[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13222-S13243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT--Continued

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the trade 
legislation package which constitutes the manager's amendment to H.R. 
434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This trade legislation 
will provide economic opportunity to millions of people in the United 
States and throughout the world.
  Under this package, African and Caribbean nations will be able to use 
trade as a tool to spur economic development where foreign aid and 
other means clearly have not worked. Stronger economies in these two 
regions of the world will, in turn, lead to bigger markets for U.S. 
exports, and consequently more and better paying jobs for American 
workers.
  On the issue of open foreign markets for U.S. products, I would like 
to express my support for an amendment on carousel retaliation being 
offered by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine. If the newly formed 
World Trade Organization and the promise of a rules-based system of 
international trade is to survive, then we cannot--and should not--
tolerate flagrant disregard for internationally agreed trading rules by 
other WTO members such as the European Union. We need to use the tools 
that are now available to us to ensure that our trading partners comply 
with WTO decisions. And its important to those of us who believe in 
free trade that the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of 
Commerce use all the tools available to them to guarantee that we have 
fair trade. Too often we have amendments like Senator DeWine's 
amendment-- which I have co-sponsored--because the U.S. trade 
representative has not been as aggressive as they should be and they do 
not use the tools they have been given by Congress.
  This is very important, because trade is the economic lifeblood of 
the United States. Twelve million American jobs depend directly on 
exports. And exports are a major reason why our economy continues to do 
so well. In fact, one-third of our economic growth since 1992 can be 
attributed directly to exports.
  Ohio is a textbook example of why international trade is good for 
America. When I was Governor, I had four goals in the area of economic 
development--agribusiness, science and technology, tourism and 
international trade. We pursued each of these aggressively in order to 
maximize Ohio's business potential, especially in the trade arena.
  For example, Ohio has outperformed the nation in terms of the growth 
of exports to our NAFTA trading partners. Since 1993, U.S. exports to 
Canada have grown 54 percent and U.S. exports to Mexico have grown 90 
percent, while Ohio exports to Canada have grown 64 percent and Ohio 
exports to Mexico have grown 101 percent.
  Thanks in part to such trade-liberalizing agreements as NAFTA and the 
Uruguay Round of GATT, overall Ohio exports have risen 103 percent in 
just the last decade.
  And because export-related jobs tend to require higher-skilled 
workers and provide higher-paying salaries, when America's exports of 
goods and services increase, so do the number and quality of American 
jobs. Just in Ohio, the increase in exports has created 182,000 jobs 
over the past ten years. And these export-related jobs tend to pay, on 
average, 15% more than a typical private sector job.
  Eliminating trade barriers has not only helped Ohio companies sell 
more overseas, but it has also allowed more foreign companies to invest 
in Ohio, creating more, good paying jobs for Ohioans. According to Site 
Selection magazine, from 1991-1997, Ohio had more growth in non-U.S. 
owned firms than any other state--some 300 new manufacturing facilities 
and plant expansions took place during that time.
  In addition to creating more, better-paying jobs, trade openness has 
an enormous impact on the earnings for average Americans who invest in 
companies that increase their international trade presence. These 
earnings help increase the amount of money people have to reinvest in 
the growth of our economy or to invest in their savings, retirement and 
education funds.
  This chart lists 35 of the biggest U.S. corporations as measured in 
market value. None of these companies is majority-owned by a family or 
individual. In other words, they are all in the stock market. For 25 of 
these 35 companies, trade makes up more than one-third of their global 
operations, and for 12 of these companies, international trade accounts 
for more than half of global sales or revenues--including Cincinnati-
based Procter and Gamble, which can attribute about 51 percent of its 
global sales to international operations. Thus, in the case of Procter 
and Gamble, there is a genuine interest on the part of thousands of 
employees, and even more thousands of individual shareholders, in the 
ability to expand internationally.
  In my State of Ohio, there are many more companies that understand 
that robust two-way trade is the key to creating more jobs and 
increased investment. These are companies like--Cincinnati Milacron, 
Federated, American Electric Power, The Limited, Inc. and Intimate 
Brands, TRW Inc., Chiquita Brands, The Andersons, Battelle, 
ElectraForm, General Electric Jet Engines, Lincoln Electric, NCR, R.G. 
Barry Corporation and hundreds of other small businesses, many of which 
traveled with me when I was governor, on nine trade missions around the 
world.
  In Ohio and across America, the future of companies like these is a 
crucial link to the vitality of our communities because of the jobs 
they support and their contribution to the local tax base. In addition, 
these companies provide philanthropic support to local hospitals, 
schools and colleges and universities as well as countless charities 
and institutions.
  The support these companies provide is linked directly to the overall 
quality of life in many of our communities. For example, Atlanta would 
be a much different city without the civic and charitable contributions 
of a company like Coca-Cola. Companies like Coca Cola--their workers, 
their stockholders--know that 95% of their potential customers for 
their products live outside the United States, and that's why trade 
expansion is so fundamental to the economic future of all Americans.
  Many of my colleagues may ask why the average American should care 
about the importance of trade and the expansion of markets overseas. 
The reason they should care is because it's average Americans who are 
the stakeholders--the millions upon millions of individual investors.
  Indeed, according to a survey in this past Sunday's Washington Post, 
nearly half of all Americans are invested in the stock market. Twenty-
two million American households, or roughly 22%, are invested in 
corporate America through employer-sponsored retirement plans. And 
those Americans referred to as ``Generation X''--individuals in their 
20s--reportedly hold 80 percent of their assets in stocks. Baby 
boomers, who own about half of all outstanding stock, have about 57 
percent of their assets in equities.

[[Page S13223]]

  As these figures show, international trade does matter to the average 
American. The economic stimulus sparked through increased international 
trade and investment allows millions of Americans to plan for their 
children's college education, for retirement nest eggs and for long-
term financial security.
  While the passage of this legislation is important to the economic 
future of America's workers and citizen stock-holders, it will also 
provide a lasting impact on the economic and political development of 
our African and Central American trading partners--an impact that is 
sure to fulfill our hopes for world peace and prosperity.
  With respect to increased U.S. trade and investment in the nations of 
Africa and the Caribbean, it is far better to stimulate the economies 
of the nations of these two regions than to simply offer these nations 
foreign aid year after year. Increasing investment and trade 
opportunities in these regions means that more people can work and 
raise their own standard of living.
  It's like the old adage ``give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. 
Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.''
  International trade not only allows nations to become productive 
members of the world community, but it is probably the best way to 
ensure international stability.
  In fact, back in 1994, U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali 
visited Columbus, Ohio and I said to him that ``nations that trade 
together, stay together and help sustain world peace.''
  Promoting peace and prosperity through trade was one of the aspects I 
pursued on each of my nine foreign trade missions when I was Governor 
of Ohio, including trips to India, Thailand, Chile, Hungary and China.
  Unfortunately, that particular aspect of international trade is too 
often ignored. We ignore the impact of international trade on stability 
and peace in the world.
  What amazes me, Mr. President, is that so many so called 
protectionists lament about deplorable conditions in the world's poor 
nations, and this Nation, the United States of America, doesn't respond 
to the needs of people in Africa and other parts of the world. Yet it 
is these protectionists who are content to criticize free trade 
proponents for wanting to take down trade barriers, invest in poorer 
nations, and provide the tools for economic growth, jobs, and self-
reliance in those countries. There is no way the U.S. Government can 
provide the billions of dollars needed for these countries to develop 
and raise the standard of living for their people. It can only be done 
through private investment. The leaders of 47 African nations know this 
fact, and that is why they want us to support this trade measure.
  As Senator Breaux pointed out earlier today, international trade also 
contributes to the political stability of the countries in the world. 
Think about what has happened in South America since we opened up our 
economic relationships with them over the last number of years.
  This trade legislation will help drive an economic expansion in 
Africa, as well as for our neighbors in the Caribbean and Central 
America. In addition, it will provide for the future of an energetic, 
export-driven American economy. It will sustain and create good-paying, 
high-quality jobs in Ohio and across America and allow millions of 
Americans to save and invest for their children's education and their 
retirement security. This legislative package stands on its own merits. 
It was unanimously reported out of the committee, and I really believe 
it deserves the support of our colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I came momentarily to the floor to hear 
my distinguished colleague from Louisiana try to justify that Bill 
Farley article in Time magazine, which I referred to earlier. His 
justification, of course, was not the matter of campaign finance 
reform, which is the major thrust of the article; interestingly, the 
thrust that, look, we ought to be getting rid of these jobs, says that 
these textile workers now can go to the high-skilled, better-paying 
jobs, and that is the future of America.
  Let me go right to the other comment made by my distinguished 
colleague from New York, who joined with it, about trade adjustment 
assistance, and what a wonderful program it is. Thirty-seven years ago, 
as he said, as Dean Acheson would say, he was at the table. He is 
right. He had a distinguished career of service there as the Assistant 
Secretary of Labor negotiating the trade adjustment assistance 
agreement. Everybody will agree with that.
  But 38 years ago, I was at the table, and I was at the table for the 
seven-point textile program of President Kennedy. It was a very 
interesting exercise because what we had found out was that they were 
really about to do away with the industry, we thought, when it included 
some 10-percent import penetration. I had come up to testify before the 
old International Trade Commission, and testifying before that 
International Trade Commission, we thought we had made a good 
impression.
  At that particular time, 38 years ago, we were confronted with Tom 
Dewey, who was then representing the Japanese. He chased me all around 
the hearing room, and my friend, Charlie Daniel, at that time an 
outstanding contractor/builder/civic leader, says: Now, Governor, let's 
go by and see the chief. That was President Eisenhower. We called on 
Wilton B. Parsons, and Jerry Parsons ushered us in and President 
Eisenhower said: Don't worry, you will win that case.
  In June, the International Trade Commission ruled against us. At that 
particular time, we realized we were totally lost unless we could get 
involved in the campaign, which wasn't too difficult because then-
Senator John F. Kennedy from Massachusetts understood very clearly the 
importance of the textile jobs.
  I am going right back to the Senator from Louisiana saying the future 
of the country is to get rid of these jobs. I am laying the groundwork 
of the historical record about the importance and the significance of 
these jobs.
  The case was in talking to then-Senator Kennedy. We met with him. And 
my friend, Mr. Feldman, was his legislative assistant. We obtained a 
letter on August 30, 1960. You can imagine, this was in the heat of the 
1960 campaign between Kennedy and Nixon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, August 30, 1960.
     Hon. Ernest Hollings,
     Governor of the State of South Carolina, State Capitol 
         Building, Columbia, SC.
       Dear Governor Hollings: I would, of course, be delighted to 
     discuss with you and with textile industry leaders the 
     problems of the textile industry and the development of 
     constructive methods for showing the growth and prosperity of 
     the industry in the future. The critical import situation 
     that confronts the textile industry which you so eloquently 
     describe in your letter is one with which I am familiar. My 
     own State of Massachusetts has suffered and is suffering from 
     the same conditions. The past few years have been 
     particularly difficult for this industry. There seems to have 
     been a basic unwillingness to meet the problem and deal 
     constructively with it. During the first six months of this 
     year imports of cotton cloth are twice what they were during 
     the same period in 1959, the highest year on record. 
     Similarly alarming increases are occurring on other textile 
     and apparel products. Since 1958 imports have exceeded 
     exports by constantly increasing margins. There are now 
     400,000 less jobs in the industry than there were 10 years 
     ago. It is no longer possible to depend upon makeshift 
     policies and piecemeal remedies to solve the problems which 
     the industry faces.
       As you know, I supported the establishment of the Special 
     Senate Sub-committee for the Textile Industry, under the 
     chairmanship of Senator Pastore, of which Senator Strom 
     Thurmond is a member. In an effort to help develop 
     suggestions to improve the competitive position of the 
     industry in the United States and world markets, this 
     Subcommittee for the first time undertook a broad 
     investigation of the problems of the United States textile 
     industry and offered a number of constructive 
     recommendations. With only minor exceptions, the Eisenhower 
     Administration has failed to implement these recommendations.
       I agree with the conclusions of the Pastore Committee that 
     sweeping changes in our foreign trade policies are not 
     necessary. Nevertheless, we must recognize that the textile 
     and apparel industries are of international scope and are 
     peculiarly susceptible to competitive pressure from imports. 
     Clearly the problems of the industry will not disappear

[[Page S13224]]

     by neglect nor can we wait for large scale unemployment and 
     shutdown of the industry to inspire us to action. A 
     comprehensive industry-wide remedy is necessary.
       The outline of such a remedy can be found in the Report of 
     the Pastore Committee. Imports of textile products, including 
     apparel, should be within limits which will not endanger our 
     own existing textile capacity and employment, and which will 
     permit growth of the industry in reasonable relationship to 
     the expansion of our over-all economy.
       We are pledged in the Democratic Platform to combat sub-
     standard wages abroad through the development of 
     international fair labor standards. Effort along this line is 
     of special importance to the United States textile industry.
       The office of the Presidency carries with it the authority 
     and influence to explore and work out solutions within the 
     framework of our foreign trade policies for the problems 
     peculiar to our textile and apparel industry. Because of the 
     broad ramifications of any action and because of the 
     necessity of approaching a solution in terms of total needs 
     of the textile industry, this is a responsibility which only 
     the President can adequately discharge. I can assure you that 
     the next Democratic Administration will regard this as a high 
     priority objective.
       Additionally, we shall make vigorous use of the procedures 
     provided by Congress such as Section 22 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act and the Escape Clause in accordance with the 
     intention of Congress in enacting these laws.
       Lastly, I assure you that should further authority be 
     necessary to enable the President to carry out these 
     objectives, I shall request such authorization from the 
     Congress.
       I hope that these thoughts are helpful to you in your own 
     deliberations and I reaffirm my interest in discussing 
     problems of mutual concern with you.
       With all good wishes, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  John F. Kennedy.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the letter he said he supported the 
special Senate subcommittee of the textile industry under the 
chairmanship of Senator Pastore. He said he agreed with the conclusions 
of the Pastore committee that sweeping changes in our Federal trade 
policy were not necessary:

       Nevertheless, we must recognize that the textile and 
     apparel industries are international in scope and peculiarly 
     susceptible to competitive pressure from imports. The 
     problems of the industry will not disappear by neglect, nor 
     can we wait for a large-scale unemployment and shutdown to 
     inspire us to action. So a comprehensive industrywide remedy 
     is necessary.

  They had a national security provision in the law at that particular 
time. Before then-Senator Kennedy and later-President Kennedy could 
actually implement any kind of comprehensive industrywide remedy, he 
had to have a finding that the industry was important to our national 
security.
  We brought the witnesses. It was a Cabinet committee that was formed 
for the witnesses to attest to. It was Secretary Dean Rusk of the 
Department of State, Secretary McNamara with the Department of Defense, 
Secretary of Commerce Hodges, Secretary of Labor Goldberg, Secretary of 
the Treasury Dillon, and Secretary of Agriculture Freeman, with whom I 
served as Governor.
  They had the hearings, and they concluded at the close of those 
hearings that next to steel, textiles was the second most important to 
our national security. In a line, you needed steel in order to make the 
weapons of war and the tools of agriculture. Therein lies the steel 
problem, because that is the World Bank singsong. They run the world 
around telling these emerging Third World countries that they cannot 
become a nation state until at first they obtain a strong manufacturing 
sector, particularly in steel.
  That is why, incidentally, you have the dumping. We have an 
overproduction in the world of steel. They are dumping here in the 
United States at less than cost. We have had the hearings, and they 
voted on the House side. We tried to get a vote on this side and get 
the bill passed for action by the White House itself.
  But back to the second most important industry that I would like the 
Senator from Louisiana to remember, because I remember when he had a 
substantial investment by Fruit of the Loom down there in Louisiana 
before it left, and now it looks as if it has all gone to the Cayman 
Islands. But you couldn't send them to war in a Japanese uniform. This 
is back in 1960. Today, you might say a Chinese uniform, because the 
Chinese have gone just 8 years ago from a $5 billion deficit in the 
balance of trade to a $55 billion deficit in the balance of trade, 
mostly in textiles and clothing.
  So we have to go to conflict with our friends in the People's 
Republic. We have to call up Beijing and say: Wait a minute. Before we 
have this standoff, please send us some uniforms because we have to be 
prepared in order to go to battle. We can't go in Chinese uniforms. We 
have to be able to distinguish the troops.
  As a result of that finding, then-President Kennedy, on April 24, 
1961, promulgated his seven-point program.
  He did all of the things that dealt with that and followed on into 
the Kennedy Round, as the distinguished Senator from New York has 
pointed out, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, one-price cotton, and 
reciprocity, which stabilized the industry for several years ongoing 
until really the 1970s, and then, of course, the 1980s and early 1990s 
with all the vetoes by President Reagan and President Bush. There has 
just been a deluge. With President Clinton, the deluge turned into a 
waterfall more or less with NAFTA.
  For those who say that these things, as the distinguished Senator 
from Ohio said, are going to create millions of jobs in the United 
States and the world around, let us be accurate. It will create 
millions of jobs in the world around. It is going to create millions of 
``jobless.'' We have lost over 1 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA 
here in the United States. There are 420,000 textile jobs lost all over 
the country, 31,700 in the State of South Carolina alone.
  There is no education in the second kick of a mule.
  What we have on foot is another NAFTA without the advantages. At 
least in NAFTA, we had the side agreements on labor rights. At least in 
NAFTA, we had the side agreements on the environment. At least in 
NAFTA, we had reciprocity.
  Now this one-way street down to the Caribbean and over to the Sahara 
is totally out of the whole cloth. It will start a deluge. We know 
about the Chinese and their influence in the sub-Sahara.
  I will never forget, 5 years ago we had a resolution brought up about 
human rights. They had voted in the assembly to have hearings on human 
rights in the People's Republic of China. The Chinese representatives 
went down into Africa where they have some influence. I was there 25 
years ago. They were building the railroad from inner Zaire, the old-
time Belgian Congo, out to the coast. They had their work crews all 
over, their minions all over. They have influence, and it was proved at 
that time because they changed the vote. They never had that hearing 
that the United Nations wanted to have on human rights in the People's 
Republic.
  We know, looking at Matsui, the shirts coming through at this moment 
from Matsui. There is not a shirt factory there. They have been 
inundating the American market.

