  As we look at the problems that my friend Mr. Rangel mentioned of 
Sub-Saharan Africa, it is a very tragic history that I am very pleased 
to say is beginning to turn around. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only 
place on the face of the Earth where actually the children are doing 
worse than their grandparents.
  As we look at the last 2 decades, what has existed in the United 
States? We have continued to funnel more and

[[Page H1031]]

more U.S. taxpayer assistance to Africa. We, in fact, have followed the 
policy of aid, not trade. Well, with this measure we are by 180 
degrees, I am happy to say, reversing that pattern, and we know that it 
is going to create the kind of opportunity that is necessary there, not 
only for people who are recognizing free markets and political 
pluralism in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also for the people of the United 
States of America who are going to also be beneficiaries.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), was also right as he in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday talked about how we have spent years 
focusing on Asia and Latin America, and unfortunately, we have not put 
enough attention on that very, very important and most impoverished 
spot on the face of the Earth, Sub-Saharan Africa.
  So this measure, Mr. Speaker, is going to be beneficial. We are not 
going to be seeing countries using Sub-Saharan Africa as a launching 
pad to export into the United States, because again, as Mr. Rangel 
said, we clearly will be able to differentiate between those goods that 
are coming from Sub-Saharan Africa and those that might come from other 
parts of the world, and we know that there is a 35 percent value-added 
content that is required, so we will have U.S. customs and, as the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, the World Trade Organization 
and other entities very closely monitoring that.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good measure. I am very pleased that it 
has come out under Republican leadership here in the House of 
Representatives, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
support the measure as we move forward.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, every Member in this body wants to help 
Africa and African workers. So do I. But I do not want to help Africa 
and African workers at the expense of America and American workers.
  Now, I support the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), his 
philosophy and ideology all the way through, and I believe him when he 
says that we will minimize that transshipment opportunity that exists 
in the bill. But quite frankly, I believe the gentleman, but the law 
says something else.
  I say to my colleagues, this is not the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, this is the Chinese-Japanese Growth and Opportunity 
Act for the following reason. I would like to explain it.
  The bill defines an African product as one that contains at least 35 
percent local value, African local value. Now, that is the standard 
minimum for the GSP program, which is the Generalized System of 
Preference. And understand that this bill does not specifically address 
that, but by God, we should, with record trade deficits year in and 
year out. And the silence is deafening.
  I have not opposed the rule because quite frankly, I think the 
Republicans have had some fair and generous open rules, and Mr. Linder 
and Mr. Solomon have done a great job, but let me tell my colleagues 
something. I believe this rule should be defeated because I believe we 
open up a window of opportunity for Japan and China and other 
competitors who have great access, who deny American access, and they 
will use that window of opportunity to continue to penetrate our 
markets.
  How many more record trade deficits will we experience? How many more 
jobs do we send overseas? Our biggest export is American jobs. In 
addition, this bill authorizes the program for 10 years. I believe 
Congress should limit that so that we can actually find out, not 
guesstimate, what the impact will be on our jobs and our economy, and 
then we could have revisited this in Congress with statistics. But I 
understand the program, and this is a political good one because 
everybody does want to help Africa, and Africa deserves our help.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say this to my colleagues on the Democrat 
side. We have been talking about trade for years. We have done nothing 
about trade, except open up our markets and allow us to get the shaft. 
If Congress embraces and challenges any stupid policy, it will be our 
trade policy, and we are failing to do that. So I cannot support this 
rule.
  I will support Chairman Moakley, and I will say this. I would like to 
see it go back to the Committee on Rules so we could put these 
protections in, and mine says it shall be at least 50 percent local 
value. That will help Africa, that will help African workers, and that 
will protect the American economy and American workers. We do not have 
to kill the bill. Send it back for another rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of hearing my colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and rarely do they wind up on the 
same side. My hope would have been that they wound up on the same side 
that was right. Unfortunately, I believe they wound up on the side that 
was wrong, because when we analyze this legislation, it will do none of 
what they claim, quite frankly.
  Just as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
indicated that we want to exchange aid for trade, it makes sense to do 
it with Sub-Saharan Africa, it makes sense to do it with Israel. We 
created a free trade agreement with Israel which allowed them to earn 
rather than to receive the aid that we provided. There should be no one 
who would fear a textile import flood from Sub-Saharan Africa. It just 
is not going to happen. The two countries that do have a bit of a 
textile production, Mauritius and Kenya, are less than 1 percent of 
United States imports.
  The thing I think everyone has to realize is that because the United 
States signed the World Trade Organization, quotas will be phased out 
beginning in 2005. All this does is give those Sub-Saharan African 
nations a few years' head start before we phase out the quotas. That is 
entirely appropriate and fair to allow them to begin to earn their way 
instead of welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, if my colleagues are concerned 
about point of origin or transshipment, and we certainly are, there are 
many parts of the world that utilize their locations as a drop stop, 
repackage and send-on. That is not what we intend and that this bill 
does not allow. The country of origin rules are as stringent as we have 
in place anywhere for any country.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was concerned about the 35 
percent domestic content. It requires a 35 percent domestic content and 
substantial transformation. That is, one has to do things to the 
product. One cannot just pass it through.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, placed an amendment in the bill denying the 
opportunity to be involved in this trade for 2 years if one is found 
guilty of transshipment, a very rigid penalty that had not been 
included before. I think it is appropriate. We need to make sure that 
people do not violate the rules.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues need to understand that all of the other 
trade rules that we have in place are not suspended. The arguments that 
were made for the textile concerns in the Caribbean I think carried 
great weight. Given the proximity of the Caribbean, given the ability 
to move product through the Caribbean, there was some concern.
  No one can present a credible economic argument for the utilization 
of Sub-Saharan Africa the way that the Caribbean could have been used 
because it is simply not economic, dealing with textiles, to make the 
same argument. One cannot pencil out a cost-effective argument the way 
one could this in the Caribbean.
  Besides all of that, the Generalized System of Preference, which 
protects sensitive industries in the United States, is completely 
available to that textile industry or any other industry if they have 
import-sensitive products and make their point. The full weight of the 
Federal Government in denying the importation of products is available 
under the Generalized System of Preferences.
  So this bill is not, unfortunately, all that its strongest proponents 
claim it

[[Page H1032]]

to be; it is a modest, modest, long overdue, self-help structure. And 
it is nowhere near its strongest proponents' arguments because it 
simply is not going to open the flood gates the way my colleagues have 
intimated.

