[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.
____________________