  We go to Customs. They say: Senator, they have been inundating the 
market, but we restrict it. Customs agents ask if we want to stop drugs 
or stop textiles. Of course, the obvious answer is, heavens, stop the 
drugs. They say: Until you get the other agents, that is about all we 
can try to keep up with.
  The Customs Department has estimated $5 billion already in 
transshipments, illegal entry of textile goods in the United States, as 
we speak. We know the sub-Sahara is not going to benefit by it at all 
with respect to the jobs. It is going to be similar to our minority 
business enterprise section in the Department of Commerce. They 
immediately got minority, a black front; then they got the white money 
and the folks behind it. And with the front, they make a lot of money 
and get the set-aside contracts through hard experience in Mexico.
  I refer particularly to the fabric manufacturers down there. The 
Senator from Louisiana says we ought to be getting rid of the industry. 
We ought to remember we are going to get something we didn't have 
before; namely, with all the cotton goods and everything else we are 
sending, our fabric and the apparel, shirts for example, will come back 
with American-made fabric. That is what can come back free of duty, 
free of restriction. But so can the Chinese-made fabrics. So can the 
Taiwanese. So can the Korean.
  All one needs to do is cross the border at Tijuana in lower 
California into

[[Page S13225]]

Mexico and one will think they are in Seoul, Korea. They are not at all 
bashful about investing there.
  The Fabric Resource List of Mexico, appearing in Davison's blue book, 
I refer to pages 345 to 358 under Fabric Resource List.
  Mr. President, we can see the opportunity and to whom it is being 
given. Very interestingly, the commitment when we passed NAFTA, from 
the individuals at the time that the ATMI came in, they say they are 
not going to take their plants down there.
  I refer to an article in the Capital City's Media, back in 1993. The 
lead article and lead sentence of the article entitled ``Hell No, We 
Won't Go'':

       That was the battle cry Monday by the directors of the 
     American Textile Manufacturers Institute, who in a last-ditch 
     effort to solidify congressional support for NAFTA, pledged 
     not to move any jobs to Mexico if the act was passed. The 
     ATMI board, made up of firms representing every facet of the 
     textile industry, voted 37-6 in favor of the resolution which 
     said companies would not move jobs, plants or facilities from 
     the United States to Mexico as a result of the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement.

  Just in the past year Dan River built an integrated apparel 
manufacturing plant in Mexico. Another U.S. corporation, Tarrant 
Apparel purchased a denim mill in Pueblo, Mexico; DuPont and Alpek 
built a plant in Altimira, Mexico, and formed a joint venture with 
Teijin; Guilford and Cone Mills created a Mexican industrial park known 
as Textile City; and Burlington Industries is to build a new Mexican 
plan to produce wool products.
  It reminds me of John Mitchell, the former Attorney General. He said: 
Watch what we do, not what we say.
  Now we know what they do. They go down into Mexico and they invest 
very heavily. Our friend from Louisiana says the jobs are not important 
and they moved to higher skilled jobs. I know we have restrictions on 
the importation of cotton because he says: Look at the cotton. They 
have quota programs and they have payments they receive for the use of 
U.S. cotton. That goes back to the One Price Cotton Program we got way 
back under President Kennedy.
  The statement made by the Senator from Louisiana is that we are going 
to get something that we didn't have. The Caribbean and sub-Sahara are 
going to get something they didn't have. We are going to lose. Yes, we 
have protection for American cotton producers and they are buying from 
American cotton producers. But if you go down into Mexico and the 
plants all go down there, they don't have to worry about coming back in 
with respect to American-made fabric because they can go ahead and 
produce it and bring it back in any way. We are going to be losing that 
business. Last fall, they had section 807 and 809 and everything else 
the companies themselves approved. That is not productive at all 
because they are moving down there. That is why they are moving the 
fabric plants. And there are no restrictions on those under the NAFTA 
agreement.
  With respect to the export nature of the job, there is a book written 
by our friend, Eamonn Fingleton. He wrote the book some 10 years ago 
entitled ``Blind Side.'' He pointed out at that particular time that 
the little country of 125 million Japanese was outproducing the 260 
million productive Americans. In manufacturing today, Japan still 
outproduces us. They were talking about the growth of the economy 
because they know how to build up an economy.
  Who predicted by the year 2000 the GNP, or gross domestic product, of 
Japan would exceed that of the richest United States of America? They 
still could reach it in spite of the turndown of the banking industry 
and otherwise. They haven't yielded one bit on market share this past 
year in spite of the turndown in the Japanese economy, the automobile 
industry. The Japanese automobile industry has taken over again a 
larger share of the American market. They continue to do so and they 
continue to invest here, as we know, because we have the Japanese 
plants in my State of South Carolina.
  We continue to weaken what President Kennedy and others knew was 
necessary to build a strong economy, as if resting on a three-legged 
stool. One leg is our values; that is unquestioned. The second leg is 
the military strength, which is unquestioned--the remaining superpower. 
The third leg, economics, having been fractured in the last 10 years. 
We have gone from 26 percent of our workforce and manufacturing is down 
to 13 percent. We are losing and hollowing out the industrial center, 
the middle class of America. I do not have the ratings of the 
particular jobs they have at Amazon, but I have a good idea of it. I do 
not believe they are paying as much at Amazon and these other 
industries as they are in textiles. The average textile wage in the 
United States is around $8.37 an hour. The needle trades, Senator 
Breaux pointed out, in Kentucky, Fruit of the Loom eliminated more than 
7,000 jobs in the past 6 years. Here, ``Would-be workers attend a job 
fair held by the new arrival, Amazon.''

  You do not stand in line to get a job at Microsoft. They have 22,000. 
You stand at the bank or you stand at the country club. You have to not 
only have the high intellect, but you have to have the connections. 
Anybody who is lucky enough to get a job at Microsoft, they ought to go 
say their prayers at night and thank heavens because it is wonderful. 
Every one of those 22,000 are millionaires.
  That is not the jobs we are talking about, those superduper jobs. We 
are talking about the 250,000 working at General Motors. We are talking 
about the 1.6 million still left, maybe 2 million--I can't get the 
exact figure--of textile jobs left in America. These jobs are important 
to our national economy. They not only have a national security portion 
of being able to produce the garments and the uniforms but more 
particularly to maintain middle America. That is where it is so 
important. I am going to get the exact pay scale there. I know PSC 
Corporation, in my own capital city of Columbia, SC, has already 
shipped out some 500 jobs to India. I forget the exact name of the 
town. But they can start up the computers in India and get the 
information back there, and they tell me my light bill is being 
processed over in India for me right now. That is the trend, the global 
competition. That is the global development. That is the reality. How 
do we confront it? Do we maintain a strong manufacturing sector and 
strengthen that economic leg to our national security?
  Go right back to Alexander Hamilton in the earliest days. In the 
earliest days, you had that doctrine of market forces, comparative 
advantage, and David Ricardo. That is what they said, Adam Smith--you 
go ahead, the little fledgling colony that now had won its 
independence, you produce best what you can and ship it back to the 
mother country and the mother country in turn will produce and ship 
back what we can produce best--the doctrine of comparative advantage.
  Alexander Hamilton said, ``No way.'' He wrote the book, ``Reports On 
Manufactures.'' In that particular book he told the Brits to bug off. 
He said: We are not going to remain your colony.
  As a result, the second bill that ever passed this national Congress, 
in which we stand this afternoon--the first being the U.S. seal--the 
second bill on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill, protectionism of a 50-
percent tariff on 60 different articles, including our iron and 
textiles and other things we were beginning to build up--our 
manufacturing capacity.
  Now we hear, to my amazement, the cry on the floor of the Senate: Get 
rid of it. We are going to become a service economy. We are going to 
have nothing but software. We are going to have millionaires and 
country clubs and bread lines and that is going to be America. They had 
that right after World War II. They told the Brits: Don't worry. 
Instead of a nation of brawn, we are going to be a nation of brains. 
Instead of producing products, we will provide services. Instead of 
creating wealth, we are going to handle it, become a financial center.
  The mother country has gone to hell in an economic handbasket. London 
is nothing more than an amusement park. They do have the two levels of 
society and they put it on every night on educational TV, public 
television: ``Upstairs Downstairs.'' Everybody grins and smiles and 
says: Oh, those were wonderful days. We can all be maids and servants 
in the kitchen or we can be plantation owners. That is where we are 
headed. That is where we are headed with this cry of ``free trade, free 
trade,'' that is enunciated by everybody who does not have an interest 
in the future of the United States.

[[Page S13226]]

  That ``everybody'' includes the banks. They first financed these 
companies, these multinationals, under the Marshall Plan that we sent 
overseas. Then the think tanks and consultants, then the lawyers, then 
the retailers. ``You can get a cheaper product,'' and everything else 
of that kind. Then the consumer groups and what have you. So they all 
come in and say ``free trade, free trade,'' until you get to 
intellectual property and ``Oh, no, wait a minute. We have to have 
trademarks; we have to have copyright; we have to have protectionism.''
  They are for protectionism. Jack Valenti in the movies, he will run 
over here and knock down the desks and everything else. Wait a minute, 
Hollywood is the biggest protectionist center in the world; 
protectionism, as they spew out their violence. They killed our TV 
violence bill momentarily. We keep coming back and we will bring it 
back again. But I can tell you here and now they want protectionism for 
the banks, for the insurance companies, for the rich, for the software 
people but nothing for the sweat of the brow. That is what gets me, 
when the Senator from Louisiana says now what we need to do is go get a 
high-skilled, better paying job. That is the future of America.
  There is a different future. I hate to disabuse his mind on that 
particular score. There is a book written about this. As Fingleton 
points out now in his more recent book, ``In Praise of Hard 
Industries,'' he takes down, chapter and verse: With respect to 
exports, there is no contribution whatsoever. It is almost negligible. 
The idea of the software and the high-tech industry --in fact, it was 
going broke itself in semiconductors until, what did we do? We gave 
them aid. We put in Sematech and we put in voluntary restraint 
agreements--give President Reagan credit for that--to save that 
particular industry, or you would not be seeing any Intel on that stock 
market, going up yesterday. The Government gave it a chance to survive. 
That is all the textile industry is asking this afternoon is for a 
chance to survive.
  Two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at is imported. Do we want to 
send the rest of it down there? We have shown all the fabric plants 
they can manufacture if they go down there, and they will go. Do they 
want to do that for the sub-Sahara, not having any side agreements or 
understanding about labor rules, not having an understanding about the 
environment, not having any reciprocity?
  Let me get to the restrictions. This industry is terribly restricted. 
They should understand it right now. That is, I hold in my hand 
``Foreign Regulations Affecting U.S. Textile and Apparel Exports.'' 
That was, a few years ago, in one book. Now they put it out in 
different, separate items with respect just to the United States, and 
they do not put it in a book because they think we were the only ones 
who had any restrictions whatsoever. But can't we do away with the 
restrictions, not only on the textile industry but the restrictions 
that they have with respect to the Caribbean Basin Initiative? I have 
the various products.
  Mr. President, knit fabrics, Rwanda. Of course, 100 percent on knit 
fabrics, 100 percent on apparel. Mali, we have restrictions there. You 
can turn to the restrictions with the other countries: Gabon, 30 
percent on apparel compared to our 10 percent in the United States; 
Ethiopia, 80 percent compared to our 10 percent. We have already given 
them the advantage by far.
  My hangup is, we have given the advantage to the Koreans, the 
People's Republic of China, the Taiwanese, the Japanese, the 
Malaysians. They have the investments in these countries, and they will 
have a few jobs to give out, but they will literally take the remaining 
one-third of the American market and put out of business a wonderful 
basic industry important to our national security.
  I say ``a wonderful'' because I watched in the early days when they 
got the dust and lint in their faces and hair. That is why they called 
them lint heads. That is not the case anymore. There is no one in the 
card room. It is mechanically, electronically controlled. In the weave 
room, where they had 125 people, there are fewer than 15 now. They have 
modern machinery.
  The main point is it has afforded jobs for minorities and for women. 
You hardly found women in the fabric or textile plants; you found them 
in sewing. Now they represent over 50 percent of employees. It is a 
good paying job. If the husband has a job and if a woman can make $8.30 
an hour, that can help put the boys through Clemson University. That is 
what they are doing in my backyard in South Carolina.
  They have invested, on average, $2 billion a year for some 15 years. 
But now they look at this measure--which is really foreign aid, a 
giveaway to make a record to build a library for the President and for 
the idle rich over on the other side of the aisle who believe in money 
and market and not the country itself. They will give anything away. 
All they want now, like their software crowd after we started the 
Internet, after we gave them the education at Stanford, after all the 
other protections, now they want to do away with the estate tax, do 
away with the capital gains tax, do away with the immigration laws; let 
them all come in so we can get them even cheaper labor; let's do away 
with State tort laws, Y2K; let's just do away with the Government. That 
is the crowd over on the other side of the aisle. I take the floor 
because that is where we are headed. This industry is watching closely 
because they do not want to be in a position of not getting their money 
back.
  We have these wonderful textile shows--the machinery boys come from 
all over the world--in Greenville, SC, at the center. They want to stay 
ahead of the curve, and they want to be productive, and they are 
productive, and they do compete. I categorically claim the U.S. textile 
industry is the most productive in the entire world, bar none. But they 
cannot afford to remain productive with this initiative because they 
will not get their money back.
  They know the transshipments. They know how the Chinese built these 
parks in Vietnam. That is why you find the Burlingtons and the Cone 
Mills and the Guilfords all going down there because they want to stay 
in business and they have to make money. So they have to break their 
pledge not to move plants, not to move jobs, and they all are headed 
down there.
  I do not know who is going to be able to hold on in the United States 
if this measure passes. The ATMI--that crowd is defunct, I can tell you 
that. I can say that advisedly because I have gotten every award they 
give. Otherwise, the AAMA, the American Apparel Manufacturers 
Association--and a man by the name of Larry Martin, a wonderful 
individual, with whom I have worked for the enactment of textile bills 
over the last 30 years --ought to be renamed the Central American 
Apparel Manufacturers. They do not have U.S. apparel manufacturers.
  It is just like our friend from the Cayman Islands. It is gone. Fruit 
of the Loom, Sara Lee, Limited--``The fruit of its labor, the politics 
of underwear.'' That is the particular article that came out. They are 
ready to go. They are now in the Cayman Islands. And I will ask Janet 
Reno to look into this: I say to the Senator from North Dakota--they 
are talking about Chinese contributions. I am wondering about these 
Cayman Islands contributions. I don't think George W. knows, but he 
already has $400,000 from Bill Farley and Fruit of the Loom, according 
to this article. They are down in the Caymans.

  Don't give me this cheese board they have up here, how wonderful this 
is and everybody but Hollings is for the measure. Why do you think they 
could not get the black caucus over there or why couldn't they get 
Jesse Jackson, Jr., for this bill? Why not go for the Jackson bill? 
That is what he was for, not for this particular measure. Why did the 
black ministers in Boston march on the industries? Because they are not 
taken over with the bum's rush of that corporate business banking crowd 
that wants to make an even bigger profit.
  Former Secretary of Labor, little Bobby Reich, put out a book. I wish 
you all would read that book. On page 179, you will find out the 
Fortune 500 has not created a new job in the United States of America 
in the last 10 years. That book is about 6 or 7 years old, but is still 
on point, and will be for sometime to come. They are not creating the 
jobs. They are firing everybody. The companies I am referring to are 
all listed on the charts. They are getting

[[Page S13227]]