                              {time}  1115

  It is a well-crafted bill. The thing I could say most about it is 
that it is probably long overdue. It is entirely appropriate.
  The United States has nothing to fear from sub-Sahara Africa, and if 
we do, we have in place a number of protections that are automatic and 
they trigger severe penalties. This is a reasonable rule. More 
importantly, it is a modest and reasonable proposal. We should vote yes 
on the rule; we should vote yes on this long overdue opportunity to 
allow people to earn their own way with a free trade zone between the 
United States and sub-Sahara Africa.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and 
the gentleman from Georgia for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge very strong support of the rule. A vote against 
this rule will really be a vote against this bill. This bill will not 
come back up if this rule fails today. If in fact we lose this rule, we 
are not going to be able to bring this bill because the whole essence 
of this bill is the whole issue of trade and textiles.
  I will tell the Members, there is a lot of misleading information 
that has been passed around over the last few months. This bill will 
not do any damage to the U.S. textile industry. The fact of the matter 
is that right now, Africa gives about two-thirds of 1 percent of all 
U.S. textiles to the United States. In 10 years under this legislation, 
it will only go up to about 1\1/2\ percent. That is not going to do any 
damage.
  In fact the reality is it probably will not result in any more 
textiles coming to the United States than currently, mainly because we 
will see a displacement. Other countries in Asia will probably have 
less shipments of textiles as a result of this. This will only create, 
according to the International Trade Commission, which has done an 
objective study, about 600 jobs lost in the United States.
  The job gain will be phenomenal over the next 10 or 20 years. Africa 
has 680 million people. There are 48 nations in this region that we are 
talking about. Thirty of them right now are moving to a market system 
of government and a market system of the economy, just like the United 
States. Twenty-five of them have fledgling democracies. Are we going to 
turn our backs on this great region of the world that over the next 20, 
30, 50 years will be one of the regions of which all of us are going to 
want to be part?
  Because for national security purposes, for obvious purposes of 
making sure that the Asian nations remain stable and the Middle East 
remains stable, Africa will be essential to the security of the free 
world and certainly of the United States.
  A vote against this bill will break up the partnership between the 
United States and the African nations. The fact is that the President, 
in the next 3 weeks, will be going to Africa. If we turn this bill 
down, it will be a disgrace to this country.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule. I find it unfortunate that those of us who are not members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means are unable to offer amendments to this 
bill. As someone who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations, we 
have 13 bills a year. Each one is brought here under an open rule. So 
we have open opportunity in our bills for people to offer amendments, 
and it is unfortunate we are not allowed to on this bill.
  I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday with an amendment that I 
thought was a very fair amendment, that was going to be good to help 
improve the bill, which was basically to take unused sugar quota and 
give it to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. It was going to help 
those countries. But just because of a blanket opposition to all 
amendments, it was unfortunate, but it was turned down.
  What my amendment was proposing was to take these unused quotas. We 
have this program called the Sugar Program, one of the last of its type 
in this country, thank goodness. It is a command and control type 
system where we control the supply of sugar in America, and force the 
price of sugar at twice the world price in this country, so we pay 
twice the world price. When we buy sugar from around the world, and we 
have to buy sugar because we cannot grow enough in this country, we pay 
places like Australia twice the world price. Some countries cannot fill 
their quotas.
  All we want to do is say if you cannot fill your quota, let us give 
it to the 10 countries of sub-Saharan Africa that need to have this 
economic growth. They would love to sell us more sugar because we will 
pay them twice as much as anywhere else around the world.
  We have this crazy program that makes no economic sense. It costs 
jobs already in this country. It is bad for the environment, it is bad 
for the economy, it is just big government at its worst. All we are 
saying is let this program exist. We have these quotas, but some of 
them are not filled. Why not give them to the 10 countries of sub-
Sahara Africa, rather than leave them unused and no one else can use 
them?
  I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules has a blanket 
opposition to all amendments without considering the merits. I rise in 
opposition to the rule and urge its defeat.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill embodies a very, very important ideal, which I 
have long supported; namely, that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa 
should improve their economic lot through development and trade. This 
bill would begin the process of leading these countries from our 
traditional direct aid relationship.
  However, Mr. Speaker, charity begins at home. I and other bipartisan 
Members with legitimate concerns for the health of the already 
suffering textile and apparel industries that we represent feel that we 
have not been allowed an adequate voice in this process. For this 
reason, my colleagues and I proposed a bipartisan substitute that we 
hoped that the Committee on Rules would have ruled in order.
  I firmly believe that our substitute, if it were ruled in order, 
would result in a healthier U.S. textile and cotton industry, and 
sorely needed economic development and employment for the peoples of 
sub-Saharan Africa. The sponsors of this substitute only ask for the 
chance to vote for a good bill on the floor.
  We ask this, despite assurances from some of our colleagues, that the 
bill will be fixed in the Senate. But as I have reminded those Members, 
those of us who occupy the seats in this House only have a vote in this 
House, and trusting the Senate to fix what we do not do properly in the 
House is not a good idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule, send it 
back, allow us to adopt the substitute, which is a win-win for American 
textiles as well as for sub-Saharan Africa. Help us defeat this rule, 
vote no on the rule, and then let us put a good bill on the floor so we 
can help Africa and help American workers.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will talk slowly, because I 
want him to understand what I have to say. Mr. Speaker, I have been 
asked: What has been the most difficult vote for you to cast in 
Congress? The most difficult votes for me are those on trade issues.

[[Page H1033]]

