Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 152 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13657-S13675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 2379

(Purpose: To require the negotiation, and submission to Congress, of
side agreements concerning labor before benefits are received)

Mr. HOLLINGS. I call up my amendment No. 2379 and ask the clerk to
report it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an
amendment numbered 2379:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . LABOR AGREEMENT REQUIRED.

The benefits provided by the amendments made by this Act
shall not become available to any country until--
(1) the President has negotiated with that country a side
agreement concerning labor standards, similar to the North
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (as defined in
section 532(b)(2) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19
U.S.C. 3471(b)(2)); and
(2) submitted that agreement to the Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the amendment has been read in its
entirety. It is very brief and much to the point. It is similar to the
North American agreement on labor. When we debated NAFTA at length,
there was a great deal more participation and attention given. In these
closing days, everyone is anxious to get out of town. Most of the
attention has been given, of course, to the appropriations bills and
the budget, and avoiding, as they say, spending Social Security after
they have already spent at least $17 billion, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I had a very interesting experience with
respect to labor conditions in Mexico prior to the NAFTA agreement. I
wanted to see with my own eyes exactly what was going on. I visited
Tijuana, which is right across the line from southern California.
I was being led around a valley. There were some 200,000 people
living in the valley, with beautiful plants, mowed lawns, flags
outside. But the 200,000 living in the valley were living in veritable
hovels; the living conditions were miserable.
I was in the middle of the tour when the mayor came up to me and
asked if I would meet with 12 of the residents of that valley. I told
him I would be glad to. He was very courteous and generous.
I met with that group. In a few sentences, summing up what occurred,
the Christmas before--actually around New Year's--they had a heavy rain
in southern California and in the Tijuana area. With that rain, the
hardened and crusted soil became mushy and muddy and boggy, and the
little hovels made with garage doors and other such items started
slipping and sliding. In those streets, there are no light poles and
there are no water lines. There is nothing, just bare existence.
They were all trying to hold on to their houses and put them back in
order. These particular workers missed a day of work. Under the work
rules in Mexico, if you miss a day of work, you are docked 3 days. So
they lost 4 days' pay.
Around February, one of the workers was making plastic coat hangers--
the industry had moved from San Angelo to Tijuana. They had no eye
protection whatsoever. The machines were stamping out the plastic, and
a flick of plastic went into the worker's eye. The

[[Page S13658]]

workers asked for protection and could not get any. That really teed
them off.
It came to a crisis on May 1 when the favorite supervisor, a young
woman who was expecting at the time, went to the front office. She said
she was sick and would have to take off the rest of the day. They said:
No, you are not taking off the rest of the day; you are working. Later
that afternoon, she miscarried, and that exploded the movement of these
12 workers. They said: We are not going to stand for this anymore. We
are going to get some consideration of working conditions and pay.
The workers chipped in money and sent two of the folks up to Los
Angeles to employ a lawyer. They discovered that when the plant moved
from San Angelo to Mexico, they filled out papers showing how the plant
was organized and that they had a union and swapped money each month,
but no shop steward or union representatives ever met with them. They
never knew anything about a union.
Under the work rules of the country of Mexico, if one tries to
organize a plant once one is already organized, then that person is
subject to firing, and all 12 of them were fired. They lost their jobs,
their livelihoods. That is what the mayor wanted me to know and
understand. They were out of work.
My colleagues talk about the immigration problem. If I had any
recommendation for the 12, I would say: Sneak across the border--don't
worry about it--and find work in California or South Carolina or some
other place because they could not get a job any longer in the country
of Mexico.
That concerned me, and I have followed the work conditions. That is
one of the reasons with NAFTA, while I opposed it, I wanted to be sure
we had the side agreements. The side agreements were established. The
work center is in Dallas. The Secretary of Labor meets with them. They
are trying to work on this problem.
I have references to some of the working conditions in El Salvador.
On March 13, 1999, five workers from the Doall factory, where Liz
Claiborne garments are sown, met with a team of graduate students from
Columbia University who were in El Salvador conducting a study of wage
rates in relation to basic survival needs.

A few days later, all five workers were fired. Doall's chief of
personnel simply told them: You are fired because you and your friends
cried before the gringos, and the Koreans don't want unionists at this
factory.
So much for workers' rights in that Liz Claiborne plant.
There are 225 maquila assembly factories in El Salvador, 68,000
workers sending 581 million garments a year to the United States worth
$1.2 billion. Yet there is not one single union with a contract in any
of these maquila factories because it is against the law; it is not
allowed.
This is Yolanda Vasquez de Bonilla:

I was fired from the Doall Factory No. 3 together with 17
others on August 5, 1998.
From the beginning, the unbearable working conditions in
the factory impressed me a great deal, which included
obligatory overtime hours every day of the week, including
Saturdays and sometimes Sundays. On alternate days, we worked
until 11 p.m., and some weeks we were obligated to work every
day until 11 p.m. at night. We were mistreated, including
being yelled at and having vulgar words used against us . . .
humiliated for wanting to use the restrooms, and being denied
permission to visit the Salvadoran Social Security Institute
for medical consults.
The highest wage I received, working 7 days a week and more
than 100 hours, was 1,200 colones (U.S. $137). Nevertheless,
I accepted all this that I have briefly narrated since I have
two children who are in school and I must support them.

They go on to tell similar stories time and again about different
workers at that plant in El Salvador.
With the limited time I have, I will reference the United States firm
in Guatemala City of Phillips-Van Heusen.

Van Heusen closed its Camisas Modernas plant in Guatemala
City just before its 500 workers were to receive their
legally mandated year-end bonuses and go on a three-week
break.