rid of the jobs and getting rid of the industry. That is what we have 
in the balance this afternoon.
  I emphasize that it is one way, and it is not NAFTA and the nice plea 
that it has worked so well down in Mexico so let's extend it to sub-
Sahara, let's extend it to Central America. We are not, if I have 
anything to do with it, going to pass this Kathie Lee sweatshop 
measure. It has not worked in El Salvador.
  The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, wanted to put a child labor 
amendment on this measure. Of course, now that they have filled up the 
tree and have given fast track to this measure, we cannot offer an 
amendment for labor rights, for the environment, for reciprocity. We 
are going the way of Mexico.
  Let me momentarily hold up with one observation about NAFTA because 
the claim was made at that time in the debate that they would create 
200,000 jobs. It has not created new jobs. We have lost 420,000 textile 
jobs. They said we are going to have better wage rates. Actually, the 
take-home wage of the country we were trying to help, Mexico, is less 
in 1999 than in 1994 and 1995 when we passed NAFTA.
  Then they said it was going to help the immigration problem because 
they are going to have so many jobs. The immigration problem has 
worsened.
  I know better than any. I handle the immigration appropriation. We 
have a school for the Border Patrol agents. We have literally graduated 
thousands of Border Patrol Spanish-speaking agents for the Border 
Patrol down in my hometown. And the immigration problem is, again, even 
worse. Ask the Senators from California, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Boxer.
  And then drugs. Oh, yeah, we were going to solve the drug problem. 
That has gotten worse.
  So NAFTA is not a good example of a positive experience with a trade 
agreement. It is like they keep talking about deregulation of the 
airlines. I could go on for 2 or 3 hours about that one. We are in an 
FAA authorization bill now.
  We used to come specifically with the town, the mayor, the tax base, 
build the airport, get the facilities, go out and get Captain 
Rickenbacker and Eastern Airlines, and come to the CAB and get the 
rights; and it was a working deal. You got good service. The community 
controlled the so-called slots, and everything else of that kind. It 
worked.
  But they got this urge to deregulate, deregulate, and we have now 
come full swing, full circle. The regulated are buying up the 
deregulated. You don't get the service. You have all kinds of costs.
  I bought a ticket a few weeks ago for my wife. The day before we did 
not think the plane was going to fly on account of Hurricane Floyd. We 
found out it was, so we bought the ticket. It was $748, round trip, 
from Washington, DC, to Charleston, SC, and back--$748 dollars. I will 
show you the ticket.
  So don't talk about the improvements, and everything else like that, 
with either deregulation or this singsong the money crowd puts on with 
respect to NAFTA and how well it has worked and how everybody is for 
it.
  Everybody is not for this. Those who are looking and have studied and 
worked in the trade field realize we are going the way of England and 
that we just can't afford it any longer. I almost say we, more or less, 
have given away the store, as they say, in the community chest. As they 
said to me back in those Governor days: Governor, what do you expect 
them to make? The airplanes and the computers? Let them make the shoes. 
Let them make the clothing. And we will make the airplanes and the 
computers.
  My problem is they are making the shoes, they are making the 
clothing, they are making the airplanes, they are making the computers. 
That Boeing crowd from Washington is beginning to sober up because 
their bus is being dumped. Ask these airlines whether they are buying 
Boeing or Lockheed. No, no, no. They are being dumped on account of the 
price and financing, and everything else of that kind. And the 
competition is government; and the policy is set by that government.
  Senators say look before you open up Conrad Manufacturing. You have 
to have a minimum wage, clean air, clean water, Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, safe working place, safe machinery, plant closing 
notice, parental leave--I could keep going on and on. They can go down 
to Mexico now for 58 cents an hour, and there is none of that.
  So what is happening in the job policy where you can save as much as 
20 percent on your manufacturing cost, which is 30 percent of volume? 
If you move your manufacturing to a low-wage country, and just keep 
your executive office and your sales force, and you have $500 million 
in sales, saving 20 percent moving to that low-wage country, before 
taxes you can make $100 million. Or you know what, you can continue to 
work your own people and go bankrupt.
  That is the job policy of the national Congress. That is the job 
policy we are discussing this afternoon on the floor of the Senate. 
That is what we are talking about: How can we say this is for the 
people, how we say this is going to create jobs, knowing full well it 
is going to result in a loss of jobs.
  That is why the labor people, and that is why so many African 
Americans, that is why all are beginning to get stirred. That is what 
makes Pat Buchanan make sense until lately when he began to talk that 
nonsense about Hitler. That is the worse thing that ever happened to 
this particular debate because he was talking sense at the time before 
he wrote his silly book about Hitler and all these other things. But he 
is talking about the passing army. That is labor in America. They 
realize they are hearing all this pretty talk from Washington and how 
we are going to do this and how we got to go do that--global economy, 
global competition, and everything else of that kind--and they keep 
losing out.
  They are wondering what is happening when the Republicans and 
Democrats say the same thing. And so Buchanan comes out, and was the 
best voice we had in a national sense. I have been talking trade while 
that boy was in Gonzaga. Is that the name of the high school around 
here, Gonzaga High School? Gonzaga High School--I was working on this 
when he was at Gonzaga High School beating up everybody. I know him and 
like him. I get along with him very well. But he has poisoned the well 
on this particular score because he loses credibility on the most 
important issue next to the budget. The second most important is the 
economy and trying to maintain middle America.
  And they tell me--the Senator from Louisiana--all they have to do is 
get in line and go to Amazon. The fact is that those jobs are not 
paying as much. These retail jobs just do not provide the same pay. In 
fact, they make them independent contractors to avoid paying their 
health costs and everything else.
  In fact, take the example--and I will sit down and yield to my 
colleagues because I have plenty more to cover--with respect to Oneida 
knitting mills down in Andrews, SC, they had to close the first of the 
year. We bought them less than 35 years ago, a fine little plant. They 
had 487 employees, with the average age of 47 years old.
  Tell them to get retrained and get skilled tomorrow morning--
Washington's approach and the approach of the Senator from Louisiana--
get that skill as a computer operator and go apply to Amazon as a 47-
year-old. Do you think Amazon is going to employ the 47-year-old or the 
21-year-old computer operator? They are sidelined, deadlined. They are 
out.
  This is the issue they ought to be debating in this Presidential 
race. But since the pollsters are all on education, education, 
education, and the Governors, education, education, the size of the 
class, more this, more that, reeducate, reteach, everything else like 
that, they are not talking about the real problem that we at the 
Washington level are talking about.
  On education, the federal government only spends 7 cents on the 
dollar; the other 93 cents comes from the local level. So we are not 
going to do much on that. But here, when we can do something, we are 
doing the wrong thing and going in the wrong direction.
  They put up these cheese boards around how the Citicorp and that rich 
crowd is all for it. All they are doing is trying to make money. They 
are not trying to create jobs.
  Read Bobby Reich's book. He's right, the Fortune 500 are not creating 
jobs at

[[Page S13228]]

all. We supposedly are trying to, but at the same time we are canceling 
out these efforts with this job policy.
  We have to phase out right now the Multifiber Arrangement. We are 
going into the fifth year of it. The real hard part is going to be 
hitting. I can tell you right now, after this election in November 
2000, the next President who is going to come on is going to have some 
real problems. And, Senator, you and I, hopefully, if the Lord is 
willing, will be here. And we ought to be doing something about it now.
  We certainly ought not to be taking this bum's rush that comes out of 
the Finance Committee. Because that is what they do to me every time. 
That is what they did on NAFTA. That is what they did on GATT. They 
wait until the last 10 days of a particular session. Then they come out 
and they grease it and they give it fast track. They file it. They put 
in two amendments. They fill up the tree. They file cloture. And say: 
Ha, ha, ha, we are going off to the party. Struggle as you will. But we 
have it fast tracked. And this is going to pass whether you like it or 
not.
  We have to get out here and get at least some amendments with respect 
to the labor and environmental rights, with respect to the reciprocity. 
I hope we will look closely at what has happened here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the 1998 Ratios of Imports to Consumption from the International Trade 
Commission, this two-sheet listing.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                 1998 ratios of imports to consumption

                              [In percent]

Certain industrial thermal-processing equipment and certain furnace48.9
Textile machinery and parts........................................67.0
Metal rolling mills and parts thereof..............................46.6
Machine tools for cutting metal and parts..........................48.1
Machine tools for metal forming and parts thereof..................55.3
Semiconductor manufacturing equipment and robotics.................51.9
Boilers, turbines, and related machinery...........................44.4
Electrical transformers, static converters, and inductors..........43.2
Molds and molding machinery........................................44.8
Aircraft engines and gas turbines..................................70.3
Automobiles, trucks, buses, and bodies and chassis of the foregoing40.6
Motorcycles, mopeds, and parts.....................................48.5
Aircraft, spacecraft, and related equipment........................45.7
Office machines....................................................47.2
Microphones, loudspeakers, audio amplifiers, and combinations there77.9
Tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, turntables, and 
  compact disc players............................................100.0
Radio transmission and reception apparatus, and combinations thereo57.9
Television apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, and cable 
  apparatus........................................................68.5
Electric sound and visual signaling apparatus......................49.9
Electrical capacitors and resistors................................69.5
Diodes, transistors, integrated circuits, and similar semiconductor 
  solid-state devices..............................................45.2
Electrical and electronic articles, apparatus, and parts not elsewhere 
  provided for.....................................................49.1
Automatic data processing machines.................................51.6
Optical goods, including ophthalmic goods..........................51.5
Photographic cameras and equipment.................................63.8
Watches...........................................................100.0
Clocks and timing devices..........................................62.2
Drawing and mathematical calculating and measuring instruments.....71.4
Luggage, handbags, and flat goods..................................79.7
Musical instruments and accessories................................57.2
Umbrellas, whips, riding crops, and canes..........................81.1
Silverware and certain other articles of precious metal............59.9
Precious jewelry and related articles..............................55.8
Men's and boys' suits and sportcoats...............................47.5
Men's and boys' coats and jackets..................................62.5
Men's and boys' trousers...........................................50.4
Women's and girls' trousers........................................56.4
Shirts and blouses.................................................62.9
Sweaters...........................................................76.4
Women's and girls' suits, skirts, and coats........................59.0
Robes, nightwear, and underwear....................................68.8
Body-supporting garments...........................................42.8
Neckwear, handkerchiefs, and scarves...............................46.7
Gloves, including gloves for sports................................76.1
Headwear...........................................................54.1
Leather apparel and accessories....................................67.2
Fur apparel and other fur articles.................................81.7
Footwear and footwear parts........................................84.2
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can go down this list: textile 
machinery and parts, 67 percent; certain industrial thermal processing 
equipment, 48, 49, 50 percent; machine tools, 55.3 percent; 
semiconductor manufacturing, 51 percent; aircraft engines, gas 
turbines, 70 percent; microphones, loud speakers, audio amplifiers, 
77.9 percent; tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, 
turntables, compact disk players, 100 percent; radio transmission and 
reception apparatus and combinations, 57.9 percent; television 
apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, cable apparatus, 68.5 
percent; electric sound and visual signaling apparatus, 49.9 percent; 
electrical capacitors and resisters, 69.5 percent; diodes, transistors, 
integrated circuits, 45.2 percent; electrical and electronic articles, 
apparatus and parts not elsewhere provided, 49.1 percent; automatic 
data processing machines, 51.6 percent; optical goods, including 
opthalmic goods, 51.5 percent; photographic cameras and equipment, 63.8 
percent; watches, 100 percent--I don't know about Timex; I guess they 
just repair them--100 percent for watches--they have gone to Korea--
clocks and timing devices, 62.2 percent; drawing and mathematical 
calculating and measuring instruments, 71.4 percent; luggage and 
handbags, flat goods, 79.7 percent; musical instruments and 
accessories, 57.2 percent; umbrellas, whips, riding crops, canes, 81.1 
percent; silverware, certain other articles of precious metals, 59.9 
percent; precious jewelry, related articles, 55.8 percent; men's and 
boys' suits and sport coats, 47.5 percent; men's and boys' coats and 
jackets, 62.5 percent; men's and boys' trousers, 50.4 percent; women's 
and girls' trousers, 62,9 percent; shirts and blouses, 76.4 percent; 
sweaters, another 76 percent; women's and girls' suits, skirts, coats, 
59 percent; robes, nightwear, underwear, 68.8 percent; body supporting 
garments, 42.8 percent; neckwear, handkerchiefs, scarves, 46.7 percent; 
gloves, including gloves for sports, 76.1 percent; headwear, 54.1 
percent; leather apparel and accessories, 67.2 percent; fur apparel and 
other fur articles, 81.7 percent; footwear and footwear parts, 84.2 
percent, on down the list.
  I was listening to my distinguished friend from Ohio, Senator 
Voinovich. He was talking about exports and how he got Ohio, as 
Governor, prepared for exports. As a Governor, I have done the same 
thing. For both Ohio and South Carolina, there isn't going to be 
anything left to export. This was last year's statistics. I can tell 
you the trend is overwhelming in the wrong direction.
  Look at the deficit in the balance of trade. It is going to 
approximate this year $300 billion. We are not talking about exports as 
a wonderful thing. Let's look, as they used to say when my children 
were growing up, Big John and Sparky, all the way through life, make 
this your goal; keep your eye on the doughnut and not the hole. We have 
the eye on the hole.
  Export, export, that is the singsong. Citibank, Citicorp, and all 
those other financial institutions listed up there, that banker board 
and what have you; export, export. What we have to watch is the 
imports. That is the doughnut. That is the problem we have.
  When you are spending over $100 billion more than you are taking in, 
you're going to create a huge economic problem. We should know: the 
fiscal year just ended, September 30, less than 30 days ago, and we 
have spent $103 billion more than we took in, we are still running over 
$100 billion deficits, deficits, deficits. All right. We finally got on 
to that at least to save Social Security. Now they are talking exports, 
when they ought to be talking imports because with this particular 
trend, we don't have anything to export.
  Exporting movies, exporting software, exporting insurance policies, 
exporting bank accounts--come on--where is the work there? All you have 
is this computerization and everything else. You will have your country 
terribly enfeebled. It is all a bum's rush to let us help the sub-
Sahara foreign aid, let us help the Caribbean Basin nations. But they 
won't have reciprocity down there. They will all move in on those poor 
little islands, like we called up that little Felicia in Antigua after 
the poor airmen got killed in the barracks. Don't you remember, at 
Lebanon? The marines, I should say, got killed in the barracks at 
Lebanon.

[[Page S13229]]

 After we lost some 278 marines, they ran down and got suits off the 
Gulf coast and said: We are invading Granada because Antigua asked us 
to.
  We know what is going to happen. Look at the sheet: Kathie Lee 
sweatshop in El Salvador. If you try to get a union there, they will 
kill you. They will kill you. I can tell you right now. Workers fired 
and blacklisted if they tried to defend their rights. Workers paid 15 
cents for every $16.96 pair of Kathie Lee pants they sold; starvation 
wages, locked bathrooms, forced overtime; pregnancy tests; workers 
illegally fired and intimidated; death threats. To have the audacity to 
stand on the floor of the Senate and call this a win-win bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I've already stated my opposition to 
this Africa trade bill. At best, it does virtually nothing for Africa, 
and at worst it actually harms African economies while doing little for 
the United States.
  Instead, the Senate should support legislation that works with the 
countries of Sub-Saharan Africa to diversify and strengthen African 
economies and fight the real enemies of economic progress on the 
continent: the overwhelming debt burden and the devastating AIDS 
epidemic.
  There are many sound policy reasons for opposing this bill, which 
carries the slightly Orwellian title, the Africa Growth and Opportunity 
Act or AGOA. These reasons have been well articulated during this 
debate.
  But today I come to the floor to talk about who supports AGOA--a long 
list of wealthy corporations who will reap huge benefits if AGOA 
becomes law.
  I don't think my colleagues will be surprised to learn that many of 
these corporate interests are also powerful political donors who know 
how to use the current campaign finance system to lobby Congress when 
their interests are at stake.
  Many supporters of AGOA can be found among the members of Africa 
Growth and Opportunity Act Coalition, Inc. I'm not making this up Mr. 
President. This corporation was established, according to its website, 
to ``demonstrate to the United States Senate that there is significant 
public support behind enacting the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act 
(H.R. 434).''
  I argue that the support this coalition really demonstrates is not 
broad-based support from the American public, but the very narrow 
support of the few but powerful members of the coalition themselves--
Amoco, Chevron, Mobil, The Gap, Limited Inc., Enron, General Electric, 
SBC Communications, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caterpillar and Motorola, to 
name just a few.
  Our campaign finance system allows these companies to be heard on the 
issue of Africa trade not only because of their business concerns, but 
because of the legal loophole they have at their disposal to influence 
this policy debate--unregulated, unlimited soft money contributions.
  This coalition has the weight of millions of dollars of soft money 
behind it, Mr. President.
  We know these corporations have the wealth and clout to be heard in 
Congress on this bill, so the only question is--what does AGOA offer 
them?
  AGOA provides millions in benefits to help corporations invest in 
Africa--corporations that are often already investing there in the 
first place, and many corporations that, not coincidentally, comprise 
the AGOA coalition.
  AGOA is a huge windfall for many American corporations, but it does 
little or nothing for African nations or African people or working 
Americans.
  It doesn't make an effort to stimulate African economies by helping 
small businesses in Africa, or adequately guard against transhipment of 
goods through Africa, which will rob Africans of the benefits AGOA is 
supposed to intend.
  Essentially it offers the status quo, plus a multi-million dollar 
bonus in tariff reductions for American corporations that already do 
business on the continent.
  Mr. President, just to give an idea of the soft money donations that 
give the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Coalition, Inc., so much 
clout, I'd like to Call the Bankroll on this industry coalition, as I 
do from time to time on this floor, for the benefit of the public and 
my colleagues.
  First the total numbers. The companies that are members of this 
coalition gave a total of $5,108,735 in soft money to the political 
parties in the `98 election cycle. Over $5 million in one cycle, Mr. 
President. That is an extraordinary figure. Our parties have received 
over $5 million in financial support from this industry coalition that 
was organized to lobby for this bill. Are we really comfortable with 
that? Does that not give us just a little pause?
  Two major U.S. retailers and coalition members, Gap Inc. and The 
Limited Inc., have a particularly strong interest in passing AGOA, 
since they can benefit from importing cheap textiles. Let's look at 
their soft money contributions specifically.
  During the 1997-1998 election cycle, Limited, Inc. gave the political 
parties $553,000 in soft money donations, and in just the first six 
months of 1999, Limited Inc. gave the parties more than $160,000 via 
the soft money loophole.
  The Gap also played the soft money game during this period, with more 
than $185,000 in the 1998 election cycle and nearly $54,000 already 
during the current election cycle.
  And that's not all, Mr. President, not by a long shot.
  I'd also like to turn my colleagues attention to the wealthy donors 
who would like to secure enactment of the Caribbean Basin Initiative or 
``CBI'', which was combined with the AGOA in the managers' amendment.
  The soft money donations from one donor with a huge stake in seeing 
CBI passed are particularly interesting, and bear mention during this 
debate.
  Fruit of the Loom stands to gain $25 to $50 million from so-called 
CBI-NAFTA parity, which essentially removes tariffs on the goods Fruit 
of the Loom imports from its places of production in the Caribbean 
basin.
  Fruit of the Loom stands to gain at least $25 million, Mr. President, 
and the loss from eliminating duties on apparel from the Caribbean will 
run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost revenue over five years, 
according to an article from this week's Time Magazine.
  Mr. President, this article, entitled ``The Fruit of Its Labor,'' has 
already been printed in the Record. I ask my colleagues to read it.
  What might a corporation do to lobby for this kind of major change in 
our trade laws, Mr. President?
  Under today's campaign finance rules, they might consider making some 
hefty soft money contributions, and in fact that's just what Fruit of 
the Loom did.
  Fruit of the Loom gave nearly $440,000 in soft money during the last 
election cycle.
  The company has been an active donor in the current election cycle as 
well, especially surrounding key moments in the life of CBI 
legislation.
  On June 14 of this year, just over a month before CBI/NAFTA parity 
legislation was introduced in the Senate on July 16, Fruit of the Loom 
gave $20,000 to the Republican Senate-House Dinner Committee.
  On July 30, 1999, two weeks after the bill was introduced, the 
company gave the National Republican Senatorial Committee $50,000.
  I state these facts for those who might wonder whether political 
contributions are ever intended to effect what we do here on this 
floor, and for those who question whether there is an appearance of 
corruption caused by the soft money system.
  I offer up the facts, and I ask my colleagues and the public to be 
the judge of a system that allows these unlimited soft money 
contributions to occur--contributions that would appear to any logical 
observer to have a potentially corrupting effect on this vitally 
important trade debate.
  Now, one might think, Mr. President, that the business community 
would be solidly behind this soft money system that allows it so much 
access and opportunity to influence the legislation that comes out of 
this body. The amount of money that businesses spend on political 
donations is a small investment indeed for the kind of return that 
legislation like the AGOA and the CBI offers.
  But recently we have seen some very significant cracks in business 
community support for this system. Perhaps