  I fully understand the importance of expanding trade legislation, and 
the American worker understands its importance, also. There is not an 
American worker who does not take pride in manufacturing a product and 
having it sold worldwide. But that same worker knows that while the 
U.S. has aggressively lowered or eliminated many of its barriers to 
foreign products, most countries are still closed to U.S. products. 
These workers believe that trade bills export jobs and not products. 
Time after time they have seen the trade agreements we have enacted 
result in a few hundred jobs lost here, a few hundred jobs lost there, 
and Mr. Speaker, those numbers add up.
  More importantly, those numbers represent families in communities 
losing income and economic strength. Those are the same workers that 
used to walk in a store and see the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label sewn 
in the garment. Today, that same worker sees the same label ``Made 
Anywhere But the U.S.A.'' That is salt in the wound to those who have 
seen their jobs exported and the products they used to make imported.
  Yesterday, a Member of this body, as well as a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, made a powerful statement before the 
Committee on Rules. He said, it is time that we give up on textile 
jobs. He added, we need to recognize, too, that it is too late to save 
these industries.
  Mr. Speaker, that kind of a statement is exactly what the people of 
this country are angry about. They know that there are Members of 
Congress who have forgotten that the U.S. textile industry employs some 
2 million people in this country, and most of those workers do not have 
the security of a higher education or the security of a trade or 
profession, as does a lawyer or a college professor.
  Mr. Speaker, just this past week the Bibb Company textile mill 
located in Columbus, Georgia, announced that it would close its door 
March 20. That means that of thousands of textile jobs in Georgia, we 
lose some 250 more. Mr. Speaker, textile workers in this country 
deserve to know that legislators have not given up on their jobs.
  The amendment I would have offered today, if the Committee on Rules 
had made it in order, would have provided that American workers receive 
some benefits from this trade bill. It would have guaranteed that the 
demand for U.S. products is as important to this body as creating jobs 
in Africa. Mr. Speaker, if the rules of origin and the GSP product 
exemptions were good enough to put in NAFTA, then they are good enough 
to put in this sub-Saharan Africa trade bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my colleagues in this 
Chamber, particularly the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
but Mr. Speaker, I must represent the people of the Third District of 
Georgia. I strongly urge defeat of this rule, defeat of this bill. I 
will not give up on American textile jobs, which represent the 
livelihoods of families in Georgia and the economic strength of 
communities all across this country.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is not a textile bill. This is a 
bill that gives Africa the same opportunities to enter the world 
economy that Asia had. We gave it to them 35 or 40 years ago.
  When I was in Africa in 1961 in Ghana, Ghana and Korea were exactly 
in the same place. Today, Korea has risen to the 11th largest economy 
in the world, and Ghana is down from where they were in 1961.
  This bill has been endorsed by the President and Prime Minister of 
every Asian and African country. Andrew Young, a former United Nations 
Ambassador, C. Payne Lewis of Africare, the Urban Institute, the 
National Conference of Mayors, Mayor Dinkins of New York, and the 
Constituency for Africa, all these groups have looked at this and said 
this gives Africa an opportunity to play the game.
  The amendment that was being discussed here could have been offered 
in the Committee on Ways and Means. It was not. We went out of there 
without that being discussed, because people knew that it was not, in 
the long run, a good amendment. It is not a textile amendment. It sets 
the bar so high that no one could start a textile industry in Africa.
  If we say that every piece of cloth that is going to be worked in 
Africa has to be shipped from the United States, cut, and only can be 
sold in Africa, and then shipped back, it would not work fiscally, 
even. It is not a good amendment. I support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the President and 
Secretary of State to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), as well 
as an editorial from the Washington Post.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 7, 1998]

                           How To Help Africa

       The House is scheduled to vote next week on an African 
     trade bill. In the past, that would have been an oxymoron. 
     The United States traded with Asia and Europe but sent aid to 
     sub-Saharan Africa. This new approach, which treats African 
     nations more as partners than as charities, is welcome--
     though not sufficient.
       Many of the world's poorest people inhabit Africa, their 
     economies in danger of being left behind altogether as trade 
     and investment unite the rest of the world. But in recent 
     years, the true picture has not been quite as gloomy as news 
     reports on civil wars and coups d'etat might suggest. Many 
     African countries have moved toward democracy and free-market 
     reforms. Many are trying to spend more on basic health and 
     primary education. Many want to help themselves and not 
     depend forever on foreign aid.
       This bill is aimed at those nations. It was put together by 
     Republican Rep. Philip Crane and Democrats Charles Rangel, 
     Jim McDermott and William Jefferson, and embraced by the 
     Clinton administration. It would seek to encourage trade 
     between Africa and the United States by removing quotas and 
     many tariffs from the kinds of products these poor nations 
     could most plausibly export: textiles, clothing, footwear. It 
     would stimulate and insure private U.S. investment in Africa, 
     and create forums for African and American businessmen to 
     cooperate.
       The legislation carries a tiny price tag, but some in the 
     House and Senate oppose it for protectionist reasons. Yet 
     African textiles now account for only two-thirds of one 
     percent of total U.S. textile imports and are unlikely to 
     rise above 2 percent even in the most optimistic (by African 
     lights) scenarios. Africa's industry is not a threat to the 
     U.S. economy.
       A more serious objection--though not a disqualifying one--
     is that this bill will accomplish less than some rhetoric 
     suggests. For countries as poor as those in sub-Saharan 
     Africa, where average annual per capita income hovers below 
     $500, trade and investment alone can't do the job. Aid 
     remains essential, as the bill's authors acknowledge, and yet 
     U.S. assistance to Africa declined by 25 percent during the 
     past two years. This trade bill can help, but only in 
     combination with effective aid and substantial debt relief.
                                                                    ____



                                       The Secretary of State,

                                                       Washington.
       Dear Mr. Rangel: The African Growth and Opportunity Act, 
     H.R. 1432, is scheduled for a floor vote today. Passage of 
     this landmark legislation is one of our highest legislative 
     priorities. As you know, President Clinton made a strong 
     statement in support of the bill during the State of the 
     Union speech.
       Passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act will send 
     an important signal to Africa that we will help those 
     countries which help themselves by pursuing sound economic 
     and political reform policies. The Act will provide 
     substantial trade and debt relief benefits to those African 
     countries which are undertaking significant economic reforms. 
     The African Growth and Opportunity Act will help African 
     countries improve their own business climates so that U.S. 
     companies can better compete in the important emerging 
     markets of Africa.
       We believe the legislation contains adequate provisions to 
     prevent injury to U.S. industries and jobs. The impact on 
     U.S. consumers, workers and industries must be assessed by 
     the International Trade Commission (ITC) before the President 
     is authorized to grant the additional duty-free preferential 
     market access provided by the Bill. A recent ITC study of the 
     textile provisions in the Act concluded that duty-free, 
     quota-free entry of textile and apparel products from Africa 
     would have a negligible impact on U.S. industries and 
     workers.
       This critical legislation will advance one of our most 
     important foreign policy goals in Africa--integration of 
     African countries into the global economy. The approximately 
     600 million consumers in Africa deserve a better future. The 
     African Growth and Opportunity Act is an important first step 
     in that direction, and I strongly urge you to support it.
           Sincerely,
     Madeleine K. Albright.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                       Washington, March 11, 1998.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Charlie: I strongly support passage of H.R. 1432, the 
     African Growth and Opportunity Act, which would provide 
     enhanced trade benefits for sub-Saharan countries engaged in 
     meaningful reform efforts.

[[Page H1034]]