That is typical of what they do if they get any kind of benefits at
all. Just at the end of the year, when they are supposed to get their
bonuses, they go down and close the plant.

Unionist and former Zacapa municipal worker Angel Pineda
was ambushed and shot to death March 8 in the village of San
Jorge, Zacapa. Pineda was a mayoral candidate nominated by
the leftist New Guatemala Democratic Front. According to the
Guatemalan Workers Central, Pineda had participated in a
campaign to remove Zacapa Mayor Carlos Roberto Vargas on
corruption charges. Another union leader and Vargas opponent
was shot to death in January.

Then again in Guatemala:

A recent U.N. report said poverty encompasses 60 percent of
the urban population and 80 percent of rural inhabitants.
Figures from the Institute for Economic and Social
Investigations of San Carlos University are even more
devastating, reporting that 93 percent of the indigenous
population lives in poverty and 81 percent cannot meet
nutritional needs.

Mr. President, again:

Workers from more than a dozen different factories complain
about everything from restricted bathroom visits and sore
backs to illegal firings and abuse.
Sewing machines hum and rock music blares as 13-year-old
Maria furiously folds clothes inside a Guatemalan factory
called Sam Lucas S.A.

Maria is a 13-year-old. According to the Wall Street Journal, of
course, that has nothing to do with any employee in the Caribbean Basin
Initiative or Africa.

The Grade 2 dropout folds 50 shirts an hour, or 2,700
shirts a week that will end up in North American stores.
Sometimes Maria's boss extends her 10-hour day and asks her
to stay until 10:30 p.m. or all night, assembling clothes for
export in this tax-free plant called a maquila. . . .
Forced overtime, union busting, no social security benefits
and unpaid work are typical grievances of factory staff, who
are mostly young, female, Indian, and poor.

Mr. President, in Honduras:

A two-week strike at the Korean-owned Kimi de Honduras
maquiladora ended September 2 after they dropped criminal
charges against the union and accepted a new pay scale. The
strike began August 18 when 500 workers, mostly women,
demanded compliance with a March union contract. [This
particular plant] produces apparel for U.S. retailer J.C.
Penney and is part of the eight-plant Continental Park, a
free-trade zone in La Lima. Unionized Kimi workers closed
down Continental [in] August with blockades, but anti-riot
police arrived August 30. In solidarity, most workers from
other factories refused to enter the zone, but were
subsequently beaten and gassed by the police. Kimi union
officials promptly distributed leaflets to workers of other
factories, urging them to return to work and prevent more
violence. Some 100,000 workers are employed in the country's
200 maquilas, which export $1.6 billion in goods to the
United States each year.

You have the Roca Suppliers Search maquiladora in El Salvador:

The Roca Suppliers Search maquiladora in the town of
Mejicanos was abruptly closed November 19, leaving 240
workers laid off. The workers say production was moved to
another factory after a group of 22 workers met with
representatives of the progressive union federation. [They
really work and make] U.S. brands including Calvin Klein and
L.L. Bean. The factory's owner said the shop closed due to a
lack of raw materials. Labor activists noted that the
termination came just before legally mandated Christmas
bonuses. The bonuses average about $40.

Then again, in El Salvador: They work from Monday through Friday,
from 6:50 a.m. to 6:10 p.m., and on Saturday until 5:40 p.m., and
occasional shifts to 9:40 p.m. It is common for the cutting and packing
departments to work 20-hour shifts from 6:50 a.m. to 3 a.m.

Anyone unable or refusing to work the overtime hours will
be suspended and fined, and upon repeat ``offenses,'' they
will be fired.
There is no time clock. Records of an employee's overtime
hours are written in a log by the supervisor. Workers report
that it is not uncommon to be short changed two hours of
overtime if the supervisor is angry with them.
There is a one 40-minute break in the day for lunch from
noon to 12:40 p.m.
All new workers must undergo and pay for a pregnancy test.
If they test positive, they are immediately fired. The test
costs two days' wages.

I ask unanimous consent that this particular group of conditions in
El Salvador be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Kathie Lee Sweatshop in El Salvador

Caribbean Apparel, S.A. de C.V., American Free Trade Zone, Santa Ana,
El Salvador

A Korean-owned maquila with 900 plus workers.

Death threats
Workers illegally fired and intimidated
Pregnancy tests
Forced overtime
Locked bathrooms
Starvation wages
Workers paid 15 cents for every $16.96 pair of Kathie Lee
pants they sew

[[Page S13659]]

Cursing and screaming at the workers to go faster
Denial of access to health care
Workers fired and blacklisted if they try to defend their
rights