[[Page S13230]]

most notable, was the emergence this year of the prestigious business 
and academic think tank, the Committee for Economic Development, as a 
supporter of reform.
  The CED came out in March with a strongly worded report that 
denounced our current system and proposed a series of reforms. Its 
comprehensive report and recommendations reached the following 
conclusion: ``No reform is more urgently needed than a ban on national 
party `soft money' financing.''
  When we debated the McCain-Feingold soft money ban recently, the 
Senator from Kentucky dismissed the CED report. He called CED and I'm 
quoting here, a ``little known business group'' and ``a business group 
which until a few months ago no one had ever heard of.''
  Let me tell the Chair and my colleagues a little about the CED, this 
``little-known'' group.
  CED was founded in 1942. It's trustees are chairmen, presidents, and 
senior executives of major American corporations, along with University 
Presidents. CED's early work was influential in shaping the Bretton 
Woods Agreement, which established the World Bank and the International 
Monetary Fund. CED Trustees were prime movers behind establishing the 
Marshall Plan, the President's Council of Economic Advisors, and the 
Joint Economic Committee.
  With respect to the Marshall Plan, the Senator from Kentucky might be 
interested in knowing that the President's Committee on Foreign Aid, 
established by President Harry Truman and led by Averell Harriman, 
included five CED Trustees. Among these was Paul G. Hoffman, chairman 
and President of The Studebaker Company who happened to be the founder 
of CED. Hoffman was ultimately selected by President Truman as the 
first administrator of the Marshall Plan.
  Interestingly, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, a prime mover of the 
Marshall Plan in Congress, rejected President Truman's first choice of 
Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson as the plan's first administrator. 
He argued that the person in that post needed ``particularly persuasive 
economic credentials'' and that Congress wanted an administrator from 
``the outside business world . . . and not via the State Department.'' 
In the end, Senator Vandenberg himself selected Paul Hoffman to run the 
Marshall Plan, noting that he was to be the ``business head of a 
business operation.''
  According to SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, ``CED has played a leading 
role in fostering public sector policies and private sector policies 
that have helped make America's economy the strongest in the world and 
its companies the most competitive.''
  Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record letters praising CED's work from Presidents Eisenhower, 
Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Gettysburg, PA,

                                                  October 1, 1963.
     Hon. Sigurd S. Larmon,
     Chairman, Information Committee, Committee for Economic 
         Development, New York, NY.
       Dear Sig: I am delighted to respond to your query. The 
     Committee for Economic Development provides a means by which 
     many able and public spirited men in American business can 
     join their talent and experience to advance the economic 
     welfare of the country. For 20 years the business leadership 
     represented by C.E.D. has sought out the best experts it can 
     find on each given problem to help them develop the best ways 
     to promote a growing and stable economy and rising living 
     standards. I thought its contributions to the nation 
     invaluable when I was in the White House, today I believe 
     they are equally so.
       With warm regard,
            As ever,
     Dwight D. Eisenhower.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, December 10, 1964.
     Mr. Alfred C. Neal,
     President, Committee for Economic Development, New York, NY.
       Dear Mr. Neal: Thank you for your kind letter of November 
     25. I have enjoyed and profited from my contacts with the 
     Committee for Economic Development, and I am pleased to know 
     that this feeling is shared by you.
       Whenever the CED feels that it can be helpful to the 
     country and the Administration, I hope that you will not 
     hesitate to communicate your views.
           Sincerely,
     Lyndon B. Johnson.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, November 8, 1978.
     Mr. Robert C. Holland,
     President, Committee for Economic Development, Washington, 
         DC.
       To Robert C. Holland: The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     which I signed into law earlier this month, will make 
     possible the first overhaul of the Federal personnel system 
     in 95 years.
       This historic step would not have been possible without 
     broad public support. The statement by the Committee for 
     Economic Development on ``Revitalizing the Federal Personnel 
     System'' was an especially timely and thoughtful contribution 
     to the national debate on civil service reform. The trustees 
     of CED can be justly proud of their accomplishment.
       I wish you and your fine organization continued success in 
     bringing a responsible perspective to the public dialogue.

     Jimmy Carter.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, May 14, 1982.
       I welcome the opportunity to extend my congratulations to 
     members of the Committee for Economic Development as you 
     commemorate your fortieth anniversary.
       These four decades since your organization's founding 
     encompass a period of economic growth unequalled in our 
     country or anywhere else in the world, and the value of the 
     free enterprise system as a system which can spread its 
     benefits across our entire society has been demonstrated.
       One of the reasons for our achievements is the opportunity 
     we have in this nation to examine and discuss economic issues 
     freely. In the public forum, we accept ideas from all sides, 
     and we share, sift, propose, and criticize, thereby unlocking 
     the ingenuity and initiative of our best minds.
       I applaud the timely focus of the Committee for Economic 
     Development on the issue of productivity as the key to the 
     economic future of the United States. My Administration's 
     economic recovery program includes strong incentives for 
     business investment to modernize plant and equipment. Our aim 
     is higher productivity, more jobs, and increased 
     competitiveness for American industry in markets at home and 
     abroad.
       One of the great glories of America is the willingness of 
     busy citizens to take time from their important personal 
     interests to devote their energies and abilities to the 
     public welfare.
       The CED is a prime embodiment of this spirit of 
     voluntarism. Your members bring priceless knowledge and 
     experience from corporate and academic life to our public 
     policy forums.
       I share your pride in forty years of valuable service to 
     the nation and know that you will use this celebration to 
     renew your dedication to the progress of our country.

     Ronald Reagan.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, May 21, 1992.
       Greetings to all those who are gathered in New York to 
     celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Committee for Economic 
     Development. I am pleased to join with America's former 
     Secretary of State, George Shultz, in welcoming our visitors 
     from abroad.
       From its inception in 1942 through the recent end of the 
     Cold War, the CED and its trustees have made significant 
     contributions toward the social and economic development of 
     the United States and other nations around the globe. After 
     World War II, your recommendation proved valuable in 
     assessing the needs of postwar Europe and in formulating the 
     Marshall Plan. Today, your support of both current and 
     prospective international agreements on trade is helping to 
     promote greater economic opportunities for peoples in both 
     hemispheres. Because America's productivity, prosperity, and 
     strength depend on a well-educated and highly skilled work 
     force--one that will be able to compete in the expanding 
     global market-place--I especially applaud your support of 
     education programs such as Head Start and America 2000.
       As with the end of other epic struggles, new opportunities 
     and challenges lie ahead now that America and its allies have 
     won the Cold War. Indeed, your work remains very important as 
     we chart a new course for ourselves in an increasingly 
     interdependent world.
       Barbara joins me in congratulating the Committee on its 
     anniversary and in sending best wishes for the future.

                                                      George Bush.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me quote from President Bush's 
letter, sent on the occasion of CED's 50th anniversary in 1992. He 
said: ``From its inception in 1942 through the recent end of the Cold 
War, the CED and its trustees have made significant contributions 
toward the social and economic development of the United States around 
the globe.''
  So, far from being little known and obscure, CED has been a leading 
voice of the business community in its interaction with government for 
over 50 years. It is a nonpartisan group that has had a significant 
role in government policy in education, job training

[[Page S13231]]

and employment, international economics, and budget and fiscal issues. 
CED Trustees have held numerous high level government posts, and come 
from both political parties. The current Chairman of CED, Frank Doyle, 
is the retired Executive Vice President of General Electric, who has 
served as a U.S. Representative to the OECD and the European Community.
  It's also fascinating, Mr. President, that the Senator from Kentucky 
implied during our campaign finance debate that CED's endorsement of 
campaign finance reform was insignificant because he has gone to great 
lengths to try to dissuade it from its view. Indeed, this summer, the 
Senator from Kentucky wrote to up to 20 business executives to urge 
them to resign from CED because of its position on campaign finance 
reform. The Senator from Kentucky charged that CED's position was part 
of a campaign to ``eviscerate private sector participation in 
politics,'' and ``ban corporate political activism.'' He criticized CED 
for aligning itself with groups like the Sierra Club on this issue.

  The chairs of the subcommittee that developed the CED report, which 
by the way was adopted without dissent either from the subcommittee or 
from the 56 member Research and Policy Committee that gave it CED's 
official imprimatur, replied to the Senator from Kentucky that they 
thought it ``entirely appropriate for groups with diverse interests to 
speak out jointly on an issue that they believe threatens the vitality 
of our participatory democracy.'' And they flatly rejected the charge 
that they want to silence the private sector.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator 
McConnell's letter, along with the response from the CED's leaders, as 
printed in the New York Times, be reprinted in the Record along with a 
New York Times news story and editorial about this exchange. I also ask 
unanimous consent that a New York Times story concerning the president 
of CED, Charles Kolb, who was a lawyer in the Office of Management and 
Budget and in the Department of Education under President Bush, also be 
printed in the Record.

                [From the New York Times, Sept. 1, 1999]

                       A Letter and Its Response

       Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chairman of the 
     National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote to 10 
     business executives on July 28 suggesting that they resign 
     from a group promoting overhaul of campaign finance laws, 
     which prompted a reply on Aug. 23 by three leaders of that 
     group. Following is a letter sent to an executive, with the 
     recipient's name deleted by the advocacy group, the Committee 
     for Economic Development, and the group's reply:


                         mr. mcconnell's letter

       I was astonished to learn that . . . has lent its name, 
     prestige and presumably financial backing to the Committee 
     for Economic Development in its all-out campaign to 
     eviscerate private sector participation in politics, through 
     so-called ``campaign reform.''
       This week, the Committee for Economic Development joined 
     hands with Ralph Nader and the Sierra Club in taking out a 
     full-page ad in The Hill, demanding new campaign finance laws 
     that would ban corporate political activism and render the 
     Republican Party powerless to defend probusiness candidates 
     from negative TV attacks by labor unions, trial lawyers and 
     radical environmentalists.
       To legitimize its claim to represent the corporate 
     community in advocating anti-business speech controls, the 
     Web site of the Committee for Economic Development 
     prominently lists . . . as one of the trustees that is 
     ``engaged in implement[ing] their policy recommendations.''
       If you disagree with the radical campaign finance agenda of 
     the Committee for Economic Development and resent its abuse 
     of your company's reputation, I would think that public 
     withdrawal from this organization would be a reasonable 
     response.
       Thank you for considering my great concern over these 
     developments.


                         the committee's letter

       We are responding to your letter of July 28 to several 
     trustees of the Committee for Economic Development (C.E.D.) 
     urging them ``to resign from C.E.D.'' because of our recent 
     policy statement on campaign finance reform.
       Your letter refers to a full-page ad that C.E.D. and other 
     organizations sponsored urging the Senate to work toward 
     meaningful campaign finance reform. We make no apologies for 
     expressing our views and associating with groups such as 
     AARP, the League of Women Voters, and the Sierra Club. In our 
     view, it is entirely appropriate for groups with diverse 
     interests to speak out jointly on an issue that they believe 
     threatens the vitality of our participatory democracy. In 
     fact, we find it ironic that you are such a fervent defender 
     of First Amendment freedoms but seem intent to stifle our 
     efforts to express publicly our concerns about a campaign 
     finance system that many feel is out of control. Efforts to 
     secure funding for the Republican Party should not be based 
     on silencing other organizations.
       You also accuse C.E.D. of an ``all-out campaign to 
     eviscerate private sector participation in politics.'' We 
     respectfully submit that you have misread our report. First, 
     it is disingenuous to imply that a business organization such 
     as C.E.D. wants to silence the private sector or is anti-
     business. Second, if C.E.D.'s recommendations were enacted 
     tomorrow, there would be more, not less, money available to 
     finance elections. These funds would come primarily from 
     individual contributions--either directly or through 
     political action commitees--not through loopholes in existing 
     laws that have created today's unregulated, apparently 
     limitless, flood of soft money. Our proposal would restore 
     the principle that campaign contributions should be made by 
     individuals not corporations or unions.
       We know that a majority of the House and the Senate 
     supports campaign finance reform. That sentiment is also 
     shared by a growing number of business community leaders. We 
     hope that you will reconsider your opposition and enable the 
     issue to be discussed and voted on this fall in the Senate.
       Those of us at C.E.D. applaud your many years of public 
     service. We respect and share your commitment to the First 
     Amendment. However, many of our trustees happen to disagree 
     with you on this issue.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Sept. 1, 1999]

        Defying Senator, Executives Press Donation Rules Change

                        (By Don Van Natta, Jr.)

       Washington, Aug. 31.--Leaders of a committee of business 
     executives who have endorsed a ban on unlimited campaign 
     contributions said today that their members would not be 
     intimidated by an aggressive letter-writing campaign led by 
     Senator Mitch McConnell, one of the Senate's most ardent 
     opponents of a bill that would overhaul the campaign finance 
     system.
       In the letters, Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, 
     accused the group of trying to ``eviscerate private sector 
     participation in politics'' by imposing ``anti-business 
     speech controls.''
       ``I hope you will resign from C.E.D.,'' Mr. McConnell 
     scribbled near the bottom of one letter sent to an 
     unidentified senior executive of a telecommunications 
     corporation.
       Leaders of the organization attacked by Mr. McConnell, the 
     Committee for Economic Development, which includes executives 
     of General Motors, Xerox, Merck and the Sara Lee Corporation, 
     refused to identify the executive or the corporation in the 
     letter. But they did say that Mr. McConnell wrote letters to 
     executives who work for companies that have significant 
     issues pending before Congress.
       None of nearly 20 members of the Committee for Economic 
     Development planned to resign from the committee, as Mr. 
     McConnell urged in the letters sent late last month, 
     committee leaders said.
       Edward A. Kangas, a co-chairman of the C.E.D. committee 
     that studied the campaign finance system, said today that Mr. 
     McConnell's letter confirmed for him that the organization, 
     which has enlisted more than 100 current and retired 
     executives to endorse new campaign finance rules, was 
     beginning to shape the contentious debate on the subject on 
     Capitol Hill. The letter was first reported on Sunday on the 
     editorial page of The New York Times.
       ``What we've been doing as a group of business leaders is 
     obviously beginning to have an impact,'' said Mr. Kangas, 
     the chairman and chief executive of Deloitte Touche 
     Tohmatsu, the accounting and consulting firm. ``If we 
     weren't having an impact, he would not be communicating 
     with us.''
       In his public statements, Mr. McConnell argues that current 
     campaign-finance legislation would infringe on free speech 
     protections of the First Amendment. Critics of the Republican 
     Party's position on the issue, however, say that Republicans 
     are motivated by the knowledge that they hold a commanding 
     advantage in raising campaign money from the private sector.
       In the letter, Mr. McConnell also wrote that he was 
     ``astonished'' that the corporation of the recipient had 
     ``lent its name, prestige and presumably financial backing'' 
     to the Committee for Economic Development, which he said was 
     lobbying on behalf of a ``radical campaign-finance agenda.'' 
     Mr. McConnell argued that the executive's alliance with such 
     a group had consequently damaged the reputation of the 
     executive's employer.
       Mr. McConnell wrote the letters in his role as chairman of 
     the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party's 
     major fund-raising group for Senate candidates. His 
     spokesman, Robert Steurer, said that Mr. McConnell was 
     unavailable for comment, and referred questions to the 
     National Republican Senatorial Committee.
       Steven Law, executive director of the National Republican 
     Senatorial Committee, issued a brief statement tonight, in 
     which he said: ``Nearly all the companies we contacted had no 
     idea that C.E.D. was throwing their name around in connection 
     with campaign-finance reform and they were outraged that 
     C.E.D. had hijacked their corporate identity to sell a 
     position with which they sharply disagreed.''
       The executives on the C.E.D. committee are speaking for 
     themselves, and not necessarily on behalf of their companies. 
     Most

[[Page S13232]]

     of their corporations still continue to give large sums to 
     political parties and candidates.
       Mr. Kangas and other committee leaders said they had 
     recruited more executives in the past several days. They said 
     their goal was to have 300 executives endorse their campaign 
     finance proposals by late autumn.
       ``I think most of the people at C.E.D. have figured out 
     just how corrupt the campaign finance system is, and this 
     letter is just an example of what they already knew,'' Mr. 
     Kangas said, ``Actually, we are broadening the constituency 
     of business leaders who recognize that the campaign finance 
     system is a real problem. Senator McConnell's letter has not 
     had much impact.''
       The letter was seen by some as an attempt to intimidate the 
     members with the implied message: Resign and keep quiet or 
     don't count on doing business with Congress. ``The reaction 
     was interesting,'' Mr. Kangas said. ``These guys are running 
     big enterprises of their own. They are not easily 
     intimidated. They looked at the letter and most of them just 
     chuckled and filed it away.''
       The committee is a 60-year-old business-led public policy 
     and research association based in Manhattan. Its leaders 
     pride themselves that it is fiercely non-partisan.
       The executives on the committee are urging Congress to 
     prohibit soft money, the unlimited donations that 
     corporations give to political parties. The committee also 
     advocates increasing the limit on individual contributions 
     to $3,000 from the current limit of $1,000.
       ``The business community, by an large, has been the 
     provider of soft money, said Charles Kolb, the committee's 
     president. ``These people are saying: We're tired of being 
     hit up and shaken down. Politics ought to be about something 
     besides hitting up companies for more and more money.''
       The committee's members studied the campaign finance system 
     for two years. Committee members said they were horrified at 
     the public perception that big donors receive special favors 
     in Washington. In a report released in March, the committee 
     wrote: ``The suspicion of corruption deepens public cynicism 
     and diminishes public confidence in Government. More 
     important, these activities raise the likelihood of actual 
     corruption.''
       In a response sent to Mr. McConnell last week, leaders of 
     the committee wrote: ``We know that a majority of the House 
     and the Senate supports campaign finance reform. That 
     sentiment is also shared by a growing number of business 
     community leaders.''
       Both Warren E. Buffett, the acclaimed value investor and 
     chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, and Jerome Kohlberg, a 
     founder of the leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts 
     & Company, have tried on their own to persuade chief 
     executives of businesses to embrace campaign finance reform 
     measures. But many, though sympathetic, refused to speak out 
     because they do not want to rankle the legislators on whom 
     they depend.
       Mr. Kangas said he disagreed with Mr. McConnell's position 
     that campaign contributions were protected by the First 
     Amendment. ``I was a little disappointed that he would 
     suggest that freedom of speech does not apply to us, but it 
     applies to the people who agree with him,'' Mr. Kangas said.
                                  ____

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 17, 1999]

                     Soft Money's Multifaceted Foe

                        (By Don Van Natta, Jr.)