       The United States strongly supports a stable, prosperous 
     Africa. Africa is a continent on the doorstep of a new era of 
     democracy and prosperity, and many countries have adopted 
     market-oriented economic and political reforms in the past 
     seven years. A stronger, stable, prosperous Africa will be a 
     better economic partner, a better partner for security and 
     peace, and a better partner in the fight against drug 
     trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of 
     disease and environmental degradation. Africa is already an 
     important trading partner for the United States. Our exports 
     to Africa are over $6 billion annually.
       In addition, America has its own special reasons to 
     contribute to Africa's economic development. Over thirty 
     million Americans have ancestral origins in Africa. We should 
     work to help African nations achieve greater prosperity and 
     stronger democracies, which will improve the lives of the 
     African people. This bill helps us do that.
       This bill is supported by a bipartisan and diverse cross-
     section of Americans and concerned groups--including Jack 
     Kemp, David Dinkins, Andrew Young, the United States 
     Conference of Mayors and the National Urban League. They know 
     this bill is good for both Africa and America.
       We face a historic opportunity to assist the renaissance in 
     Africa. Congress has the chance to help this transformation 
     by enacting the African Growth and Opportunity Act. When it 
     comes time to cast your vote, I urge you to support this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                             Bill.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I must urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this rule. I do it, raising the question as to why this 
Congress ought to treat Africa any differently than it treats any other 
continent in the world.
  Why would we say to the African nations that we must send all of our 
cloth to them and have them work on it, when we do not say it to other 
countries in the world? Why do we say to Africa, we cannot trust you to 
work with our customs people, with our government, on the 
transshipments issue, when we do not say it to every other country in 
the world?
  Transshipment is not an issue, it is an issue as old as time. Every 
time we had to do a trading arrangement, we worried about 
transshipment, and every time we do that, we deal with the 
transshipment question as best we can. The African nations, to me, 
ought to be insulted by the way we are approaching this bill, because 
what we are saying is we trust them less than we trust the rest of the 
world to cooperate with us on transshipment questions. What is the 
basis for that?
  We have the facts in front of us. The facts say that the entry of 
textiles in our marketplace will have little to no effect. We disregard 
that and argue, as I have heard some argue, that it is going to have a 
tremendously deleterious effect on the jobs in our country.
  It is not true at all. What it will do is have almost no effect here 
and a huge effect there. We ought to treat Africa the way we treat the 
rest of the world. There is no reason to discriminate against that 
continent. I hope we vote for the rule.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).
  (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time.
  As one of the 30 million proud Americans of African descent, I rise 
today in support of the rule on H.R. 1432, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, a bill which would provide significant economic 
opportunities and incentives, fueling economic growth in that region of 
the continent of Africa known as sub-Saharan Africa.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1432 is a good bill for both Africa and the United 
States, for Africa because this bill, which was drafted with the full 
input of African governments, will position Africa to favorably compete 
with other countries that have well-established industries and global 
market shares.
  It is our duty and responsibility to see to it that Africa is not 
left behind. In addition and importantly, H.R. 1432 represents a shift 
from dependence on foreign assistance to a private sector and market 
incentives approach which will create a sustainable development 
strategy for the region.
  This bill is important to us because it will strengthen an already 
important trading partner; a stronger, more stable Africa will be a 
better partner for us in the fight against drug trafficking, 
international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental 
degradation.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1432 represents, I think, a fair compromise of all 
of the differing concerns that were raised about it. My colleagues and 
I intend to do all that we can to make sure that if this bill becomes 
law we continue to reinforce the positive developments taking place in 
Africa and see to it that it benefits, rather than harms, our American 
work force. I would vote for it if I could and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the passage of both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to 
follow my colleague, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. 
Christian-Green) for her very able remarks and simply to say that I 
disdain a closed rule. I believe in an open rule. But, frankly, if we 
vote against this rule, we defeat the bill.
  I think it is extremely important that we get the basic facts. This 
is a real opportunity for the first time in the history of this Nation 
to promote opportunities between the United States business community, 
small and medium, and the continent of Africa, 48 sub-Saharan states.
  I believe in the sensitivities and the needs of my friends in the 
textile industry. I believe in workers' rights. I believe in helping 
Africa cure its HIV problem. But I think that as we move toward trade 
and creating opportunities, we can work on these concerns, insist upon 
working and resolving these concerns, not only in conference committee 
but in the Senate.
  If Members take the opportunity away to move this bill forward, they 
take the opportunity away for us to get legislation passed that does 
several things: $500 million in infrastructure that American businesses 
can engage with Africa and help them to produce the infrastructure 
system that they need, $150 million in joint venturing. When I had a 
conference in my district, many, many people came to that conference, 
small- and medium-sized businesses, the backbone of America, because 
they want a joint venture with Africans creating jobs in the respective 
districts and communities around this Nation.
  We have a real opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do something good to 
establish a relationship with a continent that has been colonized by 
our brothers and sisters in Europe. We have not had that kind of 
baggage. Americans can create the kind of economic security for its 
citizens by supporting this bill, supporting this rule, working with us 
in conference, working with us in the United States Senate and helping 
our friends in the textile community, as well as encouraging them to 
work in combination with Africa.
  The transshipment question has been answered. Diplomats have told me, 
we are strengthening our Customs laws. Diplomats have told me, we will 
be watching for dumping and we have a monitoring system. This bill 
takes care of human rights. This bill allows these countries to move 
their economic standards up.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a new day for Africa. This is not an exclusion 
of aid, for aid is needed. My personal commitment is to work on the 
question of HIV infection. But this does create a partnership for aid 
and trade and opportunities for Americans in inner city communities all 
over this country.
  Vote for the rule and let us move to a new level with the continent 
of Africa.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair inform my colleague and me 
of the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

[[Page H1035]]