Caribbean Apparel is inaccessible to public inspection. The
American Free Trade Zone is surrounded by walls topped with
razor wire. Armed guards are posted at the entrance gate.
Labels
Kathie Lee (Wal-Mart), Leslie Fay, Koret, Cape Cod (Kmart)
Sweatshop Conditions at Caribbean Apparel
Forced Overtime: 11-hour shifts, 6 days a week--Monday-
Friday: 6:50 a.m. to 6:10 p.m. Saturday: 6:50 a.m. to 5:40
p.m. There are occasional shifts to 9:40 p.m. It is common
for the cutting and packing departments to work 20-hour
shifts from 6:50 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.
Anyone unable or refusing to work the overtime hours will
be suspended and fined, and upon repeat ``offenses'' they
will be fired.
There is no time clock. Records of an employee's overtime
hours are written in a log by the supervisor. Workers report
that it is not uncommon to be short changed two hours of
overtime if the supervisor is angry with them.
There is a one 40-minute break in the day for lunch from
noon to 12:40 p.m.
Mandatory Pregnancy Tests: All new workers must undergo and
pay for a pregnancy test. If they test positive they are
immediately fired. The test costs two days wages.
Below Subsistence Wages: The base wage at Caribbean Apparel
is 60 cents an hour or $4.79 for the day. This wage meets
only \1/3\ of the cost of living.
Searched On the Way In and Out: Workers are searched on the
way in--candy or water is taken away from them which the
company says might soil the garments. On the way out, the
workers are also searched.
The Factory is Excessively Hot: The factory lacks proper
ventilation. There are few fans. In the afternoon the
temperature on the shop floor soars.
No Clean Drinking Water: Only tap water is available, which
is dirty and warm. Caribbean Apparel refuses to provide cold
purified drinking water.
Bathrooms Locked: The workers are not allowed to get up or
move from their work sites. The bathrooms are locked from
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and again from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00.
Workers need permission to use the bathroom, which is limited
to one visit per morning shift and one during the afternoon
shift. The workers report that the bathrooms are filthy.
Pressure and Screaming to go Faster: There is constant
pressure to work faster and to meet production goals of
sewing 100-150 pieces an hour. Mr. Lee, the production
supervisor, curses and screams at the women to go faster.
Some workers have been hit. For talking back to a supervisor
the women are locked in isolation in a room. Most cannot
reach their daily production quota and if they do the company
arbitrarily raises the goal the next day.
Where a Worker Spends Money
Rent for two small rooms costs $57.07 per month, or $1.88 a
day.
The round trip bus to work costs 46 cents.
A modest lunch is $1.37.

At the end of the day sewing Kathie Lee garments a worker
is left with just $1.08, which is not even enough to purchase
supper for a small family. Unable to afford milk, the
workers' children are raised on coffee and lemonade.
15 Cents to Sew Kathie Lee Pants
The women earn just 15 cents for every pair of $16.96
Kathie Lee pants they sew. That means that wages amount to
only \9/10\ of one percent of the retail price of the
garment. (62 workers on a production line have a daily
production quota of sewing 2,000 pairs of Kathie Lee pants
each 8-hour shift. 62 workers $4.79 = 296.98/2,000 $16.96 =
$33,920/33,920) 296.98 = .0087553/or \9/10\ of one percent
$16.96 = 15 cents)
Denied Access to Health Care
Despite the fact that money is deducted from the workers'
pay, Caribbean Apparel management routinely prohibits the
workers access to the Social Security Health Care Clinic. Nor
does the company allow sick days. If a worker misses a day,
even with written confirmation from a doctor that she or her
child was very sick, she will still be punished and fined two
or three days pay.
If the workers are seen meeting together, they can be
fired. If the workers are seen discussing factory conditions
with independent human rights organizations they will be
fired. If workers are suspected of organizing a union they
will be fired and blacklisted.
Fear and Repression--There are No Rights at Caribbean Apparel
Fear and repression permeate the factory. The workers have
no rights. Everyone knows that they can be illegally fired,
at any time, for being unable to work overtime, for needing
to take a sick day, for questioning factory conditions or
pay, for talking back to a supervisor, or for attempting to
learn and defend their basic human and worker rights.
Fired for Organizing
Six workers have been illegally fired beginning in August
for daring to organize a union at Caribbean Apparel. All six
workers were elected officials to the new union.
List of Fired Workers
Blanca Ruth Palacios
Lorena del Carmen Hernandez Moran
Oscal Humberto Guevara
Dalila Aracely Corona
Norma Aracely Padilla
Jose Martin Duenas
Death Threat
In September, Jiovanni Fuentes, a union organizer assisting
the workers at Caribbean Apparel, received a death threat
from the company. He was told that he and his friends should
leave the work or they would be killed. He was told that he
was dealing with the Mafia, and in El Salvador it costs less
than $15 to have someone killed.
____

Kathie Lee/Wal-Mart Sweatshop in Mexico

Ho Lee Modas de Mexico, Puebla, Mexico

550 workers
The Ho Lee factory sews women's blazers, pants and blouses
for Wal-Mart and other labels. Kathie Lee garments have
been sewn there.
Sweatshop conditions
Forced Overtime: 12\1/2\ to 14 hour shifts, 6 days a week.
Monday to Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Saturday: 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m.
There is one 40-minute break in the day for lunch.
The workers are at the factory between 67 and 79 hours a
week.
New Employees are forced to take a mandatory pregnancy
test.
For a 48-hour week the workers earn $29.57 or 61 cents an
hour which is well below a subsistence wage.
Workers are searched on the way in and out of the factory.
The supervisors yell and scream at the women to work
faster.
Bathrooms are filthy and lack toilet seats or paper. The
workers have to manually flush the toilet using buckets of
water. Some of the toilets lack lighting.
14-15-16 year old minors have been employed in the plants.
Public access to the plant is prohibited by several heavily
armed guards.
____

Kathie Lee/Wal-Mart Sweatshop in Guatemala

San Lucas, S.A., Santiago, Sacatepequez, Guatemala

1,500 workers
The San Lucas factory sews Kathie Lee jackets and dresses.
Sweatshop conditions
Forced Overtime: 11 to 14\1/2\ hour shifts, 6 days a week.
Monday to Saturday: 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., sometimes they
work until 10:00 p.m. The workers are at the factory between
66 and 80 hours a week.
Refusal to work overtime is punished with an 8-day
suspension without pay. The second or third time this
``offense'' occurs, the worker is fired.
Below Subsistence Wages: For 44 regular hours, the pay is
$28.57, or 65 cents an hour. This does not meet subsistence
needs.
Armed security guards control access to the toilets, and
check the amount of time the women spend in the bathroom,
hurrying them up if they think they are spending too much
time.
Public access to the plant is prohibited by several heavily
armed guards.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, again quoting:

In September, Jiovanni Fuentes, a union organizer assisting
the workers at Caribbean Apparel, received a death threat
from the company. He was told that he and his friends should
leave work, or they would be killed. He was told that he was
dealing with the Mafia, and in El Salvador, it costs less
than $15 to have someone killed.