       Washington.--Charles Kolb may be this city's most unlikely 
     champion of campaign finance reform. A conservative lawyer 
     who worked on domestic policy in the Bush White House, Kolb 
     acknowledges that he never expected to be doing what he is 
     doing now.
       As president of the Committee for Economic Development, a 
     group of chief executives and academic leaders committed to 
     public policy changes, Kolb leads its fight against soft 
     money, those unlimited contributions to political parties 
     that have come to exemplify the capital's cash-flush 
     influence industry.
       ``I personally came at this with a deregulatory 
     viewpoint,'' explained Kolb, who is 48, ``But the more I 
     studied it, the more concerned I became about the appearance 
     of influence-peddling, the quid pro quos. There should be 
     access to politicians, but I don't think you need to pay a 
     toll to get it.''
       He paused to catch his breath. ``I have become something of 
     a radical on this subject,'' he said.
       Trim and energetic, Kolb may look like just one more sharp-
     dressed politician or lobbyist--until he opens his mouth. He 
     speaks in eloquent, perfectly formed paragraphs about the 
     need to change a federal election system that some analysts 
     say may cost $3 billion in 2000.
       As the leader of a fiercely nonpartisan group, Kolb says 
     the organization does not reflect his biases. ``If it did, I 
     wouldn't be doing my job,'' he said. Still, his friends are 
     not surprised that, as a champion of noble causes, he has 
     embraced its position on campaign finance reform.
       Upon leaving the Bush administration, where he was deputy 
     assistant to the president for domestic policy, Kolb wrote a 
     book whose title communicated its author's intense 
     disappointment: ``The White House Daze: The Unmaking of 
     Domestic Policy in the Bush Years'' (Free Press, 1993). The 
     path that led Kolb to his current post also wound through law 
     and charity.
       ``I've never worried about answering the question, `What do 
     you want to do with your life?' '' Kolb said. He has a one-
     word explanation for his good fortune: serendipity.
       Business executives consider it serendipitous that Kolb 
     took the post at the Committee for Economic Development in 
     September 1997. He is its fourth president in 57 years, and 
     his predecessor held the job for 31 years. Several trustees 
     credited Kolb with invigorating the organization.
       The committee is an independent research organization that 
     recommends economic and social policies. Its board includes 
     executives of General Motors, Xerox, Merck and Sara Lee.
       Despite the organization's growing momentum, Kolb has 
     occasionally found it difficult to persuade executives to 
     publicly endorse a soft-money ban. They worry that their 
     endorsement will hurt their corporations on Capitol Hill.
       ``When Charlie talks with most CEOs, they are very 
     sympathetic, very supportive,'' said Michael J. Petro, the 
     committee's director of business and government policy. ``But 
     then they say, `Let me put you in touch with our Washington 
     guys,' '' who often try to kill the idea.
       Kolb blamed what he calls the capital's cottage industry of 
     money and influence. ``The people who favor the status quo 
     are the people who hand out the checks and the people who 
     cash the checks,'' he said.
       Kolb always wanted to practice law. It was what other men 
     in his family had done. He went to Princeton, then to Balliol 
     College at Oxford University, where he received a master's 
     degree in philosophy, politics and economics.
       At Oxford, he met the academic who had the most influence 
     on his life, Sir Isaiah Berlin, the renowned historian who 
     died in 1997 at 88. ``What he taught me is there is no excuse 
     for arrogance,'' Kolb said. He once invited Berlin to tea in 
     Kolb's dormitory room. ``And for four hours, the leading 
     philosopher of this century sat on my bed and sipped his tea 
     and talked with me.''
       Kolb earned a law degree at the University of Virginia, and 
     after practicing at two Washington law firms, joined the 
     Office of Management and Budget. He then moved to the 
     Education Department, where he met his wife, Ingrid. (They 
     now have a 2-year-old daughter, Charlotte.) In 1990, he 
     joined the White House, working on domestic economic, 
     education, legal and regulatory issues. After that, he spent 
     five years as general counsel of the United Way.
       On his desk, Kolb displays evidence of his freedom from 
     partisanship: a canceled check for $250 that Kolb wrote on 
     Nov. 1, 1996, to the re-election campaign of Sen. Mitch 
     McConnell, R-Ky., an ardent opponent of changes in the 
     campaign finance laws.
       Last summer, McConnell took on Kolb's organization, writing 
     a blistering letter to as many as 20 executives who had 
     endorsed a soft-money ban. McConnell accused the group of 
     trying to ``eviscerate private sector participation in 
     politics'' by imposing ``anti-business speech controls.''
       At the bottom of most letters, McConnell scribbled a 
     message that some executives regarded as a threat: ``I hope 
     you will resign from CED.''
       Kolb responded sharply. ``I think it was an abuse of 
     senatorial authority,'' he said. ``It did a lot to convey to 
     the public what this fight is all about.''
       In the end, McConnell's smash-mouth tactics backfired. 
     Publicity about the letter helped the organization recruit 
     more executives, doubling its ranks. Now, 212 executives have 
     endorsed the soft-money ban. And not one executive resigned.
       With a smile, Kolb said, ``It is far better to be attacked 
     than to be ignored.''

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, far from having its intended effect, the 
Senator from Kentucky's letter, which many believe smacks of 
intimidation, seems to have emboldened CED and its membership. At last 
count, 212 business and civic leaders have endorsed the CED report, and 
not a single member of CED has resigned in response to the Senator from 
Kentucky's tactics. Not a single one.
  It was amazing to me, Mr. President, that we heard Senators on the 
floor during the campaign finance debate questioning whether our 
current system is corrupting. But the Senate has heard me talk about 
the corruption of the system a lot. It's no surprise that I think this 
system has a corrupting influence on the Congress. But for those who 
are skeptical of this view, perhaps the words of the CED trustee who 
chaired the subcommittee that developed CED's recommendations on 
campaign finance, will carry more weight. Listen to the words of Mr. 
Edward Kangas, who is the Chairman of Global Board of Directors of 
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, in an opinion piece in the New York Times 
that appeared after the first days of our campaign finance debate here 
in the Senate.
  ``You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms and 
executive suites all over the country when Senate opponents of 
campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that anyone

[[Page S13233]]

could think big political contributions are corrupting elections and 
government.'' Mr. Kangas continues: ``For a growing number of 
executives, there's no question that the unrelenting pressure for five- 
and six-figure political contributions amounts to influence peddling 
and a corrupting influence. What has been called legalized bribery 
looks like extortion to us.''

  Mr. Kangas doesn't mince words on how the system appears to someone 
who has been part of it. He says:

       I know from personal experience and from other executives 
     that it's not easy saying no to appeals for cash from 
     powerful members of Congress or their operatives. Congress 
     can have a major impact on businesses. The solicitors know 
     it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the message 
     is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must 
     weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your 
     shareholders better by investing the money in the company or 
     by sending it to Washington.

  This is an incredible indictment of the system that a minority of 
this Senate is preserving through a filibuster. These words from a 
business leader plainly and powerfully answer the arguments from the 
Senator from Kentucky and others that there is nothing corrupt or 
corrupting about soft money. This is not some liberal ``do-gooder'' 
speaking here. This is a respected business person, chairman of the 
Board of Directors of an international accounting firm, a participant 
in this system.
  He says, ``The threat may be veiled but the message is clear. Failing 
to donate could hurt your company.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the full op-ed by Mr. Kangas appear in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms 
     and executive suites all over the country when Senate 
     opponents of campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that 
     anyone could think big political contributions are corrupting 
     elections and government. On Tuesday, those opponents 
     prevailed, blocking a final vote this year on banning soft-
     money contributions. But the innocent and benign system 
     described by the Senators arguing against reform hardly 
     passed the laugh test for those of us on the receiving end of 
     the soft-money shakedown.
       For a growing number of executives, there's no question 
     that the unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure 
     political contributions amounts to influence peddling and a 
     corrupting influence. What has been called legalized bribery 
     looks like extortion to us. The Senators who oppose reform 
     would be far more credible and receive a sympathetic ear if 
     they admitted the high cost of campaign force them to focus 
     on large contributors, rather than defending the system.
       Congress passed laws that would put corporate executives in 
     jail for offering money to a foreign official in the course 
     of commerce. Now some of its members express bewilderment 
     when people note that there is something unseemly about 
     making large payments to the campaign committees of American 
     elected officials.
       I know from personal experience and from other executives 
     that it's not easy saying no to appeals for cash from 
     powerful members of Congress or their operatives. Congress 
     can have a major impact on businesses. The solicitors know 
     it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the message 
     is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must 
     weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your 
     shareholders better by investing the money in the company or 
     by sending it to Washington.
       Increasingly, fund-raisers also make sure you know that 
     your competitors have contributed, implying that you should 
     pay a toll in Washington to stay competitive.
       Unlike individual donations, most large corporate 
     contributions aren't made as gestures of good will or for 
     ideological reasons. Corporations are thinking of the bottom 
     line. Will the contribution help or hurt the company? Despite 
     the protestations of some Senators, everyone knows big checks 
     get noticed.
       Like most Americans, corporate executives also now know the 
     issue isn't really free speech. (You'll notice that the First 
     Amendment argument is more often made by the listeners, the 
     politicians, then by the speakers.) Companies don't question 
     their ability to speak forcefully. We have lobbyists and 
     trade associations, and we provide many jobs--all of which 
     help us to be heard. And, as salesmen, we resent the ideas 
     that the only way we can get a chance to make an effective 
     pitch about legislation is to pay a large fee.
       One clear sign of the growing dissatisfaction of corporate 
     leaders with this pressure is the endorsement by more than 
     200 business and civic leaders of a campaign finance reform 
     plan made by the Committee for Economic Development, a group 
     of chief executives and academic leaders. This group, of 
     which I am a member, is not saying that all political 
     contributions are bad or corrupting. We know campaigns cost 
     money.
       But we see what should be obvious to everyone. There's a 
     big difference between a $1,000 contribution--the current 
     limit on individuals' donations to a campaign--and a $50,000 
     or $1 million check filtered through a party as ``soft 
     money.'' The potential for corruption is minimal at $1,000, 
     or even at the $3,000 level to which our reform plan would 
     raise individual contribution limits. But the unlimited 
     amounts that pour through the soft-money loophole are 
     dangerous.
       Americans understand the influence of money. It's time to 
     give elections back to democracy's shareholders--the voters.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, CED is not the only business 
organization that supports campaign finance reform. The Campaign for 
America is an organization founded by Jerome Kohlberg, former founding 
partner of the firm of Kohlberg, Kravitz. That organization sent us a 
letter during the recent campaign finance debate, signed by, among 
others, Warren Buffet, Arjay Miller, who is the former President of 
Ford Motor Company and Dean Emeritus of Stanford Business School, and 
Bob Stuart, former Chair of Quaker Oats. These prestigious business 
leaders write: ``We believe the current soft money system works against 
the public interest and against the interests of business. . . . 
[B]usiness and industry must have access and say in policy-making. But 
soft money distorts the process.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Campaign for America and 
these business leaders appear in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Campaign for America,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1999.
     Hon. Russ Feingold,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: As the Senate debates reforming the 
     way federal officials finance their campaigns, we hope you 
     will consider what the appropriate relationship between 
     government and business should be. We believe the soft money 
     loophole creates an improper conduit for corporate and union 
     money to flow in unlimited amounts through increasingly murky 
     channels into the political system. Speaking as business 
     people and as citizens, we urge you to support the McCain-
     Feingold bill.
       We believe meaningful reform will require fuller and more 
     timely disclosure of contributions and expenditures. It will 
     require all organizations trying to influence the outcome of 
     elections to play by the same rules as candidates. Above all, 
     meaningful reform will close the soft money loophole. Does 
     McCain-Feingold cure all the ills of our current system? No, 
     but it is a crucial first step.
       We believe the current soft money system works against the 
     public interest and against the interests of business. 
     Congress must have input from business or it risks 
     legislating in a vacuum; business and industry must have 
     access and say in policy-making. But soft money distorts the 
     process.
       American business traditionally places its faith in the 
     market. And while it is naive to think that the government 
     won't play a role in shaping the market, the soft money 
     system encourages companies to seek government intervention 
     in the market in an arbitrary and unfair way.
       Congress enacted a law in 1907 to prevent corporations from 
     using corporate money to exert an undue influence on the 
     political process. In 1947 the Congress passed a similar 
     restriction on unions. The soft money loophole subverts these 
     laws. If soft money contributions are capped rather than 
     banned, the subversion of the principles behind these laws 
     will continue.
       Some opponents of reform would have you believe the parties 
     will wither and die if the flow of soft money contributions 
     is cut off. But the soft money loophole can be closed without 
     starving candidates or parties of needed resources by 
     adjusting the hard money limits.
       The Senate has an opportunity to find a consensus on the 
     appropriate process for financing federal campaigns. We urge 
     you to return to our citizens a system that is fair and 
     equitable. We urge you to oppose a filibuster and allow the 
     Senate an opportunity to vote for the McCain-Feingold bill.
           Respectfully,
         George T. Brophy, Chairman, President & CEO, ABT Building 
           Products Corporation; Warren Buffet, Chairman & CEO, 
           Berkshire Hathaway Inc.; William Coblentz, Attorney at 
           Law, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, and Bass; William H. 
           Davidow, General Partner, Mohr, Davidow Ventures; E.C. 
           Fiedorek, Managing Director (Retired), Encap 
           Investments L.C.; Alan G. Hassenfeld, Chairman & CEO, 
           Hasbro, Inc.; Ivan J. Houston, CEO (Retired), Golden 
           State Mutual Life Insurance Co.; Robert J. Kiley, 
           President, New York City Partnership; Jerome Kohlberg, 
           Jr., Kohlberg & Company; Robert B. Menschel, Senior 
           Director, Goldman, Sachs Group; Arjay Miller, Former 
           President, Ford Motor Company, Dean Emeritus, Graduate 
           School

[[Page S13234]]

           of Business, Stanford University; Thomas S. Murphy, 
           Chairman & CEO (Retired), Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
         Raymond Plank, Chairman & CEO, Apache Corporation, Sol 
           Price, Price Entities; Arthur Rock, Arthur Rock & 
           Company; David Rockefeller; Ian M. Rolland, Chairman & 
           CEO (Retired), Lincoln National Corporation; Richard 
           Rosenberg, Chairman & CEO (Retired), Bank of America; 
           Jim Sinegal, President & CEO, Costco Companies, Inc.; 
           Bernard Susman, Bernard M. Susman & Co.; Donald Stone, 
           Former Chairman & CEO, MLSI, Former Vice-Chairman, New 
           York Stock Exchange; Robert D. Stuart, Jr., Chairman 
           Emeritus, The Quaker Oats Company; Dr. P. Roy Vagelos, 
           Chairman & CEO (Retired), Merck & Co., Inc.; A.C. 
           Viebranz, Former Senior Vice President for External 
           Affairs, GTE Corporation; Paul Volcker, Former 
           Chairman, Federal Reserve.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, business support for campaign finance 
reform is real and it is growing. Businessmen are tired of being the 
fall guys of American politics. They are tired of seeing politicians 
with their hands out for money. They are tired of the ever increasing 
demand for ever larger checks. They are tired of the feeling like they 
are being shaken-down for their contributions, like political donations 
are a form of protection money.
  They are tired of the public's perception that when business wins an 
argument in Congress it wasn't because its position was right but 
because they gave big soft money donations to the political parties. 
That is certainly a risk with this particular Africa trade bill, as my 
Calling of the Bankroll at the beginning of this presentation showed.
  I want to commend the leaders of the business community for joining 
this cause, and standing up to the pressure from those who want to 
preserve this corrupt system. In the end, they are on the right side of 
the issue, not only for business, but for the American people.
  I have to ask my colleagues, Mr. President, how can this body 
continue to allow soft money contributions to flow to the political 
parties' warchests--unregulated, unchecked, and doing untold damage to 
the public perception of the way we do business in this Chamber?
  How long can we expect the public to put up with a U.S. Senate that 
refuses to shut down such an egregious loophole, and chooses instead to 
perpetuate a soft money system that taints everything we do on this 
floor?
  That's right. I'll say it again. Everything we do on this floor is 
called into question by the soft money system. And that includes this 
Africa and Caribbean trade bill. The $5 million in soft money 
contributions by the industry coalition created supposedly to show 
public support for this bill casts a shadow on this debate. It's the 
800 pound gorilla, as I've said before, that is sitting over there on 
the floor and that we all ignore.
  Until we close the soft money loophole, the shadow will get darker 
and darker, and the gorilla bigger and bigger. Until we close that 
loophole, our constituents have every right to be skeptical of whether 
we work for them, or for the big contributors. Until we close that 
loophole, the concept of one person, one vote--a basic and fundamental 
tenet of our democracy--is in serious jeopardy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment No. 2335 be temporarily laid aside in order for Senator 
Ashcroft of Missouri to offer an amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
  Mr. ROTH. I would say, if I might, to my distinguished colleague that 
while it takes unanimous consent for me to ask this, the leader of 
course could come down and accomplish the same result. So I hope the 
distinguished Senator will not object.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I regret that objection because I think it 
is important that we be able to proceed with this most important 
legislation.
  This is legislation that has the support of both the Republican and 
Democratic leadership. It has the support of the White House and the 
President. I am disappointed that we are unable to reach agreement to 
begin the amendment process so that this most important legislation can 
be acted upon in the remaining days.
  I point out to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina that 
this legislation was reported out by the Finance Committee in June of 
this year. We had hoped action could be taken earlier, but the schedule 
did not permit that.
  Does the Senator from Missouri wish to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership, 
and I thank him for making the attempt to increase our capacity to 
serve America by allowing me to offer an amendment.
  The measure that I am offering today is a measure that Democratic 
minority leader Senator Daschle, 31 cosponsors, and I had introduced as 
free-standing legislation earlier this year. All of the cosponsors of 
the measure have been strong advocates on behalf of American 
agriculture. We are addressing the ability of American agriculture to 
be represented effectively in trade negotiations.
  Currently, there is a temporary American Ambassador for agriculture 
in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative so that America's 
farmers and ranchers always have a representative at the table when the 
United States enters large trade negotiations. If we are worried about 
the United States' balance of payments, we ought to elevate and try to 
increase our number of exports.
  Our farm community outproduces and outworks any farm producers around 
the world. When trade agreements are negotiated, we need our farmers to 
be represented there by a consistent, strong voice for agriculture.
  The Senate Democratic minority leader, Senator Daschle, and I and 31 
cosponsors introduced this free-standing bill, S. 185, because we 
thought it is essential to U.S. farm and trade policy. It is a bill, 
which as an amendment to this measure, ensures that our Nation's 
farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador in the Office of 
the U.S. Trade Representative. Let me express that once more to be very 
clear: We want to have a permanent agricultural trade ambassador in the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative so whenever our Trade 
Representatives are making considerations about the kinds of agreements 
that will govern the relationships between the United States and other 
nations as they relate to trade with agricultural products, an expert, 
clearly focused on, committed to, trained in, and abreast of the 
circumstances in the agricultural community, will be right there at the 
table advancing our interests.
  This is very important, especially as we understand that our 
agricultural productivity far exceeds our ability to consume. In my 
home State, between a quarter and a third of all the agricultural 
products produced must go into the international marketplace. I heard 
the Senator from Illinois the other day talk about how that in his 
State over half of all the products are grown for shipment overseas. 
For some commodities, such as soybeans, over half of those commodities 
must be exported.
  This is a simple concept. The placement in the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative of a permanent trade ambassador for agriculture 
has broad bipartisan support in the Congress. It is supported by more 
than 80 national farm organizations. And the administration supports 
it.
  I talked recently with U.S. Trade Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky in a 
meeting with the congressional ``WTO Caucus for Farmers and Ranchers.'' 
Let me explain. Senators Larry Craig and Byron Dorgan have assembled 
people in the Congress who are concerned about agriculture's capacity 
to trade effectively and to get our products overseas. We have 
organized with their leadership this caucus, consisting of both Senate 
and House Members, to address agricultural issues in the upcoming World 
Trade Organization Seattle Round.
  This fall in Seattle we are going to launch a new round of trade 
negotiations. We have been seeking as a caucus of Members of the 
Congress to work with our trade ambassador, Ambassador Barshefsky, to 
say we want to make sure we in the Congress cooperate so that when any 
trade agreements are finally reached, the Senate is in a better 
position not only to understand

[[Page S13235]]

them but also to approve them if at all possible.