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. There has been a lot of discussion 
this morning about the merits or lack of merits of particular 
amendments. Unfortunately, a number of those amendments will never get 
to be debated on the floor, and that is why we should be opposing the 
rule.
  If the Committee on Rules had made various amendments in order for 
debate, we could have debated and understood the pros and cons of those 
amendments and the body could have worked its will. That is what 
democracy is all about. We could have tried to improve this bill. And 
if the majority had voted against our improvements, then at least the 
opportunity would have been provided. That is what democracy is all 
about.
  Instead, the Committee on Rules decided that it was going to enact 
its own fast track legislation. Basically what it said was, we are not 
going to give you an opportunity to allow democracy to work. We are 
going to bring this bill to the floor, not give you an opportunity to 
offer amendments, not give you an opportunity for debate, not give the 
body the opportunity to work its will on a majority basis. We are going 
to deprive you of your rights as Members of this body. That, in and of 
itself, regardless of the merits of the amendments, is enough to 
justify a vote against the rule.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, send it back, send out 
these amendments and let us debate them on the floor.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This is 
a modified closed rule and it does not permit the consideration of 
vital elements that are missing from H.R. 1432, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, which should indeed be an historical beginning. The 
act is well-meaning legislation, a purpose and concept which I support, 
and in fact I am an original cosponsor of this bill. If perfected by 
the proposed substitute, it could help facilitate the economic growth, 
opportunity and self-reliance in Africa that each of us supports.
  First, while it intends to provide jobs for Africa in its current 
form, it will take jobs from America. It takes jobs from America 
because it allows yarn to be imported to Africa from other countries, 
countries whose labor standards are lower, and would give them an 
unfair advantage over American workers.
  Second, the act proposes to encourage the building of a textile 
industry in Africa, but instead it discourages and destroys because 
only as little as 35 percent of the textile or apparel must be 
manufactured in Africa. Under the act in its current form, nations such 
as China and other Asian nations with cheaper labor could benefit, 
leaving Africa as a nation to benefit very little.
  Third, the act makes a weak and feeble attempt at preventing the 
illegal shipping of apparel by an unintended beneficiary nation and 
would again leave Africa in a deficit position.
  Finally, the act does not effectively address human and workers' 
rights and does not effectively address child labor restrictions.
  For these and many other reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
rule and make sure we have a historical, meaningful bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this closed rule. 
Several of us have tried in the Committee on Rules to offer amendments 
to attach labor, environmental, and human rights standards to this 
measure. We were denied that by the Committee on Rules and by the 
closed rule.
  The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, so-called, is just like fast 
track. There are no environmental, there are no human rights, there are 
no labor rights safeguards. It is just like CBI, the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative. There are no labor standards, there are no environmental 
standards, there are no human rights standards. And it is just like the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. Again, there are no environmental 
standards, there are no worker safety standards.
  There are no labor standards of any kind, or human rights standards, 
in this bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill is misnamed. The Africa 
Growth and Opportunity Act should be known as the ``NAFTA Expansion to 
Africa Act.''
  We should have learned something from the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. When we pass these trade agreements and we do not put 
environmental standards in, we do not put labor standards in, we do not 
protect workers in both, in all the countries involved, ours and 
theirs, we end up costing American jobs. We end up exploiting workers 
in those countries, whether it is Mexico, whether it is in the 
Caribbean, whether it is in Africa, whether it is in China, however we 
write these trade agreements.
  And we ultimately hurt people in both countries. We hurt workers in 
the United States. We hurt workers in Africa. You lock in the 
exploitative conditions of those workers in those countries so their 
standards of living never improve.
  Go to the Mexican border, go into homes in Mexico where two people, a 
home I visited, two people, both working for a major American auto 
company, do not make enough money, husband and wife, to have 
electricity in their home, to have running water in the home. That is 
what we are doing when we lock in these kinds of trade agreements 
without human rights, without worker safety standards, without labor 
rights, without environmental standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for defeat of the closed rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that last speaker has just energized my 
chairman, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have said enough on the bill and the rule 
itself, but I have to take exception with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The gentleman appeared before the Committee on Rules. He had a very 
complex amendment. It dealt with both the Ways and Means aspects and 
the International Relations aspects. We explained to him that if he 
could remove the Ways and Means implication from his amendment, we 
would certainly make it in order. I know that he attempted to do that, 
but nevertheless the Parliamentarian still ruled that his amendment 
dealt with the Ways and Means implications and, therefore, could not be 
made in order.
  The gentleman should not take the well and talk about a closed rule 
when it is not a closed rule. It is a modified open rule, and it would 
behoove him to state the explanation of the rule correctly, especially 
if he wants to come up to the Committee on Rules and have us treat him 
fairly, as we usually do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, my last speaker on this modified closed 
rule is the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what this bill is about. 
This bill will allow 42 African countries to ship textile and apparel 
products, clothing, to this country free of any duties, that run as 
high as 30 percent and average 18 percent, and free of any quotas now 
and forever more.
  How good a deal is this? This is a better deal than Mexico gets under 
NAFTA. It is a better deal than any of 26 Caribbean countries get under 
the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It is unprecedented. It is unilateral. 
We get nothing in return. There is no reciprocity for our textile and 
apparel products entering these 42 countries. It is wide-open access.
  Let us be clear about this. When we open our ports wide open to 
exports from these 42 African countries, we will not see African goods 
coming through our ports. We are going to see goods made in Asia. They 
may make the labels in Africa, but they will be transshipped through 
Africa from countries like China and Hong Kong and Pakistan and Macao, 
who already are notorious for transshipping. The volumes run into the 
billions and the problems that are sweeping Asia now are only going to 
make them more prone to transshipment. And the prospect of Africa as a 
duty-free, quota-free transit

[[Page H1036]]

point will be too much for them to resist and too much for our Customs 
Service to police.