I could go on and on. Obviously, these working conditions are not to
the attention of this particular body. They could care less.
Labor conditions are very important. The standard of living in the
United States of America is an issue. When you open up a manufacturing
plant, it is required that you have clean air, clean water, minimum
wage, safe working machinery, safe working conditions, plant closing
notice, parental leave, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and
unemployment compensation. All of these particulars are needed. These
elevate to the high standard of American living. And it deserves
protection. At least it deserves a negotiation--which we included in
the NAFTA agreement--in this particular CBI and sub-Saharan agreement.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

[[Page S13660]]

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2428

(Purpose: To strengthen the transshipment provisions)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2428 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 2428.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as I have said before, unless the
African Growth and Opportunity Act is significantly improved, it will
fail to stimulate any meaningful growth in Africa; it will fail to
provide significant opportunities for commerce or development; and, in
fact, if we do not make some changes, it may do harm to both Africans
and Americans. So what this amendment does is take an important step
toward preventing harm and improving this trade legislation.
Mutually beneficial economic legislation has to be fair to all
parties involved. The African Growth and Opportunity Act must be
amended to adequately address the problems of transshipment, not just
to make certain that it is fair to Africans but also to ensure
Americans are not cheated and that American law isn't broken.
Let me talk a little bit about transshipment. Transshipment occurs
when textiles originating in one country are sent through another
before they come to the United States. What this does is, the actual
country of origin seeks to disguise itself and therefore ignore our
U.S. quotas. This is not a minor matter. Approximately $2 billion worth
of illegally transshipped textiles enter the United States every year.
The U.S. Customs Service has determined that for every $1 billion of
illegally transshipped products that enter the United States, 40,000
jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost.
Let me repeat that.
The Customs Service says that every time we have a billion dollars of
illegally transshipped products entering the United States, we lose
40,000 jobs in this country in that area of our economy.
Failure to protect against transshipment surely does harm. Those who
think transshipment isn't going to be a problem in Africa had better
think again.
We have had a chance to take a look at the official web site of the
China Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. It quotes an
analyst as follows. This is a direct quote we have on this board. This
is what they say on the web site:

Setting up assembly plants with Chinese equipment
technology and personnel could not only greatly increase
sales in African countries but also circumvent quotas imposed
on commodities of Chinese origin by European and American
countries.

That is very explicit and very intentional. The Chinese know standard
United States protections against transshipment are weak, and they
obviously intend to exploit them.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act, as it currently stands
without my amendment, relies on those same weak protections--the same
textile visa system that China and others have successfully manipulated
in the past. This inadequate system requires government officials in
the exporting country to give textiles visas certifying the goods'
country of origin for those textiles to be exported. Too often, this
isn't good enough; corrupt officials simply sell the visas to the
highest bidder.
What does this amendment do? This amendment changes this failing
system. It makes U.S. importers responsible for certifying where
textiles and apparel are produced. This gives the U.S. entities a
strong financial stake in the legality of their imports.
This amendment allows us not to rely simply on foreign officials.
This standard relies on the American companies that operate right here
under American law, and it holds those companies liable for any false
statements or omissions in the certification process.
This amendment lays out clear procedures and tough penalties so that
these regulations will actually work.
If the Senate agrees to this amendment, countries such as China that
want to evade United States trade regulations will have to rethink
their designs on Africa. If we agree to this amendment, the
opportunities promised by this legislation really will go to Africans,
and not to third parties. If we agree to this amendment, Americans will
not lose their jobs because of AGOA's inadequate transshipment
protection.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 2379