  I was delighted that when we discussed this need for a permanent 
agricultural trade ambassador within the Office of the Trade 
Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky endorsed the program 
fully. She said this initiative is very important.
  I described the fact we have the WTO round of trade talks starting in 
late November in Seattle. I want to communicate the urgency to get this 
provision we are offering today enacted into law before the Seattle 
Round kicks off. I think Senator Daschle understands, the other 31 
cosponsors understand, the members of the WTO trade caucus understand, 
and the White House understands the urgency of having agricultural 
issues fully represented at the table. That is why the administration 
supports this. That is why I am pleased to have been an original 
cosponsor with the minority leader, Tom Daschle, on this proposal in 
February because we all understand the importance of this proposal.
  Ambassador Barshefsky went on to say:

       Ensuring that the United States has a permanent trade 
     ambassador will put U.S. farmers in a stronger position in 
     the Seattle round of the WTO negotiations that will begin 
     late this fall.

  Ambassador Barshefsky pointed out that when she assumed the position 
of the U.S. Trade Representative, she appointed Peter Scher as a 
special trade negotiator for agriculture. He has been the voice for 
America's farmers and ranchers at the negotiating table, and he has 
been doing a wonderful job advocating positions that will advance the 
strength of their interests internationally. However, his position was 
an administration decision and an appointment as opposed to being a 
permanent position in the law.
  The bill we introduced and the amendment I am offering today makes 
his position permanent, subject to Senate approval, of course. Our 
farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative who will focus solely on opening foreign markets, 
ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and 
services, and representing the interests of American farmers, the most 
productive of all of our sectors of our economy. The opportunity to do 
that is not only ripe and ready, it is necessary now because we are 
looking the WTO round in the face. We need to achieve this objective.
  In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first ever 
monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United 
States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds an alarm for 
States such as my home State of Missouri. We receive over one-fourth of 
our farm income from agricultural exports. Already this year the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture has reported the value of agricultural 
exports has dropped by over $5 billion since this time last year. We 
need to be promoting and developing ways of exporting more of the food 
and fiber we grow in this country. At best, the total agricultural 
exports will be $49 billion in 1999. This is a reduction from total 
agricultural exports of $60 billion 3 years ago. We cannot afford to be 
in a situation where we are vastly increasing productivity and 
production and curtailing our farmers' amount of exports opportunities. 
We desperately need to enhance the level of exports for our farmers. We 
need to make permanent the position of agricultural trade ambassador 
within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
  Also, our agricultural trade surplus totaled $26.8 billion just 3 
years ago. By last year, that amount had dropped by almost 50 percent. 
This year, our annual agricultural trade surplus will have dwindled to 
about $12 billion.
  The bottom line is we need more attention focused on farmers' 
competitiveness overseas. We need to make this a policy priority. Our 
priorities need to be reflected in the level of the resources we deploy 
to do this job of opening markets for farmers and ranchers.
  When I am thinking about the Nation's trade policy, especially about 
agriculture, I ask myself what is good for the State of Missouri. In 
some significant measure, Missouri happens to be a leader in farming. 
We are the State with the second highest number of farms--second only 
to Texas. We have just about every crop imaginable. Missouri is among 
the Nation's top producers in almost all crops. We are second in terms 
of beef cows. We are second in hay production. Missouri is one of the 
top five pork-producing States. Missouri is also among the top 10 
States for the production of cotton, rice, corn, winter wheat, milk, 
and watermelon. With 26 percent of the income in our State coming from 
exports, our Missouri farmers, like farmers from sea to shining sea, 
need to know that their ability to export will expand over time rather 
than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them 
out of their market share.

  During the 1996 farm bill debate, in exchange for decreased 
Government payments, our farmers were promised more export 
opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on that promise.
  America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent agriculture 
ambassador who will represent their interests worldwide, especially as 
we face more negotiations in the World Trade Organization, and also as 
we have regional negotiations with both Central and South America 
progressing. There are a lot of opportunities that could be opened up 
to our farmers and ranchers in the coming years. We need to have 
someone at the door, always pressing for those opportunities.
  Under the legislation which the minority leader and I and 31 others 
introduced this year, the agricultural ambassador would be responsible 
for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade agreements 
relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also under the 
legislation, the ambassador must be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
U.S. agricultural interests.
  It is imperative, in my judgment, that U.S. interests always have a 
strong, clear voice at the table in international negotiations. Foreign 
countries will always have agriculture trade barriers. We need to send 
the message to foreign governments we are serious about breaking down 
barriers to their markets, so that our farmers and ranchers will be put 
on more of a level playing field.
  Canada and Mexico have already concluded free trade agreements with 
Chile, for example. Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural 
products to Chile, and in most instances Canadian farmers face a zero 
tariff level. Our farmers, on the other hand, are confronted with an 
11-percent tariff. That makes it very difficult for us to be 
competitive. The E.U. is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile, 
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will 
give European farmers more access to their markets at the expense of 
U.S. farmers and ranchers. We can not afford to wait. America must 
lead, not follow, especially in our own backyard in the Western 
Hemisphere, but certainly even around the world.
  The agricultural ambassador amendment we are offering today is 
supported by more than 80 agricultural trade associations. 
Additionally, State branches of these national associations such as the 
Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers Council 
are weighing in with their strong support.
  We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and 
ranchers in America. Making permanent the position of U.S. Trade 
Representative for agriculture, we are guaranteed the interests of 
American farmers and ranchers will always have a prominent status and 
will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced.
  It is with this in mind, and because of what I believe is the 
overwhelming consensus on this measure, the bipartisan nature of it, 
and the pressing need for it for this year's WTO round, which will 
begin in Seattle later this fall, that I wanted to bring this amendment 
to the floor and offer it. I believe this Senate will overwhelmingly 
endorse this commonsense proposal which has such strong bipartisan 
support, which is supported by the Administration, and which would 
render such great service to the farmers and ranchers of the United 
States of America who lead America in productivity and who can lead 
America in terms of our balance of trade and exports.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter detailing the list of the national organizations, American 
farmers, and ranchers supporting the amendment, and I yield the floor.

[[Page S13236]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 October 19, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: Thank you for introducing S. 185 
     which establishes a permanent Chief Agricultural Negotiator 
     in the Office of the United States Trade Representative 
     (USTR). Agriculture plays a significant and positive role in 
     the balance of U.S. trade. As we prepare for the next round 
     of negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) it is 
     important that the interests of U.S. agriculture be given 
     special emphasis.
       Agricultural trade will be a primary focus in the next WTO 
     round. U.S. farmers and ranchers are dependent upon the 
     continued expansion of agricultural exports and opening of 
     foreign markets. The issue of foreign agricultural trade 
     barriers continues to grow and is often unique and difficult 
     to resolve. The result of the next round of negotiations will 
     have a major effect on the future of U.S. agriculture. The 
     enactment of this legislation will send a message to the 
     member countries of the WTO that the U.S. is serious about 
     agriculture. It will place a permanent advocate and 
     specialist at the negotiating table on behalf of U.S. 
     agricultural interests and establish a position that will be 
     responsible for enforcing trade agreements relating to U.S. 
     agriculture.
       We pledge our support for S. 185 and look forward to 
     working with you to ensure its passage.
           Sincerely,
       American Cotton Shippers Association, American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American Meat 
     Institute, American Soybean Association, Animal Health 
     Institute, Cenex Harvest States, CF Industries, Chicago Board 
     of Trade, Corn Refiners Association, Inc., Farmland 
     Industries, Inc., Florida Phosphate Council.
       Idaho Barley Commission, International Dairy Foods 
     Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National 
     Association of Animal Breeders, National Cattlemen's Beef 
     Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers 
     Association, National Cotton Council, National Farmers Union, 
     National Grain Sorghum producers, National Grange, National 
     Milk Producers Federation.
       National Pork Producers Council, National Sunflower 
     Association, Nestle USA, Northwest Horticultural Council, 
     Novartis Corporation, The Fertilizer Institute, United Fresh 
     Fruit & Vegetable Association, US Apple Association, US 
     Canola Association, US Dairy Export Council, US Rice 
     Producers Association, US Wheat Associates, US Rice 
     Federation, Wheat Export Trade Education Committee.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, let me commend the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri for his leadership on agricultural 
trade issues. I congratulate him for his knowledge, for his leadership 
on these issues, and the effectiveness with which he deals with them. I 
want him to know I rise in strong support of his amendment.
  The USTR has had an agricultural ambassador at USTR. In my judgment, 
it has been a most effective tool for furthering our agricultural trade 
interests. It is my position that making this a permanent position 
would be good policy, well deserved by the agricultural sector which, 
of course, has consistently fought for trade liberalization.
  Again, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Missouri and say 
I look forward to working with him on this critical issue.
  Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to address some of the 
arguments that have been raised during the debate today and earlier. 
They were worthy arguments that merit our attention. But I do believe 
the proponents of this legislation have a more than adequate response.
  One of the questions that has been raised is, Why take this bill up 
now? Some of my colleagues have questioned why we are. Let me help them 
by putting this in context.
  Section 134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which passed the 
Congress in 1994, just 5 years ago, directed the President to develop a 
comprehensive trade and development policy for the countries of Africa. 
That provision originated with Senator Daschle, now the distinguished 
minority leader. In the statement of administrative action that 
accompanied the act, the President made it very clear the first 
measures he intended to consider in complying with that congressional 
mandate were measures to:

       . . . remove impediments to U.S. trade with and investment 
     in Africa, including enhancements in the GSP program, for the 
     least developed countries.

  Mr. President, I see the distinguished leader here. I am happy to 
yield to the distinguished leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Amendment No. 2335 Withdrawn

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw the pending amendment, No. 
2335.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 2340 to Amendment No. 2334

(Purpose: To establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of 
                the United States Trade Representative)

  Mr. Lott. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Ashcroft and others and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] for Mr. Ashcroft, 
     for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Robb, 
     Mr. Craig, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Helms, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
     Inouye, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thomas, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
     Johnson, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Grams, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
     Hutchinson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Crapo, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2340 to amendment No. 2334.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

       (a) Establishment of a Position.--There is established the 
     position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of 
     the United States Trade Representative. The Chief 
     Agricultural Negotiator shall be appointed by the President, 
     with the rank of Ambassador, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions.--The primary function of the Chief 
     Agricultural Negotiator shall be to conduct trade 
     negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S. 
     agricultural products and services. The Chief Agricultural 
     Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S. 
     agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator 
     shall perform such other functions as the United States Trade 
     Representative may direct.
       (c) Compensation.--The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall 
     be paid at the highest rate of basic pay payable to a member 
     of the Senior Executive Service.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I yield the floor for discussion of 
this amendment, let me reiterate to my colleagues my hope we can 
continue to consider trade-related amendments to this important African 
trade CBI legislation.
  I know earlier Senator Reid offered and debated a trade-related 
amendment. I think that was the right approach. I thank him for doing 
that. I encourage all Members who have amendments relating to the 
pending subject to work with the managers who are here, ready to work, 
have their amendments offered and disposed of.
  Again, this amendment has, I believe, very broad support across the 
aisle. I think it is the right thing to do, and I am still anxious for 
us to find a way to get to cloture so we can have the final amending 
process and debate on this bill and pass it.
  This would be a major step for the Senate. Of course, then we still 
have to go to conference with the House, which has a very different 
approach from ours to this legislation. It will be a tough conference. 
But this legislation is supported by the managers on both sides of the 
aisle, by myself, by Senator Daschle, I believe, and by the President. 
I hope we can continue to look to find a way to move this legislation 
to a conclusion.
  We can get cloture on Friday, and then I believe by Tuesday or 
Wednesday of next week, we could be completed with this legislation. We 
will continue to work to seek a way to achieve that. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the majority leader's desire to 
finish this legislation. I have indicated publicly I want to work with 
him to find a way to resolve the matters that are outstanding so we can 
get to final passage. It is regrettable that the tree was filled before 
a single amendment could be debated and disposed. The majority

[[Page S13237]]

leader and I have had conversations in the past, and he is, I am sure, 
sensitive to the knowledge that this tactic compels Democrats to oppose 
cloture in order to protect the right of Members to offer an amendment.
  Filling the tree actually frustrates the majority leader's stated 
intention of speedy passage. We could have had a number of amendments 
today. That has been precluded now because we are in this situation 
where Senators are prohibited from offering amendments. It is pointless 
to fill the tree now. We could have allowed amendments for at least 2 
days while cloture ripened. If amendments and a good debate and votes 
were allowed, I think we could have built support for cloture. Under 
the circumstances, however, there will continue to be a pent-up 
frustration due to the inability on the part of Senators on both sides 
of the aisle to offer amendments.
  In a sense, filling the tree plays into the hands of the opponents of 
the legislation. Democrats can never support preemptive filling of the 
tree or preemptive filing of cloture because I think, in large measure, 
it is a real affront to the rights of every Senator who wishes to play 
a part in any debate in this body. While I oppose many of the 
amendments that could be contemplated and could be offered, I support a 
Senator's right to offer them.
  The majority leader said today he believed he only filled the tree 
once before in 1999. In fact, this is the seventh time this year he has 
resorted to this approach. There were six previous occasions: March 8, 
1999, S. 280, the Education Flexibility Act; April 22, 1999, Social 
Security lockbox; April 27, 1999, the Y2K Act; April 30, 1999, S. 557, 
Social Security lockbox; June 15, 1999, Social Security lockbox; and 
July 16, 1999, Social Security lockbox.
  In addition, of course, the majority leader has twice preemptively 
filed cloture on measures immediately after calling them up and then 
moved to other business in order to prevent amendments or debate. That 
occurred on June 16, 1999, on H.R. 1259, the Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Act, and on September 21, 1999, on S. 625, the 
Bankruptcy Reform Act.
  After using these coercive tactics on all of these occasions, I would 
hope we might learn that they do not work. We do not operate under the 
rules of the House. We must insist on Senators' rights to offer 
amendments, even if we ultimately will reject those amendments.
  That is not to say that dilatory tactics that go on and on are 
something that I will support. I will support cloture at some point. 
But I also support strongly the right of a Senator on the other side of 
the aisle or a Senator on this side of the aisle to offer an amendment, 
relevant or not relevant, at least initially.
  I respect the Senator's decisions as I always do. I just differ with 
him in this case. It seems to me if we want to kill this bill, this is 
the way to do it. If we want to pass the bill, then it seems to me the 
majority of Democrats will join with the majority of Republicans in 
finding a way with which to deal with these amendments and ultimately 
pass this legislation. We can do it, but if we are going to do it, we 
have to take down this tree. It has to happen sooner rather than later 
so we do not waste any more time than we have already.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can respond for a moment further, this 
is a trade bill. This is a bill the Senate would like to pass, I 
believe. We tried to do fast-track legislation. I believe that was last 
year or maybe the year before. We did not quite get that done.
  This is a major opportunity for us to do something that will be good 
for America, good for our individual States and constituents, I 
believe, and good for the Central American countries, the Caribbean 
area, and Africa.
  It is a trade bill. The idea that Senators on both sides of the aisle 
would bring up issues which would clearly deadlock the Senate and make 
it highly unlikely that we could get to a reasonable conclusion at a 
time when we are approaching the end of the session--I have already 
been told of Senators' desires to offer an amendment dealing with 
sanctions and their support for a sanctions bill on this side. I 
understand Senators on the other side said: If you don't offer it, we 
will offer it.
  Clearly, that is an issue we do need to get into. The question of how 
we deal with sanctions, particularly agricultural sanctions, needs to 
be thought through carefully. The relevant committees would get into 
that, have hearings, give thought to it, and have a bill reported out 
which we could take up, in and of itself, separately in the next 
session of this Congress next year.
  I had a Senator indicate he wants to offer fast track to this bill 
which, by the way, I support. At least it is a free trade amendment. It 
clearly is one that will cause a great deal of consternation on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, perhaps on both sides of the aisle.
  Plus, I was told by Senator Wellstone he wanted an agricultural 
amendment. I have been told there is a gun amendment pending, even 
though we spent 2 weeks debating juvenile justice and gun amendments 
earlier this year. I was told three Senators might be looking at 
campaign finance reform again.
  Basically to empty our out basket on issues we have already voted on 
this year causes tremendous problems and delays in completing this very 
important trade legislation.
  I will be glad, once again, to enter a unanimous consent agreement 
that we go forward and consider first-degree amendments, relevant 
amendments, on the trade bill. There are a lot of amendments that 
Senators want to offer that relate to the bill before us.
  To the American people, do you understand me? The complaint is: We 
cannot debate gun amendments, agricultural sanctions, and farm 
amendments on a trade bill, on a bill that has bipartisan support and 
Presidential urging. I realize it may be within the rules, but I do not 
think it is a way to get this bill done.
  I hope we can keep looking for a way to move it forward. I do not 
want to be in a position of trying to give aid and comfort to the 
opposition to this legislation. Obviously, that is not my preference, 
but Senator Hollings is going to avail himself of the rules and he will 
be very willing to help other Senators who want to offer extraneous 
amendments if that will be helpful to his cause.
  He is smiling and I am smiling because I know exactly what he is up 
to. He is doing an excellent job in trying to stop this legislation he 
has made clear he is opposed to. That is the way the Senate works. If 
one feels strongly and one Senator is willing to spend the time and use 
the rules, he can cause problems and delay a bill.
  As far as using the tree, I did not invent the process. I must 
confess, I was surprised it has been used as much as it has this year. 
It has been a longer year than I thought, perhaps, or maybe it is a 
better tool than I had remembered.
  Still, I will work with the managers of the bill and Senator Daschle, 
and if there is a key to unlock this bill to get it to its conclusion, 
I am willing to look for it. I hope we will not, though, as I said, 
empty out our baskets on both sides of the aisle and come up with 
everything we have been harboring in our heart of hearts over the past 
weeks or months.
  Let's keep our eye on the bill. This is a big, important bill. There 
are countries all over the world looking at us saying: Will they keep 
their word? The President has gone to Central America, I believe, 
twice--I know for sure once--and said he wants this; we want to help 
the Caribbean Basin countries and the Central American countries.
  I know he wants to do that, and so do I. I have been there. I have 
met with the Presidents. I have met with the Ambassadors. They are 
desperate for help. The good thing about it is this is a way we can 
help them and help ourselves.
  In my State, we are going to produce the cotton. We are going to put 
the fabric together and ship it to Central America through a port. They 
are going to finish off the product, send it back to the port, and it 
is going to be available to the American people at a reasonable price.
  Everybody wins: American product, American workers, American dock 
workers, Central American jobs, then back to America where American 
consumers will get a fair price for this material. That is just one 
example. And there are many others.
  So I certainly understand what Senator Daschle is saying. I know 
there is