                              {time}  1145

  And who will bear the brunt of all these imports? Sixty percent of 
all apparel workers, 60 to 70 percent in this country, are women. More 
than half of them are minorities. Most of them are African-Americans.
  This bill not only affects textiles and apparel, it also affects 
carbon and stainless steel, ferroalloys, footwear, leather products and 
wine. That is because these products now enjoy an exemption from the 
Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and this bill removes that full 
or limited exemption.
  Now, everybody knows where I am coming from. I have a constituency 
with a lot of good, hard-working textile workers who simply want the 
right to earn their way in our economy, nothing more. So my colleagues 
know what my interest in it is.
  But do not take my word for it. Listen to what Randall Robinson said 
in a scathing critique of this bill. Everybody knows he is an eloquent, 
outspoken advocate for Africa, and has been for many years. He calls 
this bill, his words, ``an Africa de facto re-colonization act.'' At 
the end of his scathing analysis he says, ``Absent significant changes, 
this bill combines the worst of NAFTA and the harsh IMF structural 
adjustment program.''
  Well, we have significant changes. We have an amendment offered by 
two Republicans and three Democrats, offered yesterday in the Committee 
on Rules, which would give Africa special access, give them basically 
the same kind of access that the Caribbean countries and Mexico enjoy 
today, gives them substantial privileges and, furthermore, imposes some 
realistic, tough transshipment remedies here, if indeed the 
transshipment problem does occur after these special access benefits 
kick in.
  Mr. Speaker, all we wanted was a chance to argue the merits of our 
amendment. It is a sad day in the House when we cannot come here and 
argue on behalf of our constituents. I urge a ``no'' vote against this 
rule so we can have that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, ``The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act'' will allow 
textile and apparel imports to come from Africa to our country duty 
free and quota free Neither Mexico under NAFTA nor the Caribbean 
countries under the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) enjoy such wide-
open access to our markets. Most of the imports will not be made in 
Africa. They will be made in Asia and transshipped through Africa to 
avoid quotas and tariffs. Countries like China and Pakistan and Hong 
Kong are notorious for transshipping now; the financial problems 
sweeping Asia will make them only more prone to transship; and the 
prospect of Africa as a duty-free, quota-free transit will be too much 
to resist.
  Who will bear the brunt of all these imports? 60% of all U.S. apparel 
workers are women, 35% are minorities, mostly African-American. U.S. 
apparel workers earn better wages than ever and many enjoy health 
benefits. The local apparel plant is often the anchor business in a 
small town or one of the few job sources in the inner city. These are 
the workers this bill will hurt.
  Eight countries in Africa have been identified by the U.S. Customs 
Service as transit points for illegal shipments of Chinese textile and 
apparel goods. This transshipment is occurring now just to evade 
China's quotas. The Africa Free Trade Bill will increase the rewards of 
quota evasion by eliminating all tariffs. Profits from transshipment 
will increase by the amount of the tariffs evaded, which average 18% on 
apparel and run as high as 30%. The result will be an explosion of 
transshipment through Africa, which will be all but impossible for 
customs to police. Another result: rampant transshipment will remove 
the incentive for investment in African apparel production.
  This bill not only affects textiles and apparel; it also affects 
carbon and stainless steel, ferroalloys, footwear, leather, and wine. 
These products now enjoy either an exemption from the Generalized 
System of Preferences (GSP) or limited application of GSP. The Africa 
Free Trade bill removes all such exemptions, and subjects these 
products to competition with duty-free imports from sub-Saharan Africa. 
Included among these countries is South Africa, an industrially 
developed country which recently completed the world's largest, most 
modern steel plant.
  Yesterday, Randall Robinson of TransAfrica blasted this bill as ``an 
Africa de facto re-colonization act.'' The bill adds a long list of 
mandates that Africa countries must meet to obtain GSP benefits which 
no countries anywhere else are required to satisfy. The receive aid and 
trade benefits under this bill, African countries are required to lower 
corporate taxes, to sell off government-owned industries, and to give 
national treatment to foreign capital (aka MAI). But they are not 
required to protect human rights or religious freedom or the 
environment.
  Randall Robinson has written members of the House a letter saying, 
``Under the cover of an appealing name and non-binding preamble, this 
bill contains numerous provisions aimed at benefiting large foreign 
private investors and multi-national corporations at the expense of 
true and equitable African development. The bill assaults the 
sovereignty of African countries in ways not present in our dealings 
with other countries . . . Absent significant changes, this bill 
combines the worse of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
and the harsh International Monetary Fund structural adjustment 
program.''
  Our amendment proposes ``significant changes'' to the bill to protect 
African workers and American workers alike. Our amendment:
  Protects U.S. textile workers by limiting duty-free, quota-free 
access to apparel that is made in Africa out of fabric made and cut in 
the United States. What we propose is very similar to the ``special 
access'' benefits enjoyed by Mexico in NAFTA and by Caribbean countries 
in CBI.
  Protects U.S. cotton growers and synthetic fiber producers by 
requiring use of their yarn in apparel that is eligible for duty-free, 
quota-free access.
  Protects other industries hurt by changes to GSP made in H.R. 1432, 
such as ferroalloys, footwear, stainless steel, and wine.
  Adds accountability to the bill. Every African garment sold in the 
U.S. can be traced to U.S. fabric pieces shipped to Africa, which 
greatly reduces the opportunity for transshipment.
  Adds tough enforcement measures to punish transshipment, including 
higher penalties for fraud and gross negligence. It limits the 
mitigation process, which allows Customs to forgive up to 100% of 
transshipment fines, and restores Customs' authority to seize 
transshipped goods.
  Requires African countries to cooperate with U.S. Customs and allow 
full access in its investigations of transshipment.
  De-links textile and apparel benefits from GSP benefits, maintaining 
the textile and apparel exemption from GSP.
  In summary, our amendment raises the benefits of the bill to Africa 
by ensuring that apparel imports coming from Africa will be produced in 
Africa by Africans.
  Some $43 billion in clothing and apparel were imported into this 
country last year. This industry has surrendered well over half the 
domestic market to developing countries. Before we decimate what is 
left of our domestic market with a new barrage of low-wage imports, or 
open the door to even more transshipment and evasion, let us have a 
chance to make the case for our amendment. It allows sub-Saharan Africa 
special access that is as good in most respects as NAFTA and CBI, and 
that in some respects is better because it levies no duties at all on 
eligible textiles and apparel. Our amendment is well conceived and 
carefully crafted; it deserves to be part of this debate; and members 
deserve the chance to vote on it. Since the rule denies us this chance, 
we should vote it down.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
urge everyone in the Chamber and everyone listening and watching to 
vote for this rule.
  There is no question on the resolution that some of the amendments 
others had wished to be debated were not put in order and will not be 
debated, under a longstanding practice in this House of not opening up 
the Ways and Means jurisdictional areas with respect to taxes. Anyone 
can imagine the kinds of mischief that could be created on this floor 
if people could openly amend any portion of the Ways and Means 
jurisdiction in respect to taxes.
  So to the extent it is a closed rule, it is a modified closed rule. 
There will be several amendments offered, longstanding opportunity for 
debate on this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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.

[[Page H1037]]

  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 190, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               YEAS--227

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Canady
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton
     Brady
     Fattah
     Furse
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Pascrell
     Poshard
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Schiff
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1211

  Ms. STABENOW, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Messrs. NEY, YOUNG of 
Alaska, LAMPSON, CUNNINGHAM, WISE, HALL of Texas, RAHALL, DIXON, OWENS, 
SERRANO and SCHUMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett). Pursuant to House Resolution 
383 and rule XXIII, 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. 1432.

                              {time}  1213


                     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. 1432) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub-
Saharan Africa, with Mr. Snowbarger 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 New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman from Illinois, 
(Mr. Crane), and the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Rangel) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

                              {time}  1215

  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.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations concerning 
the textile provisions in this bill, I do rise in strong support of the 
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, H.R. 1432.
  This legislation is a result of years of bipartisan congressional 
efforts to develop a comprehensive trade and development policy toward 
the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. On May 22 and June 25 of last 
year, the Subcommittee on Africa and the full Committee on 
International Relations held markups on this important legislation. On 
both dates, it was approved by voice with strong backing on both sides 
of the aisle.
  This legislation promotes economic reform through free trade 
initiatives, creation of equity and infrastructure funds, the 
refocusing of development assistance, and the creation of special 
advisory committees on sub-Saharan Africa for the Export-Import Bank 
and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Under its provisions, 
the President is directed to determine eligibility for benefits under 
this bill based on a sub-Saharan country's adherence to human rights 
norms and a demonstrated commitment to economic policy reforms.
  Africa, as we all know, is comprised of some 48 nations. It includes 
over 500 million people and supplies many important natural resources 
to our Nation, from petroleum to uranium to timber. Trade between our 
Nation and Africa is greater than that between the United States and 
the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe combined. Yet there exist 
great possibilities for this trade to be expanded.
  With the end of the Cold War and the demise of the apartheid regime 
in South Africa, sub-Saharan Africa is opening up to the world as never 
before. Many nations in that region are moving toward democracy, 
liberalizing their economies and seeking a better standard of living 
for their people. For the first time in almost a generation, most 
African countries are participating in a marked economic upturn. Often 
perceived as a continent of failed