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Hollings amendment for two
reasons.
First, as I have stated previously, the goal of this legislation is
to encourage investments in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America.
The amendment would undermine that effort by requiring the difficult
negotiations of side agreements which would delay the incentive the
bill would create. That, I argue, is of no help to these developing
countries and will not lead to any greater improvement in the labor
standards provisions that are already incorporated into these programs.
Virtually every study available indicates that labor standards rise
with a country's level of economic development.
The goal of the bill is to give these countries an opportunity to tap
private investment capital as a means of encouraging economic
development and economic growth. That is the most certain way to ensure
these countries have the ability to enforce any labor standards they
choose to enact into law.
Frankly, the worst opponent of labor standards is the lack of
economic opportunities in these countries. It is difficult to insist on
safe working conditions on the job and negotiate a living wage when you
have no other job opportunities. The point of this legislation is to
provide those job opportunities. Creating obstacles to that goal will
diminish, not enhance, the positive impact the bill would have on labor
standards.
The second reason I oppose the amendment is that it essentially
depends on economic sanctions to work. The threat is that the economic
benefits of the beneficiary countries will be cut off if the countries
do not comply with the terms of some agreement yet to be negotiated.
That not only undercuts the investment incentive by increasing the
uncertainty of a country's participation in the program; it also does
little to raise labor standards.
What is needed is a cooperative approach bilaterally between the
United States and the particular developing country and among the
countries of the region as a whole.
The lesson of the NAFTA side agreement, in my view, is that sanction
mechanisms have done little to encourage better labor practices. What
has worked under the NAFTA agreement is the cooperative ventures of the
three participants. What is needed in the context of both regions
targeted by this bill is a stronger effort among the participants, with
the support of the United States, to tackle common problems facing
their strongest resource--their workforce.
The Senate substitute before us does not preclude those sorts of
constructive efforts by the President. Indeed, the President would do
well to pursue a similar model in the context of our broader relations
with our African, Caribbean, and Central American neighbors. The model
offered by the pending amendment would not, in my judgment, help that
goal.
I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. At the
appropriate time, I will make a motion to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page S13661]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am sort of stunned in a way because
the argument is made that this is going to forestall the jobs that are
intended under the bill.
Could it really be that we want to finance 13-year-olds and child
labor?
Could it be that they have to work 100 hours a week at 13 cents an
hour?
Could it be if they become pregnant and have to go home sick that
they are fired?
I could go down the list of things.
That is what I just pointed out. I am confident my colleagues don't
want to finance those kinds of atrocities.
I am just stunned that someone would say this would hold it up
because the agreement is yet to be had. The agreement is to be joined
by the authorities and the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and the other countries down there in the Caribbean Basin. If
they haven't agreed, obviously, they couldn't be in violation, or they
couldn't be with the side agreement.
That is why it is very innocent language suggesting that the benefits
don't take effect until we have had a chance to sit down, both sides,
and decide what will be agreed to and what will be done by the
particular governments. So it would be violations of their own
government policies.

Amendment No. 2483

(Purpose: To require the negotiation, and submission to Congress, of
side agreements concerning the environment before benefits are
received)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am not trying to forestall. I am
trying to comply with the requirements. I call up my amendment on the
environmental side, and I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) proposes an
amendment numbered 2483.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED.

The benefits provided by the amendments made by this Act
shall not be available to any country until the President has
negotiated with that country a side agreement concerning the
environment, similar to the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation, and submitted that agreement to
the Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the emphasis in this Amendment is
similar to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.
It is the very same thing we required in NAFTA with Mexico and Canada
with respect to the Canadian side.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article
entitled ``Canadians Challenge California Pollution Rules Under
NAFTA.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Gazette, (Montreal), Oct. 27, 1999]

Canadians Challenge California Pollution Rule Under NAFTA

(By Andrew Duffy)

Ottawa.--A Canadian firm has filed a NAFTA environmental
complaint against California, charging the state failed to
protect its groundwater from leaky gasoline-storage tanks.
The unusual move by Vancouver's Methanex Corporation, which
produces a gasoline additive being phased out by California,
comes in addition to the company's $1.4-billion lawsuit
against the state and the U.S. government, an action launched
under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Methanex argues California's ban on MTBE (methyl tertiary-
butyl ether) is unfair because the problem lies not with the
gasoline additive, but with aging underground gas storage
tanks that leak into aquifers.
``It thus treats a symptom (MTBE) of gasoline leakage
rather than the leakage itself, deflecting attention from the
state's failure to enforce its environmental laws,'' says the
company's environmental complaint, which has just been
submitted to the Commission on Environmental Co-operation.
The Montreal-based commission was established under a NAFTA
side-agreement to ensure Canada, Mexico and the U.S. maintain
environmental standards in the face of trade pressures.
In its 16-page submission--the first of its kind from a
corporation--Methanex contends California has not enforced
existing laws designed to protect groundwater from
contamination by leaky underground gas tanks.
Methanex is North America's largest supplier of MTBE, a
gasoline additive that makes fuel burn more completely in a
car engine, thus reducing tailpipe emissions.
Earlier this year, California Governor Gray Davis issued a
regulation that will ban MTBE by 2002 because of concerns
that it's polluting lakes and drinking water in the state.
``We believe that what's occurring in California is plain
wrong from an environmental perspective,'' said Methanex
vice-president Michael Macdonald.
``People have lost sense of the plotline: that MTBE only
gets into the environment through gasoline releases. We're
trying to focus attention on the root cause of the issue,
which is leaking underground storage tanks.''
California has the strictest air-quality controls in North
America. As part of those controls, oil-refiners in the state
were required to improve their gasolines during the 1990s;
many turned to MTBE to cut emissions.
But California researchers now say MTBE is so highly
soluble--more so than other gas components--that it travels
far from the source of gas leaks to pollute groundwater.
MTBE contamination has forced the closing of wells in Santa
Monica, Lake Tahoe, Sacramento and Santa Clara, according to
a state auditor's report issued last year. The same report
said evidence from animal studies suggests the chemical
compound may be a human carcinogen.
Methanex has notified the U.S. government it will seek
damages under NAFTA's Chapter 11, which gives corporations
the right to sue governments if they make decisions that
unfairly damage their interests.
Company officials said yesterday they're about to enter
discussions on an out-of-court settlement with the U.S. State
Department.
American companies have used Chapter 11 to challenge
Canadian laws that restricted the use of another gasoline
additive, MMT; banned the export of PCBs; and halted the
export of fresh water from British Columbia.
The only case to be settled--the one that involved MMT--
cost Canadian taxpayers $20 million.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Similarly, I have an article about the side deals to
the trade agreement giving labor and environmental issues a new form of
significance that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 29, 1998]

A Vision Unfulfilled

(By Karen Brandon)