[[Page S13238]]

a pent-up demand to offer these various and sundry amendments. I 
understand that, but I do not feel I have any particular obligation to 
go out of my way to accommodate that.
  Sooner or later, the time will come when these things are going to 
come up, one way or the other. I indicated to Senator Wellstone, I 
would like to know the details of what his amendment is to see if maybe 
it could be brought up freestanding. I am not so sure we would not want 
to just say, OK, bring it up. Let's have some limited debate and vote 
on it. But if you open that door, where and when does it end?
  To spend a week on this bill, I was prepared to do that. To spend 2 
weeks on it, I am not sure we want to do that. We have to be able to 
bring an end to this by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
  That enables and strengthens the hand of the Senator from South 
Carolina. He knows that we are not willing to run this train endlessly. 
If we had 2 or 3 weeks, we could grind it down. But I hope that we 
would not have to do that because we do have some other issues that 
people on both sides of the aisle do want to do. We need to try to see 
if we can work out a way to do it.
  Well, I am repeating myself. I understand what Senator Daschle is 
saying, and I understand the frustration. But the way to get this done 
is to continue to see if we can work out an agreement, and then get 
cloture Friday. Sixty votes; we are going to get probably 52, 53 
Republicans who will vote for cloture to go on to the substance of the 
bill. If we can get 6 or 8 or 10 Democrats--just 6 or 8 or 10--that is 
all it would take, and we would be on this bill, and we would be done 
with it by next Wednesday. That is a worthy goal. I hope we can achieve 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me make the majority leader an offer.
  He says, if there is a way to work this out, we can do it. I think he 
could get 30 Democratic votes, maybe even 40, on cloture on Friday if 
we tear down the tree and allow amendments to be offered.
  We are talking about two things. We are talking about a Member's 
right to offer amendments, but we are also talking about the worthiness 
of the amendment on this particular issue, as the majority leader has 
stated now on several occasions, rightfully so.
  I would be willing to join with the majority leader in doing one of 
two things. Our predecessors came up with some ingenious ways with 
which leadership can deal with amendments they don't want to see 
added--tabling motions and second degree amendments.
  I would be willing to work with the majority leader on tabling 
motions and on second degrees in order to deal with amendments that he 
and I do not believe are meritorious. And I can already see the wheels 
turning. He is thinking: Well, there's going to be a difference between 
what he thinks and I think. But I believe we can work that out. I think 
we could have an understanding, even ahead of time, about what that 
means. But it would give Senator Hollings, it would give Senator 
Wellstone, it would give Senator Ashcroft, it would give everyone who 
has an amendment the opportunity to offer amendments. The relevant 
ones, the pertinent ones, we ought to support. The ones that are not in 
keeping with the spirit of this legislation, we might choose to oppose.
  I am prepared to work with the majority leader to see if we might 
find a way to accommodate that. I want to see this bill pass. The 
President has insisted that we do all that we can to pass it. Our 
ranking member and the chairman have done all that they can to get us 
to this point. It passed by voice vote out of the Finance Committee. 
There ought to be a way we can get this done, if not in the timeframe 
that the majority leader has suggested, certainly in not too long a 
period after that.
  But I have to oppose cloture under these circumstances. And there 
will not be, I would hope, a Democratic defection on cloture because we 
are not talking now about CBI; we are talking about a Member's right to 
offer an amendment. And I hope there isn't a Democrat who will say that 
that right isn't worth protecting under any circumstances.
  So that is my offer. I am prepared to sit down this afternoon. We can 
find a way to do this. This isn't it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 2340

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the pending amendment 
put forward by Senator Ashcroft.
  Both leaders were previously up and talking on the floor about moving 
the bill forward. I think the underlying Ashcroft amendment is actually 
a pretty good way to move things forward.
  It is something about which most of the parties agree. It is about an 
ambassador position at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. I think 
that is an important and worthy goal. I do not know of anybody here who 
actually opposes it. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee has 
spoken already in favor of it. Here is a way maybe we can start to move 
this train forward.
  I want to address it from a couple of perspectives, if I could, 
because I think this is an important aspect for my colleagues to listen 
and learn a little bit about.
  This is at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, which is our lead 
trade negotiator. We are going into the Seattle Round, which the United 
States will be hosting, of the World Trade Organization. This is the 
premier set of trade talks.
  Agriculture is the lead issue that is going to be discussed during 
this round of trade talks. We do not have a permanent ag negotiator at 
the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. So we are going into trade 
negotiations, which the United States is hosting, where the lead issue 
is agriculture and we do not have an ambassador with permanent status.
  That amendment is something I think most people in this body would 
actually support, perhaps unanimously. I hope we can move this bill 
forward.
  I am glad that we are having some discussions about how we might be 
able to move this bill forward.
  Here is a pretty simple, commonsense amendment. Most of our States 
have some agriculture in them. Here would be a representative who could 
help us make that trade go forward.
  This position within the U.S. Trade Representative's Office has been 
established on an interim basis. It was not put in on a permanent 
basis. It was thought: Let's try this for a little period of time. It 
has proven to be effective.
  My State of Kansas is a major agricultural exporting State. I think 
we are sixth in the country as far as agricultural exports. It is a key 
part of our economy. Being able to export food products is an important 
part of what we do, as well. So to be able to have somebody with an 
ambassador status to be able to address these sorts of trade 
negotiating issues at the USTR is important to my State. It is very 
important.
  It is particularly important now when we are having so much 
difficulty with farm prices. Almost all of that is due to our inability 
to crack into markets around the world. Whether it is dealing with 
China and some of their trade barriers, whether it is dealing with the 
Europeans and their trade subsidies, their export subsidies, whether it 
is dealing with tariffs globally, the United States faces high 
agricultural tariffs around the world.
  The United States has some of the lowest agricultural tariffs. This 
trade ambassador would make this a central focus. It would be her or 
his job to make sure we keep focused on that particular issue. That is 
an important one. It is vitally important in this body. It is important 
across this country, and it is certainly important to my State.
  I think it would be an important signal for us to send to the other 
countries around the world that will be convening in Seattle the latter 
part of November, the first part of December; that the United States 
values agriculture; that the signal we are sending is: We are going to 
beef up the status of the people who we have negotiating agricultural 
issues. We are going to do so on a permanent basis.
  I think, to date, a lot of times other countries have doubted our 
resolve on some issues, maybe questioned our willingness to hang in 
there. And here

[[Page S13239]]

is the signal to send: No. This is important. We are going to stay in 
there. We are going to stick with this particular issue.
  This is another way we can send that signal. This amendment makes 
this a clear priority for the United States; that we establish this on 
a permanent basis.
  Agriculture is a lead export industry for the United States. Some 
have different figures, but either the top or the second leading export 
of the United States is agriculture and food products. One would think 
you would have somebody of an ambassadorial status who would be our 
lead negotiator and could speak with some authority and have not only 
the title but the status to be able to do so. This amendment is 
straightforward. This person will exist at the U.S. Trade 
Representative's Office and have a permanent ambassadorial rank.
  It sends an important signal, not only to our trade opponents 
agriculturally around the world; it sends an important signal to our 
agricultural producers in this country. My parents, my brother who 
farms full time, we say to them, it is important we have somebody of 
status dealing with agricultural trade upon which you are so dependent 
for your livelihood.
  I think many times farmers in this country, particularly after the 
passage of the Freedom to Farm Act, said Freedom to Farm won't work 
unless you have freedom to aggressively market. Freedom to market means 
we have to pound open doors around the world to let our farmers and 
producers have a fair shot. This helps send a signal to our farmers 
that we meant it.
  We meant it when we said freedom to farm also means we are also going 
to push freedom to market. Freedom to market means you have to be able 
to get your foot in the door. Right now they can't get their foot in 
the door in a lot of places. We have sanctions on a number of countries 
around the world. We also have high tariffs on a number of places 
around the world. This sends a signal to our farmers, the agricultural 
industry, to our agricultural processors, and our agricultural 
exporters that we deem this to be an important topic as well. I think 
it is altogether appropriate for us to want that.
  We do have people at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office who are 
very supportive of agriculture, but there are thousands of different 
issues to deal with of an export nature. They go across many different 
industries. It is impossible for the U.S. Trade Representative to 
constantly keep a strong focus on the lead export industry in the 
country. They have a lot of other matters with which to deal. This will 
help keep that focus there within the U.S. Trade Representative's 
Office as well and do so on a permanent basis.
  I rise to speak on behalf of this particular industry, on behalf of 
this particular position. I think it sends the right signal to our 
opponents who are against us in agricultural trade. I think it sends 
the right signal to our allies who want to open up agricultural trade 
opportunities that we think it is important. I think it sends a good 
signal to our agricultural producers that we deem this as important and 
that freedom to farm, to work, has to have freedom to market on top of 
that. I think that works well.
  Clearly, a majority of the body wants to pass this bill. A 
supermajority of this body wants to pass this bill. This is an 
important trade initiative the chairman and ranking member have put 
forward. This amendment could help us move forward because it is an 
amendment which is probably unanimously supported. So as a facilitating 
effort, to try to move the total package forward, I think this one is a 
good start. I submit to my colleagues and to the leadership it is a 
good possibility.
  I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for the excellent 
work he has done on agricultural trade issues, which is important to 
his State as well, supporting this particular amendment and putting 
together a very important trade bill. I hope to be a part of the 
process to make sure it moves forward. I hope those who seek to stop it 
can be heard, but let us have a clear vote on this particular issue so 
we can have the will of the body be done.
  I congratulate the chairman and thank him for his efforts and work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished leader came to the 
floor to withdraw his amendment and substitute the amendment of the 
Senator from Missouri. He remarked, in the first instance, that we have 
to hasten it along. We would like to have had the bill up. We would 
like to have had fast track.
  Then he insists on fast track on this particular bill. He filled the 
tree right back up again; namely, we cannot offer amendments. So in one 
breath he says he would like to have fast track and he is instituting 
fast track on this particular trade measure. He is an outstandingly 
talented individual, a fine looking gentleman, and so he stands there 
with that smile, so reasonable and says: I would like to be sure to 
check these amendments; we have to make sure they are relevant; I will 
go along with the Ashcroft agricultural amendment, but I haven't gone 
along with the Wellstone agricultural amendment.
  We heard earlier this morning, of course, that the Wellstone 
agricultural amendment is not relevant. You can look at this bill. You 
can go right on down the list. You can find out that it is trade 
benefits for the Caribbean Basin Initiative. They have cover over of 
tax on distilled spirits, Generalized System of Preferences, trade 
adjustment assistance affecting the welfare of America's workforce. 
Nothing in here on agriculture for the CBI and the sub-Sahara.
  Senator Wellstone, who has been trying since January to get up an 
agricultural amendment, has been put down. He tried all day yesterday 
and was put down this morning.
  But if you want to take one of my friend's agricultural amendments--
namely, the distinguished Senator from Missouri, who is running for 
reelection--well, wait a minute now, let's withdraw that last amendment 
I had and let's put up the irrelevant agricultural amendment of the 
Senator from Missouri. Irrelevant absolutely.
  Anybody knows a measure of this kind would go before government ops 
about an agriculture negotiator in the trade office.
  And then the argument: We have the President and the leaders and 
otherwise and so many cosponsors. Well, I have the minimum wage 
amendment the President has been trying to get up all year long. I have 
the minimum wage amendment the minority leader would like to have a 
vote upon. I have a minimum wage amendment that doesn't have 31 but has 
27 cosponsors.
  It sort of fits the pattern, is my point, of the reasoned argument of 
the distinguished majority leader. But no, not that Wellstone 
agricultural amendment. That is irrelevant, and we don't want to waste 
the time because we would be here 2 weeks. We would be here 2 months. 
We are not going to stand for that, but let us have the agricultural 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri.
  Well, that is why I was smiling at my distinguished leader. I was 
smiling at his duplicity. There it is. You can see it for yourself. I 
hate to use the word ``arrogant,'' but there is an element of that in 
this particular procedure. What it insists upon is: I want my way. I am 
going to control it. You can't put up your amendment.
  And then they act dismayed when we don't vote cloture. Well, we just 
won't vote on the agricultural amendment now. We can keep on debating, 
if that is the procedure they want to continue and insist upon.
  There isn't any question in my mind about agriculture. I will never 
forget, some years back we had $21--it got up to $23 billion--the best 
plus balance we have ever had of any commodity is America's 
agriculture. We have soybeans. I put in a grain elevator when I was 
Governor so I know about farmers. I know about soybeans. I know about 
cotton.
  I know about exports, and everyone is for America's agriculture, 
except we oppose that Freedom to Farm thing that wrecked American 
agriculture--free market forces, free market forces. So they grabbed it 
up, and all the farmers took the money and ran 3 years ago. Now, the 
price has gone down and they are broke and they need assistance. That 
is why the Senator from Minnesota has been on the floor, to try to get 
some help for America's agriculture, not that bureaucracy over in the 
office of the Trade Representative

[[Page S13240]]

for the purpose of adding another payroll over there. That is the 
typical Washington political solution: Give another title, add another 
payroll; just move another little bit on the special trade 
representative.
  And everybody knows that when we come to agriculture, we go to the 
Secretary of Agriculture, and he is there at every table every time we 
debate because he is steeped in the agricultural needs of the United 
States of America, and that is why we made good agricultural 
agreements. I want them to point out a bad agricultural agreement, 
other than, of course, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
which has the Senators from North Dakota on durum wheat all over the 
floor here. They are trying to keep them from dumping on the North 
Dakota wheat farmers. We all know that. It hasn't worked, and 
everything else like that, but that is exactly what they want--like 
they are dumping my textiles, killing 420,000 textile jobs since NAFTA. 
And there it goes.
  Then they come around, and let me say that I am glad they removed 
that sandwich bowl. I will yield in a second. I know there are 
important statements to be made, and I need help in trying to stop this 
freight train, stop this steamroller. I have been up here 33 years, and 
I am still the junior Senator, and I have been trying to get a point of 
importance with respect to the budget, and nobody listens to me on 
that. I keep calling it a deficit. The Congressional Budget Office 
keeps reporting it as a deficit.
  The law--section 13.301 of the Budget Act--says that the President 
and the Congress cannot report a budget with the Social Security moneys 
in it that would cause it to be a surplus. They violate that, and 
nobody pays attention to us. Of course, they come up and say the 
interest payments, which exceed the defense budget and the Social 
Security budget, and all other budgets--a billion dollars a day. When 
President Johnson balanced the budget, it was only $16 billion for the 
entire year. In 200 years of history, the cost of all the wars, from 
the Revolution right up to World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, 
we still had less than a trillion-dollar debt, and the interest cost 
was only $16 billion.
  Now, without the cost of a war since that time--the gulf war 
incidently was taken care of by the Saudis and others--what has it 
soared to? To almost $5 trillion or $6 trillion, or something--a 
trillion-dollar debt and an interest cost the CBO reports as $356 
billion. But with interest rates and Mr. Greenspan, it is bound to go 
up. We are seeing all the signs about consumer confidence. We know it 
is going to be over a billion a day.
  So we have fiscal cancer. So we go down this morning at 8 o'clock and 
borrow a billion and add it to the debt. Tomorrow morning, Friday 
morning, Saturday morning, Sunday morning, every day for this fiscal 
year 1999, I will make a bet with anybody, and let them pick out the 
odds, that they will see a billion dollars a day. Why? Because we are 
not willing to pay for the Government we are getting. We were willing 
to, again, add another $100 billion to the deficit just as the year 
ended, not even a month ago, September 30 of this year--$103 billion 
more. They won't call that bill the Balanced Budget Act or the Social 
Security lockbox. I will put it in a lockbox. I got together with the 
Administrator of Social Security and I said: Write me a bill that will 
be a true lockbox. I have it. It is hidden in the Budget Committee. 
They know how to hide it. They don't even want to talk about it. I 
can't get a hearing on it. I have asked for a hearing. They totally 
ignore you.