[[Page H1038]]

or declining states, Africa is now in the midst of an economic and 
political rebound with overall growth rates of nearly 5 percent.
  As African entrepreneurs are working to convince their own 
governments to reduce state regulations and constraints on domestic and 
foreign investment, so too should we be providing the trade and 
investment opportunities for these emerging-market-oriented economies.
  The bill before us today provides a framework and a structure to 
accomplish those goals. Up to the present, our development assistance 
programs have been at the center of our relationship with many of the 
countries of sub-Saharan Africa. There is little doubt that these 
development programs, including the Development Fund for Africa, will 
continue to play an important role in bilateral relations with the 
countries of that continent. But for aid to achieve its real 
objectives, to be no longer necessary, it must be accompanied by the 
right trade and investment policies. Under this bill, we can help 
African governments strengthen their capacity to make good policy 
choices and to carry through on their effective implementation.
  In 1996, trade between our Nation and sub-Saharan Africa grew at an 
impressive 18 percent rate. This growth rate shows no signs of 
declining as our trade with this emerging region continues to outpace 
the growth in United States global trade. Several African countries, 
including Senegal, Ghana, Ethiopia and Cote d'Ivoire are among the 
fastest growing economies in the world. The United States is the 
largest recipient of African exports, at nearly 20 percent, but we are 
only the fifth largest exporter to Africa. In short, we have ample 
opportunity to increase our export and investment opportunities in the 
region.
  One of the provisions in this bill creating a U.S.-Africa Trade and 
Economic Cooperation will help to accomplish this objective. This forum 
will provide a focal point for Africa policy efforts in the U.S. 
Government in the same way that APEC annual meetings do for our overall 
economic policy toward Asia. It will also help promote the policy 
reform process in Africa, particularly in the trade and investment 
area.
  Mr. Speaker, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, with its 
bipartisan backing from Speaker Gingrich to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), support our interests in Africa and the aspirations of 
African entrepreneurs across the continent. The lowering of tariffs, 
the expansion of trade, the encouragement of free markets over the past 
decade has benefited American companies and workers alike and has 
served our overall foreign policy interests.
  Now I urge my colleagues to let us include Africa in our trade policy 
for the next century. I urge adoption of the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of our Subcommittee 
on Africa, who has ably managed this important measure through the 
committee. We look forward to his continued strong leadership today.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Africa, control the balance of my time in general debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the winds of change are blowing in Africa. From the end 
of apartheid in South Africa to the successful democratic transition of 
power in Botswana, tremendous economic growth in Uganda, infrastructure 
improvements in Ghana, the privatization of formerly state-owned 
industries in Mozambique, and growing stock markets in Zimbabwe and 
Ghana, African nations are taking the requisite steps to shed Africa's 
media image of poverty and conflict and recast Africa as a new frontier 
for investors. Today, a majority of sub-Saharan Africa's 48 countries 
have adopted market-oriented economic and political reforms, including 
open markets, privatizing industries, stabilizing their currencies, and 
simply making their countries more investor friendly.
  As President Clinton noted, there really is a dynamic new Africa out 
there. African nations are looking to enhance trade, not aid, to foster 
their economic development and political stability. While trade cannot 
supplant aid entirely, at least not yet, trade is a missing link in the 
final leg of U.S. policy towards the continent.
  The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act is America's response to 
positive changes in Africa, and it seeks to harness Africa's potential 
in a manner which benefits Africans and Americans.
  Africa is already an important trading partner for the United States. 
Our exports to Africa have grown 14 percent over the last 2 years and 
are now more than $6 billion annually. Exports from my own home State 
of New Jersey to sub-Saharan Africa are more than $200 million. In 
fact, exports to Africa are 27 percent greater than our exports to all 
of the former Soviet Union combined. When former Secretary Ron Brown 
traveled to Africa, he pointed out that while investment in Africa was 
sometimes more difficult than your average foreign investment, it also 
yields a greater than average return on direct investment, about 25 
percent, compared with 8.5 percent for direct investment worldwide.
  In 1995, the World Bank estimates that sub-Saharan Africa's GDP grew 
by 4 percent. Thirty countries reported growth over 3 percent, and four 
countries, Uganda, Angola, Malawi and Lesotho, grew by more than 10 
percent. Many countries have embraced political and economic reforms 
which are encouraging foreign investors to look at new investment in 
the continent.
  This legislation provides opportunities both for Africans and for 
Americans. The bill is a comprehensive program. Not only will it 
facilitate trade and investment, but it is a landmark piece of 
legislation because it places new emphasis on the importance of Africa 
to America, and as a result, it will engage Americans and American 
businesses in Africa.
  Before the 1990s, Africa was an ideological Cold War battleground 
where U.S. policy focused largely on promoting Cold War interests and 
responding to imminent humanitarian concerns. Africa's tremendous 
economic potential was ignored. This legislation says, no more. More 
economic opportunity means less poverty, less emergency humanitarian 
relief, more peace. Less likely to have U.S. troops deployed to end 
mass slaughters, we can save money and we can make money as trading 
partners; we can limit the risk to American lives and also, ultimately, 
we can encourage greater stability and peace within Africa itself. And 
that is good for Africans. That is a win-win situation.
  We are ready for a new era in America's policy toward Africa. With 
the passage of this legislation, we will launch that era, an era where 
America wholeheartedly embraces Africa, its people and its enormous 
wealth of opportunity, an era in which we pursue policies that seek to 
improve the lives of Africans as part of our policy, not just as an 
afterthought.
  I urge my colleagues to support this historic opportunity for America 
and Africa by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is long overdue. This African Growth 
and Opportunity Act is long overdue. For too many years, we have 
thought of Africa in terms of aid only. All of our attempts to promote 
economic development in Africa have been a matter of sending aid and 
more aid. Yet many African countries are poorer today than they were at 
the time of their independence in the early 1960s.
  There are many reasons for this. Some African countries have been 
crippled by civil wars, some which were fueled by the Cold War. Some 
African countries have been hit by natural disasters, including 
droughts. Downward changes in the world prices of some African 
commodities have hurt.
  But our aid has been part of the problem, too, part of the problem 
because it has often sustained what have proven to be unsustainable 
economic policies in Africa. Like other areas of the world, Africa went 
the route of socialism in the 1960s and 1970s. It was fashionable then 
for African governments

[[Page H1039]]

to nationalize industries, to close economies to imports, to try to 
manage commerce down to setting the price on a bag of corn and 
otherwise kill the entrepreneurial spirit in Africans that is common to 
people all over the world. Africa's poverty today has much to do with 
these disastrous policies.
  Like other regions of the world, though, Africa has been changing. 
Over the last 10 years, many African countries have been reforming 
their economies, allowing everyday Africans to seize their own economic 
destinies. State-controlled companies have been sold, commerce-
crippling red tape has been cut, and partnerships with foreign 
investors have been permitted. In short, African nations have begun to 
give themselves a chance to develop just like other countries in the 
world.
  There have been impressive results. Many of my colleagues today will 
tell the story of what some are calling the African Renaissance. Many 
African countries are having real economic growth of up to 10 percent 
for the first time in years.