The new pier's long, crooked finger points deep into the
Caribbean Sea near the fragile coral reef off the coast of
Cozumel, Mexico.
The mere existence of the structure offers a metaphor for
the paradoxes raised by the world's most ambitious attempt to
tie environmental concerns to international free trade.
The Puerta Maya pier dispute is the sole case to wind its
way completely through the labyrinth of bureaucracy
established to resolve environmental conflicts under the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
Environmentalists persuasively argued that the Mexican
government violated its own environmental laws when it
assessed the potential impact of the pier, designed to
accommodate more and larger cruise ships and to bring more
tourists to the region.
According to the 55-page ``final factual record'' that
followed an 18-month investigation, the environmentalists
essentially won.
``We proved that the Mexican government violated the law,''
said Gustavo Alanis, president of the Mexican Environmental
Law Center, one of the organizations that raised the issue.
``It's an enormous victory for international environmental
rights.''
But the victory is only on paper. The Puerta Maya pier was
built, and tourists now disembark from cruise ships there to
stroll its walkway lined with liquor, perfume and souvenir
shops.
As the outcome of the pier project suggests, the
environmental legacy of the free trade agreement begun nearly
five ago is contradictory.
The very trade agreement that elevated environmental
concerns to an unprecedented level, making ``sustainable
development'' one of its goals, also gave businesses a new
tool to combat pollution regulations they consider onerous.
The measure, an investment provision that has been
interpreted to allow companies to sue countries whose
pollution regulations hinder profits, is essentially
unaffected by the environmental side accord and lies beyond
the direct jurisdiction of the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation, the organization created to oversee
environmental concerns.
In analyzing the impact of the agreement's overall
environmental agenda, the Tribune interviewed scores of
economists, legal experts, government officials and
environmental activists in Canada, Mexico and the United
States.
The free trade agreement, with its side accord, did not
force a cleanup of long-polluted sites. It did not foist
tough new international standards on polluters. It did not
create a new police agency to enforce regulations that had
long been ignored.
The agreement set no minimum or uniform standards for the
three participating nations. Instead, it promised to see,
somehow, that each nation enforced its environmental laws,
and it gave citizens a new international forum to raise
complaints about countries that failed to do so.

[[Page S13662]]

Even its most passionate advocates concede the pact has no
practical means to punish governments or companies other than
through the stigma of bad publicity. A provision for
sanctions exists for a ``persistent pattern'' of failure to
enforce environmental laws, but many experts say it will
never be used.
Moreover, though it technically bars the weakening of
environmental laws to attract investment, the agreement
offers no real tool to counteract any decision by the
countries to alter their own environmental laws for any
reason, analysts note.
``The implication is that the three governments are going
to be at least as good by the environment as they are
today,'' said David Gantz, associate director of the National
Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade at the University of
Arizona in Tucson. That assumption, he added, is ``dependent
on their goodwill.''
Scenes from the U.S.-Mexico border, the fastest-growing
region in North America, tell the story of the vast
environmental problems facing Mexico. Explosive population
and industrial growth, some of it fueled by the trade
agreement itself, have only worsened the pollution that
plagues the region's air, water and ground.
The border remains a stark contradiction, a place where the
world's most prosperous corporations using the most modern
manufacturing techniques stand beside poor neighborhoods
where people live in shacks made of wooden pallets or
cardboard, without running water, sewers, electricity or
telephones.
In Tijuana, obvious industrial violations are easy to find.
The stench of a bathtub refinishing plant burns the eyes and
nose of anyone within blocks of the building, and industrial
fans meant to clear the air for workers inside stand idle. At
the site of the abandoned lead smelting factory Metales y
Derivados, a subsidiary of San Diego-based New Frontier
Trading Corp., which is now the subject of a citizens'
complaint against Mexico, leaking car batteries lie in huge
mounds, and the only pretense of a cleanup is torn plastic
sheeting.
The New River, which crosses the Mexico-California border,
is essentially a sewer, even more so now that the temporary
``fix'' for it has been to encase it in huge tubing, rather
than to clean it. Ciudad Juarez has no facility to treat the
sewage from its 1.3 million residents.
John Knox, a University of Texas law professor and former
negotiator for the State Department on the environmental side
accord, said, ``I think it's fairly easy to say it is better
than nothing, but if you compare what it's doing to the scope
of the problem, then it seems pretty minuscule.''

