[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 150 (Friday, October 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13491-S13500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

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

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

  Pending:

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

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

[[Page S13492]]

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

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

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

[[Page S13493]]

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

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

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

[[Page S13494]]

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

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

  That is what we will be voting on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S13495]]

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

[[Page S13496]]

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

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

[[Page S13497]]

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

[[Page S13498]]

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

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

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

[[Page S13499]]

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

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

[[Page S13500]]

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


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 342 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                          ____________________