  But this one says you take that money and immediately redeem it to 
the credit of Social Security. And don't put in an IOU the first of the 
month every month. Put the money back into the Social Security trust 
fund, just as corporate America is required.
  Now I am back to my friend, Denny McLain. We passed the 1994 Pension 
Reform Act and we said: Look, these fast takeover artists come in and 
pay off the company debt with the pension fund and then take the rest 
of the money and run. People who have been working 30, 40, even 50 
years, are left high and dry with no pensions. So we put in the Pension 
Reform Act of 1994 making it a felony to pay off the company debt with 
the pension moneys.
  Unfortunately, one of the all-time great pitchers--which is 
significant during this World Series fever--Denny McLain of the Detroit 
Tigers, became head of a corporation and paid off the debt with the 
company fund. He was sentenced to a prison term for a felony. If you 
can find little Denny in whatever cell he is in, tell him next time to 
run for the Senate. You get the good government award when you take the 
pension money of the people's Social Security fund and pay off your 
debt, so that you can talk about surplus, surplus, surplus, surplus 
when you are spending $100 billion more than you are taking in and you 
have got deficits, deficits, deficits as far as the eye can see.
  That is why I told the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee 
I would jump off the Capitol dome when he put up that plan called the 
Balanced Budget Act. They use that jargon and those titles, and the 
silly press picks up the language and headlines it.
  So what do we do? We find out, Heavens above, that we are like 
Tennessee Ernie Ford, ``another day older and deeper in debt.'' And 
now, instead of 356, if we only paid out $16 billion on a pay-as-you-go 
basis, since President Lyndon Johnson's day, we would have $340 billion 
to spend. For what? For agriculture. For what? For the research at the 
National Institutes of Health. For what? For Kosovo expenses. For what? 
For all the housing the Secretary of Housing has promulgated, and 
everything else like that.
  We could go down and provide for all the programs you could possibly 
think of. You can double WIC, Head Start, any education programs, just 
double the education budget. And we can still have what? A tax cut. And 
still have what? Pay down the debt. With $340 billion--we are spending 
$340 billion. We are forced to spend it. It is a tax--a tax. What you 
are doing is raising taxes. You don't want to say it, but you have to 
pay it, you have to borrow it every day, a billion dollars a day. It is 
a tax on the American people. With a sales tax, I can get a school; 
with a gas tax, I can get a highway; with this tax, I get nothing. I 
served on the Grace Commission on waste, fraud, and abuse. This is the 
biggest waste ever created in the history of any government. They don't 
want to talk about that. They want to talk about the sub-Sahara.

  We are building libraries down in Little Rock now. We are headed for 
the last roundup. So if we can show that we did something in Africa, 
and we did something in the CBI, oh isn't it wonderful? The President 
wants the minimum wage. Leaders want the minimum wage. I have 27 
cosponsors who want the minimum wage. It is relevant. Trade adjustment 
assistance is relevant to the workforce of America and minimum wage is 
just as relevant to the workforce of America.
  If the majority leader would come out here and say, all right, I will 
let you have the agricultural amendment, or rather we should say we 
will have this agricultural amendment, and the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri, if he just calls up our minimum wage, and we will agree 
to 5 minutes to a side, and 10 minutes, and vote. They don't want to 
vote. They want the political cover of parliamentary maneuver, acting 
as if it is serious here, and we could work this out, and this is a big 
responsibility on my leader, but we have to listen to both sides, and 
we have to be able to move legislation.
  We are not going to move any minimum wage. We are not going to move 
any campaign finance reform. Even though they are relevant?
  Time magazine came out day before yesterday and said it is relevant. 
They wrote a whole article. I refer again to pages 50 and 51. Everybody 
can read it.
  Campaign finance reform is relevant. There isn't any question on this 
particular bill. The magazines are writing it, but the Senators can't 
see it. The Parliamentarians can't understand it. They couldn't call 
that relevant because why? Because the majority leader says you don't 
call that relevant. You don't call that agricultural amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota relevant, but call mine: Look I have come all 
the way back to the floor and withdrawn my part of the tree, and put up 
immediately my friend's amendment on agriculture, and yes, it's 
relevant. We are going to be represented in agriculture. I can tell you 
now, but

[[Page S13241]]

they are going to have some bureaucracy. And that could be a good 
speaking point when I run for reelection myself. I hate to have to 
explain why I have to oppose this to my farmer friends because that is 
going to cause the farm problem in America, as if we didn't have a 
special Trade Representative with the title of ambassador.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of our Finance Committee for 
finally removing that sandwich bowl. I didn't get over there and see it 
in the debate. But I see they have, these folks who are interested in 
textile jobs: the Bank of America, Bechtel, City Group, Daimler-
Chrysler, Enro, Exxon, Fleur, and Gap that we have on the list of the 
Time magazine which is going overseas. They have gone over. Sara Lee 
and Fruit of the Loom. Actually Fruit of the Loom is already organized 
in the Cayman Islands as a foreign corporation. McDonalds just sells 
hamburgers. They wouldn't care if you came naked to buy a hamburger. 
Modern Africa Fund Managers, Philip Morris, Amoco, Bally's Lakeshore 
Resort--come on--Mobile, Occidental, Texaco. Where is anybody? The 
African Growth and Opportunity Act is not clear.
  I could keep on talking down and down the list.
  I don't know who is going to protect the jobs and the manufacturing 
capacity of the United States of America. I don't believe in 
obstructionism. I believe in moving forward. I don't believe there is, 
other than budget, a more important issue than the matter of 
manufacturing capacity here in the United States of America, on which I 
have gone down before and will go again. But there is no doubt we will 
have the opportunity to point out how we are losing out. We don't have 
anything to export. We have hollowed out the industrial might of the 
United States.

  The reason they don't listen, I take it now, is they have a candidate 
for the President who is mixing that in with Hitler and World War II 
and everything else and all kinds of nonsense. So we lose credibility. 
Anybody can talk free trade, free trade, dignified, credible, 
respected, and anybody who talks about protection of the industrial 
strength of America is some kind of kook. I think they said, ``Unite, 
we nutcakes.'' Michael Kelly in his column this morning: ``Unite, we 
nutcakes.''
  So here comes another nutcake who is trying to protect American jobs, 
and is looked upon now by the leadership as getting in the way. Why 
don't I be more reasonable, and everything else of that kind? Why don't 
they be more reasonable?
  Why don't they allow me to put up Shays-Meehan, which passed 
overwhelmingly, and for which we have a tremendous need? Why don't they 
let me put up the minimum wage, which is relevant to the trade 
adjustment assistance and welfare of the workers? They need it in 
America.
  Why don't we agree to a time? We are not delaying--5 minutes to a 
side. We can vote this evening on both of those bills, and they can go 
to all of their appropriations bills that they want so we can get away 
from this so-called fill up the tree and fast track on this trade bill. 
They have fast track. They know it. Don't come out and complain and 
say: We would like to have gotten fast track. Parliamentarily, they 
have instituted fast tack. That is the position they put the Senator 
from South Carolina in, and those in international trade.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
proceed as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tony 
Martinez, a legislative assistant in my office, be allowed floor 
privileges during the pendency of this introduction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1806 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  (The remarks of Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Craig 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1814 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I was taking the 
opportunity to address some of the arguments that have been raised 
during the debate on this bill these past several days. Some of my 
colleagues have questioned why we are taking this bill up now. Let me 
help them by putting this in context.
  Section 134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which passed the 
Congress in 1994, directed the President to develop a comprehensive 
trade and development policy for the countries of Africa. That 
provision originated with Senator Daschle, now the distinguished 
minority leader.
  In the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Act, 
the President made clear that the first measures he intended to 
consider in complying with that congressional mandate, were measures 
to:

       Remove impediments to U.S. trade with and investment in 
     Africa, including enhancements in the GSP program for least-
     developed countries.

  Section 134 of the URAA recognized that, as a continent, Africa had 
been left behind in trade terms. New approaches were needed to 
integrate Africa fully into the world economy, to allow Africa to take 
full advantage of the world trading system, and to ensure that Africans 
themselves had the opportunity to guide their own economic destiny.
  Now, 5 years after the Congress originally endorsed the idea, this 
legislation responds directly to that mandate. The legislation offers a 
down payment on a new and more constructive relationship with the 
African continent--one as partners with similar interests in expanding 
economic opportunity and raising living standards in all our countries.
  The President has for the past 2 years indicated in his State of the 
Union Address his intent to press ahead with this legislation. He 
identified this legislation as one of his top trade and foreign policy 
initiatives. In his trip to Africa this past year, he committed to move 
the bill as part of a new initiative for Africa.
  That led to the consideration of this legislation in the 105th 
Congress. The House passed its counterpart legislation in the spring of 
this past year, the Finance Committee reported out a bill in all 
respects the same as that we now have before us, but time ran out 
before the Senate could act on the bill.
  This year the House once again acted, this time in June. By that 
point, the Finance Committee had already reported out the legislation 
now on the Senate floor. The Africa bill is timely--indeed, it is past 
time we acted on this important measure.
  The same holds true for the CBI. A proposal for establishing parity 
between the preferences granted Mexico under the NAFTA and those 
granted the Caribbean and Central America has been before Congress in 
one form or another almost since the NAFTA was implemented in late 
1993.
  In the 105th Congress, there was considerable effort invested by both 
the Ways and Means and Finance Committees in moving counterpart bills. 
That work was renewed in the 106th Congress with hearings and markups 
before both committees.
  The CBI title enjoys the same bipartisan support as does the Africa 
title. Indeed, the President's CBI bill, introduced in this session at 
his request, is virtually identical to the bill reported from the 
Finance Committee bill in both the 105th and 106th Congresses.
  The Finance Committee bill enjoys the backing of the leadership and 
members on both sides of the aisle. It is, in fact, a testament to the 
bipartisan support for this legislation and the considerable push by 
the White House that we have been given time to debate this bill now.
  It is time to reject the isolationist label, the instinct to ignore 
the broader world around us, and the tendency for focus exclusively 
inward. It is time to affirm the constructive role that the United 
States can play in the wider world and fulfill the leadership the world 
expects from the United States. It is time to act.
  It is time to act because it is time we made good on the unfulfilled 
promises made to both Africa and the Caribbean.

[[Page S13242]]

An October, 1998, report of the International Trade Commission makes 
clear, Africa faces daunting economic challenges. The ITC report 
highlights the economic and structural problems Africa faces in 
attracting productive investment.
  For all that, the ITC report also reflects the positive changes under 
way in Africa. The region's GDP rose by 4.8 percent from 1995 to 1997. 
Since 1990, the region has reached a number of agreements eliminating 
trade and investment barriers and harmonizing economic policies.
  Most of the governments of the region have ``introduced economic 
reforms to control budget deficits, and inflation, and to stabilize 
currencies.'' They have liberalized ``regulations on trade and 
investment,'' reduced tariffs and other import charges and abolished 
most price controls.
  In addition, many of the governments have begun significant programs 
of privatization. In fact, the governments of sub-Saharan Africa raised 
``an estimated $5.8 billion from privatization, primarily through 
divestitures of utilities and telecommunication firms.''
  What this legislation tries to do is meet those governments half way. 
It is an effort to open our markets to their products as a way of 
reinforcing their own efforts to encourage productive investment and 
economic growth.
  The legislation is designed to reinforce a growing, the growing 
interest in Africa among U.S. businesses. Direct investment by U.S. 
firms more than quadrupled in 1997 alone to $3.8 billion, according to 
the ITC. We want to encourage that positive trend.
  Some may argue that, because this is a grant of unilateral 
preferences, it is one-sided--that there will be no benefits to the 
United States. What that ignores is the track record of the last 
several decades.
  Where U.S. investment goes, U.S. trade follows. Significantly, while 
U.S. investment was increasing in 1996 and 1997 in sub-Saharan Africa, 
our exports to the region experienced a corresponding growth in capital 
goods, particularly exports of machinery for use in agriculture and 
infrastructure projects.
  Africa represents an important opportunity to our farmers as well. 
While agricultural exports fell in dollar terms, largely because of the 
lower prices available on world markets for all commodities, Africa 
represents an important potential market for U.S. food exports as the 
continent increasingly looks offshore to meet its needs.
  The real issue is whether or not the region will have the wherewithal 
to buy what it needs to offset the steady decline in per capita caloric 
intake that has accelerated in the last 2 to 3 years. The legislation 
before us would help address that problem. By opening our markets to 
their products, sub-Saharan African countries can earn the foreign 
exchange needed to purchase food on world markets, including from U.S. 
exporters.
  Will that be enough? Will this legislation alone be the answer to 
Africa's problems? Plainly not. As Senator Grassley indicated in his 
eloquent statement opening the debate on this bill last Thursday, this 
legislation is no panacea. It is instead a small, but significant step 
toward a new economic relationship between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa.
  Should this legislation be supplemented by other initiatives? It 
should and it must if it is going to work. But, the fact that it is not 
the whole answer to Africa's problems or does not reflect all that the 
United States might do to help Africans secure their own economic 
destiny is no argument against action. It is time to move ahead and 
engage constructively with our African partners in the transition they 
themselves have begun.
  The same holds true for the Caribbean and Central America. Through 
the original CBI program, the United States and U.S. private businesses 
have played a significant role in the economic progress the region has 
made over the past 15 years.
  This past year, however, natural disasters eliminated much of the 
progress made in the Caribbean and Central America in recent years. The 
devastation began with the eruption of a long-dormant volcano that 
nearly depopulated the island of Montserrat and nearly erased its 
economy in the summer of 1998.
  In September of that year, Hurricane Georges severely damaged both 
the Dominican Republic and Haiti. An even more devastating hurricane--
Hurricane Mitch--struck Central America in late October and early 
November late in the hurricane season.
  Honduras and Nicaragua were particularly hard hit, but the hurricane 
also did considerable damage to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. 
Hurricane Mitch left 11,000 dead and an even greater number homeless. 
Much of the resulting damage was long-term--massive property damage and 
soil erosion, the devastation of crop lands and manufacturing sites, 
putting thousands out of work. The region will take years to recover.
  Those devastating circumstances have given renewed impetus to an idea 
that surfaced almost immediately after the implementation of the 
NAFTA--the expansion of tariff preferences under the CBI to match those 
offered under the NAFTA to Mexico.
  Will it work? I am confident it will because the legislation is 
modeled on existing production-sharing arrangements in textiles and 
apparel and other industries that already account for nearly half of 
all imports from the CBI beneficiary countries.
  In other words, the program has a proven track record. Indeed, 
bilateral trade in textiles and apparel under existing production-
sharing partnerships between U.S. and Caribbean or Central American 
firms already accounts for 36 percent of current two-way trade between 
the United States and the CBI region.
  For all those reasons, the legislation merits our support.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am aware there are other Senators who wish to speak. 
I will only take a moment to thank our chairman, our revered chairman, 
for his comments, with which I wholly agree, with which the Finance 
Committee entirely agrees. This bill comes to you, as he has said, from 
a near unanimous committee. Ninety Senators voted, just yesterday, to 
move forward.
  I would just say, sir, I wish we could have all been present this 
afternoon when the Congressional Gold Medal was presented to President 
Ford and Mrs. Ford in the Rotunda. The President gave a wonderful 
speech, describing the Congress he came into, just as the Cold War 
commenced; the extraordinary efforts that the 80th Congress made to 
pass the Marshall Plan, for which they were not entirely rewarded by 
President Truman, who kept talking about the ``do-nothing'' 80th 
Congress. But there you are. Then came President Eisenhower and the 
movement to establish NATO and to fund NATO, in which Speaker Rayburn, 
Majority Leader Johnson, and great Republicans joined in that matter.
  Of his life in politics, in government, he said: I came in and I 
remained a moderate on social issues, a fiscal conservative on fiscal 
issues, and a convinced internationalist.
  That is the America that fought in the dark, that long struggle about 
which John F. Kennedy talked. And we prevailed.
  The totalitarian 20th century is behind us. Freedoms open up. Are we 
now to close down at just the moment when everything we have stood for 
as a nation, from the time of Cordell Hull and the Reciprocal Trade 
Agreements Act of 1934--every measure we are talking about in this 
bill, no, it is not the final end-all effort; it is a part of a 
continuing effort that goes back to Trade Adjustment Assistance. It was 
established in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. I was involved in 
writing that legislation. It said, if you have trade, there will be 
winners, there will be losers. We will look after the people who are 
temporarily, as it turns out, disrupted, as economic patterns, trade 
patterns change.
  In 48 hours, or 52 hours, the appropriation for the program, 
supported by every President since President Kennedy, expires. The 
authorization in fact ended on June 30. Can we let that happen? Can we 
believe that we would do this? Surely not.
  But unless we are urgently attentive to the matters before us, and 
work out what are technical differences, it will go down; and we will 
be remembered

[[Page S13243]]

for ending an era of enormous expansion and example to the rest of the 
world, which the Western World is just beginning to follow on. It is 
hard to believe.
  But listen to what the chairman said and hope in the next 24 hours we 
can do this, because we can. And, sir, we must.
  Under the rules, President Ford, I believe, has free access to the 
floor. I wish he would come on here and talk to each of us one on one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. First of all, let me thank the distinguished ranking member 
of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his eloquent remarks. 
All I can say is, we must not let that happen. And with the kind of 
bipartisan spirit we had in the Finance Committee, it will not happen.

                          ____________________