new opportunities

When it took hold on New Year's Day 1994, the trade
agreement already had deeply divided environmentalists.
Opponents feared it would make Mexico a pollution haven and
drag down the higher standards of Canada and the United
States. Advocates believed it could be Mexico's best hope,
both by pressuring it into better environmental standards and
by improving its economy, which in turn could lead to higher
environmental standards.
Pollution intensity is highest in the early stages of a
country's industrialization, but it wanes as income levels
rise. Researchers have found that environmental degradation
tends to decline once annual per capita incomes reach a
threshold of $8,000--roughly double Mexico's per capita
income.
One particular dispute settled in July has only exacerbated
environmentalists' fears that governments would be pressured
to reduce their pollution standards.
In June 1997, the Canadian government banned a gasoline
additive after some studies suggested the chemical, MMT, used
to boost octane's power, could cause nerve damage. In
retaliation, the manufacturer, Richmond, VA-based Ethyl
Corp., sued the Canadian government for $250 million under a
provision in the trade agreement's main text, not its
environmental side accord, contending that the ban
essentially amounted to an ``expropriation'' for which it
should be compensated.
The same substance has provoked considerable controversy in
the United States, where it was among the chemicals banned by
the 1977 Clean Air Act. Eighteen years later, Ethyl won the
right to sell MMT from an appeals court ruling that
overturned the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to
continue the ban in lieu of sufficient studies on the
substance's potential effects.
In July, the Canadian government rescinded the ban and
agreed to pay Ethyl $13 million for lost profits and legal
costs.
``Virtually any public policy which diminishes corporate
profits is vulnerable,'' said Michelle Swenarchuk, director
of international programs for the Canadian Environmental Law
Association. ``It has profound intimidating effects.''
The prospect of such a suit had helped to kill a Canadian
proposal that would have required cigarettes be sold only in
plain brown packaging to make them less appealing to
children, she said.
A similar case is pending against Mexico under the same
provision, which authorizes arbitration panels to handle such
cases in private. In it, Metalclad Corp., a Southern
California hazardous-waste disposal business, is seeking $990
million in damages for being denied permission to open a
landfill in central Mexico.
Meanwhile, 20 cases (eight against Canada, eight against
Mexico and four against the United States) have been brought
to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation alleging that
governments have failed to enforce their environmental
provisions. Eleven are under review, including one that is
undergoing the most advanced procedure for redress available,
the preparation of a factual record. That case stems from
allegations that the Canadian government has failed to
protect fish and fish habitat in British Columbia's rivers
from damage by hydroelectric dams.
The notorious environmental problems of Mexico do not stem
from its laws. Many are styled after U.S. provisions, and
some are more stringent.
But enforcement is lax or absent. In a recent World Bank
Group study in Mexico, more than half of the industries
surveyed said they did not comply with environmental
regulations.
The Mexican government insists that it has made important
strides in dealing with the environment, principally with
more environmental inspections.
``Government action . . . has presented important advances
in the three years of the present administration,'' a
statement from the Mexican embassy is Washington, D.C., said.
But its federal government this year has been forced to
make deep spending cuts that include its environmental
program because of the ongoing drop in the price of oil, upon
which Mexico depends for more than one-third of its revenues.
Slow steps
The environmental accord created two institutions dedicated
to pollution cleanup along the U.S.-Mexico border: the North
American Development Bank, created by $450 million
contributed in equal parts by the United States and Mexico to
arrange financing for projects; and its sister agency, the
Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, which evaluates
projects before they can receive the bank's backing. The
institutions got off to a slow start, and the chief obstacle
for most projects was basic: They had to find a way to pay
for themselves.
The bank's mission--to finance the projects primarily by
guaranteeing loans, rather than by grants--proved an almost
insurmountable hurdle for communities in an impoverished
region that had never found the financial resources or the
political will to meet basic needs, such as providing
drinking water and sewers.
``Is it possible to clean up on a for-profit basis 30 years
of raping the environment for profit?'' asked David Schorr,
senior trade analyst for the World Wildlife Fund.
Though other development banks offer low-interest loans,
the North American Development Bank has no such discount.
``Market rates can make a loan package prohibitively
expensive for poor communities,'' said Mark Spalding, a
University of California at San Diego instructor who
participated in the negotiations to create the two
institutions. It was only in April 1996, when the bank
received a $170 million infusion of grants from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, that its projects began to
seem viable.
Now, 19 projects representing a planned investment of $600
million have been approved, and the first of them, two
landfills, are to be completed in January. Eight are under
construction, and two more, including a sewage treatment
plant for Ciudad Juarez, are soon to begin. Dozens of others
are in preliminary planning stages, beginning the arduous
process to determine how, and whether, they can be financed.
While the bank's sewage-treatment projects represent
unquestionable improvements for border communities, they have
faced one criticism. The standards set for Mexican
communities are beneath those considered basic in the U.S.
One of the few evaluations of the side agreement's
environmental agenda suggests that it has been modestly
successful in carrying out cooperative initiatives among the
countries. The accomplishments include agreements among the
countries to phase out some pollutants, and to develop or
expand new programs for conservation of species, including
monarch butterflies and migratory songbirds, concluded the
Institute for International Economics, a non-profit, non-
partisan research institution in Washington, D.C
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which has
been plagued by political rifts between the U.S. and Mexico,
admits it has yet to resolve the debate over whether trade
liberalization leads to better or worse environmental
conditions. ``While there are theoretical arguments on both
sides, there is little empirical data available to settle
it,'' its own assessment concluded.
This fall the commission published a study purporting to
find a drop in pollution across North America during the
trade agreement's first year. It failed to take into account
one substantial portion of the continent, however--Mexico,
which has yet to implement the necessary pollution reporting
system.

Mr. HOLLINGS. From that article:

Environmentalists persuasively argued that the Mexican
government violated its own environmental laws when it
assessed the potential impact of the pier, designed to
accommodate more and larger cruise ships.
``We proved that the Mexican government violated the law,''
said Gustavo Alanis, president of the Mexican Environmental
Law Center, one of the organizations that raised

[[Page S13663]]

the issue. ``It is an enormous victory for international
environmental rights.''

The emphasis, of course, is that there are those in the countries
involved with labor rights and with the environment. They are not
purely nomads. They have an environmental movement in Mexico and in
Canada.
We would help to extend environmental concerns and labor rights with
this particular agreement if they adopt these two amendments.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I remind my colleague that my bill already
includes significant labor conditions. Specifically, the beneficiary
countries must be taking steps to afford their workers' internationally
recognized worker rights. If the beneficiary countries fail to protect
worker rights, then the benefits under both the CBI and Africa may be
terminated.