                              {time}  1230

  One country, Uganda, probably the most aggressive economic reformer 
in Africa, has been growing at 10 percent for several years running. 
Uganda is now being called the African lion.
  This growing economy means that the development, better health, 
nutrition, education, the things that everyone in this House wants to 
see for Africa, is beginning to happen. And it does not take too many 
years of 10 percent economic growth to make some real progress. That is 
why Americans are thinking about Africa in new terms. All this is a new 
beginning for Africa. Though we should not ignore the real challenges 
these countries face, more reforms are needed, and economic reform can 
be trying, but if African countries meet this challenge, then the 
Africa of the 21st century will be a far different Africa than the 
Africa of the recent past.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act is all about helping these 
countries along with this reform plan. It does this by identifying 
those countries that are committed to reform as the countries the 
United States wants to develop a special economic relationship with. 
These countries, those that are giving themselves the best chance to 
develop, that are giving U.S. businesses the chance to take part in 
their development through American exports and investment, will take 
part in annual trade forums with the United States. They will also have 
greater opportunities to sell some of their goods to American 
consumers. These are real benefits, benefits that should be incentives 
to African countries to continue their reform path, allowing their 
citizens to reach their potential, and helping American businesses too.
  Now, this bill will not cure all of Africa's ills, but it helps in a 
big way. It also puts Africa on the map for America, not as a place of 
famine and poverty and of endless aid spending, but as a place where 
growth is offering American businesses new opportunities. Africa is 
changing. It is time for U.S. policy to change too. This is what this 
bipartisan act is about. For the sake of a brighter future for 
Americans and a brighter future for Africans, let us pass this very 
significant legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong support of the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act, a bill which I am pleased to be a cosponsor of.
  Now I realize this is not a perfect bill and that there are concerns, 
and I hope those concerns can be worked out, but let me emphasize today 
in dealing with the continent of Africa we should not let the perfect 
be the enemy of the good. In the past we have had a very limited trade 
relationship with Africa, based primarily on Cold War objectives. I am 
pleased to say that with this bill we are moving forward into the new 
millennium to develop and cultivate new trade relationships. I think 
that is good for America.
  Currently, Europe has 30 percent of the African market. By 
comparison, we only have about 6 to 7 percent. It is in our national 
interests to support better trade relationships with Africa. It is in 
our interests to develop new markets. It is in our interests to avoid 
costly conflicts where trade replaces warfare. It is in our interests 
to address these global problems.
  Africa does have unique problems and progress is fragile, but 
progress has been made. Numerous countries have moved to democratic 
systems and those countries are now prepared to receive our assistance 
in cultivating trade relationships.
  It is important that we offer important reforms, such as eliminating 
trade barriers, such as encouraging improved fiscal policies, promoting 
private sector development, fostering good government and fighting 
corruption, debt forgiveness. All of these are objectives that can be 
accomplished if we pass this bill.
  Let me hasten to point out, however, that this bill will not benefit 
countries that continue to engage in human rights violations. They will 
not be eligible for those benefits. But for those countries that are 
truly moving toward democracy, those countries that are truly 
eliminating human rights violations, those countries will be able to 
benefit.
  But, more importantly, we in the United States will be able to 
benefit because a stronger Africa represents new markets for our goods, 
and to the extent that we can take advantage of these new markets, we 
can have a more prosperous economy here in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support for this very excellent bill.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in very strong support for H.R. 1432, a bill to authorize new 
trade and investment policy for Sub-Saharan Africa.
  First, let me commend the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) and many distinguished, informed and thoughtful colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this bipartisan initiative. This 
act is a much-welcome initiative for a continent in need of our focused 
attention, and I am very proud and pleased to be an original cosponsor.
  We hear a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration around here, but I tell 
my colleagues, in my judgment, without fear of responsible 
contradiction, this is the most important foreign policy initiative of 
this Congress. Beyond that, this is the most important thing that we 
have done potentially for Africa in post-colonial times, and I believe 
that the potential will be shown to be a reality.
  Why do I say that? Well, first of all, we know, of course, that the 
United States has been committed to Africa in terms of foreign 
assistance for many years now, but our commitment to Africa in terms of 
trade has been less steadfast. In fact, our trade policy at times 
discourages private sector enterprises in Africa. These trade barriers 
can negate the benefits of U.S. foreign assistance to some of the same 
African countries that we are trying to help.
  Oftentimes, we hear from these countries, ``We want trade,'' and they 
even go on to say, ``We do not need aid if you give us adequate trade 
opportunities.'' This is a win/win situation for the United States and 
these African countries.
  As a strong supporter of the aid to Africa through the Development 
Fund for africa, in fact, Mr. Wolpe I think was the original initiator, 
and other mechanisms, I believe this legislation finally coordinates 
and sufficiently focuses America's resources on both trade and aid in 
Africa, and there are a number of amendments made in order that will 
improve this legislation.
  By requiring African countries to show their commitment to market 
reform, this bill lays the proper foundation for a very positive, 
cooperative relationship between the United States and these many 
countries of Africa. By proposing a framework for investment 
assistance, export promotion, free trade arrangements, and the 
abolition of trade barriers, this legislation creates a reward system 
that ensures those market reforms in Africa are more likely to 
continue.

[[Page H1040]]

  Finally, by maintaining our foreign assistance program for 
sustainable development and humanitarian purposes, this legislation 
commits us not only to economic liberalization in Africa, but also to 
equitable and efficient development that does not overlook the poor or 
those most in need.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it very hard to imagine how someone could oppose 
this legislation once they have examined it. This legislation has 
received widespread attention both inside the United States and outside 
this country from our allies and friends. Ask the African countries and 
their leaders and their people how they feel about it. If they know 
about it, they are in favor of it. It has been received well as a 
coordinated, thoughtful component to our foreign policy toward the 
individual countries of Africa.
  I say to my colleagues who know about my involvement in Africa and 
foreign affairs issues for some time, I say to them, this legislation 
is a very positive contribution to Africa and to the United States. I 
strongly urge that my colleagues support the most important foreign 
policy initiative of this Congress, one that has bipartisan support.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), in recognition of the 
gentleman's strong concerns about this issue and that it is his 
birthday, even though he is going to speak in opposition.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me first thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for this opportunity. I want 
to thank all of my colleagues for their participation in this 
discussion which I suspect will be a fruitful debate.
  This is an historic day as this Congress discusses and debates U.S. 
trade with Africa on the House floor. As my colleague noted, I was born 
on March 11, 1965, and on December 12, 1995, I was elected to Congress 
as the 91st African-American to serve in this House. There have only 
been 102 African-Americans elected to Congress out of a total of 11,541 
Americans. Ninety-eight have been in the House, 4 elected to the Senate 
and 2 this last century, including 2 this century, Carol Moseley-Braun, 
the only African-American woman to ever serve in the Senate.
  This occasion to debate a respectful and reciprocal trade relation 
with Africa is a test of fate for the 60 million Africans taken from 
their native shores and forced to make the transatlantic voyage. It is 
because of that history that we are compelled to strenuously critique 
and analyze this bill. So I am periodically, Mr. Speaker, going to 
raise questions of some of my colleagues on the other side and this 
side that I hope will be taken in the spirit within which we have 
engaged in this discourse.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________