Amendment No. 2428

I will now address the proposed amendment of the Senator from
Wisconsin. The legislation he refers to, to add some novel
transshipment provisions, raises serious constitutional questions in
the United States. What the bill would do is impose joint liability on
the importer and the retailer for any material false statement or any
omission made in filing the numerous forms and certifications that have
to be filed to enter any textile or apparel items into the United
States and receive the meager benefits available under the bill.
The bill adds Draconian new penalties for any alleged transshipment.
While I am not opposed to adding such penalties for what is outright
customs fraud subject to all the normal due process protections
ordained by the Constitution and contained in current U.S. law, this
bill allows for the imposition of such penalty on what it terms ``the
best information available.''
Let me put that in its proper context. Under this bill, a retailer
who has no control over either the exporter's or importer's action
could be held jointly liable for any minor omission made by either the
exporter or importer and held liable not because the retailer was found
to be guilty of infraction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely on the
basis of the best information available to the Customs Service.
That turns the whole notion of a due process protection guaranteed by
the Constitution and by American administrative law on its head. I
submit this is the opposite of constitutional protection.
This is an example, in the words of Jeremy Benton, of what is called
dog law. The author decided they can't tell the dog right or wrong
ahead of time, and they kick it after the fact to let it know they
think it has done wrong. My guess is there aren't too many retailers
willing to get in the way of a hard left foot. This bill aims at their
praises, but what Customs provisions do as a result is discourage trade
and thereby discourage investment.
In short, this proposal is not what the author suggested nor is this
bill, as the title claims: Hope for Africa. In fact, this bill is the
reverse of what we want to do in establishing a new partnership with
Africa.
I urge my colleague to oppose this amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Hollings amendment No. 2483 and
I do so for two reasons. First, as I have stated previously, the goal
of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the
Caribbean, and Central America. The amendment undermines that effort by
requiring the difficult negotiation of side agreements on both labor
and the environment that delays the incentive that the bill is intended
to create. This is bad for labor and environmental conditions in the
beneficiary countries as well as their economies.
The available research suggests labor and environmental standards
rise with a country's level of economic development. This is because
for countries that are on the edge of famine, enforcing labor standards
and protecting the environment are a luxury. The Finance Committee bill
helps economically and in improving labor and environmental standards
by giving these countries an opportunity to tap private investment
capital as a means of encouraging economic development and economic
growth. That is a most certain way to ensure that these countries have
the wherewithal to pay for environmental protection.
The second reason I will oppose the amendment is that it essentially
depends on economic sanctions to work. It threatens to cut off a series
of economic benefits if the countries do not comply with the terms of
some agreement yet to be negotiated. That not only undercuts the
investment incentive by increasing the uncertainty of a country's
participation in the program, it also does little to raise labor and
environmental standards. As we have heard during the extended debate we
have had on economic sanctions in the past, they do, actually, little
to affect the behavior of the target country. Indeed, in the case of
the intended beneficiaries of these tariff preference programs, they
would have the opposite effect on labor and environmental protections
by discouraging investment in economic growth.
What is needed, as I said earlier, is a cooperative approach,
bilaterally between the United States and the particular developing
country and among the countries of the regions as a whole. The
experience under the NAFTA side agreement reinforces my point. The
sanctions mechanisms have done little to encourage better labor and
environmental practices. What has worked under the NAFTA agreement is
the cooperative ventures of the three participants on both the labor
and the environmental front. The NAFTA Commission on Environmental
Cooperation, for example, advises all three countries on how to tackle
common environmental problems. That advice has helped ensure
coordination rather than conflict among the NAFTA partners over
environmental issues.
The Senate substitute before us does not preclude these sorts of
constructive efforts by the President. Indeed, the President would do
well to pursue a similar model in the context of our broader relations
with our African, Caribbean, and Central American neighbors. The model
offered by the pending amendment would not help us towards that goal.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Hollings amendment
No. 2483.

Amendment No. 2428

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a little confusing. We are
debating several amendments at once. I would like to see if we could
get a little back and forth going. I wanted to respond to the
chairman's comments about my amendment, but then he went into several
arguments about the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. I am
worried it is going to be awfully hard for people to follow this.
Let me return to and respond to the concerns of the chairman with
regard to the amendment I have offered, to try to do something about
this problem of transshipment, this problem that some countries--very
likely China--will take advantage of this new Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act to ship a lot more of their goods through Africa into
the United States, and not only harm the African nations and people who
are trying to benefit from this but harm American jobs.
Every $1 billion of transshipped goods into this country apparently
costs about 40,000 American jobs in the textile-related area.
When the chairman suggests we are trying to discourage legal trade by
this amendment, that is the opposite of what we are doing. We are
trying to prevent this kind of circumvention of

[[Page S13664]]

the spirit and intent of the law by unfair and what should be illegal
transshipment.
The Senator has suggested somehow there is a constitutional problem
with imposing some penalties on importers who are given some
responsibilities in this regard. I was not clear on what the
constitutional provision was. I assume it is the notion of taking
property without due process of law. But if we take a look at these
penalties, what we are trying to do is make absolutely sure the
importer cooperates with the Customs Service in order to make sure what
is happening is not a scam by a government, such as the Chinese
Government, to transship its goods through Africa.
Let's look at the actual language the Senator has complained about.
He refers to the use of ``best available information.'' All that is
required for an importer is that an importer has to cooperate. Let me
emphasize this for my colleagues. It says:

If an importer or retailer fails to cooperate with the
Customs Service in an investigation to determine if there was
a violation of any provision of this section, the Customs
Service shall base its determination on the best available
information.

The only time this ``best available information'' is even utilized is
where the importer has not been willing to cooperate. I think that is
entirely reasonable. The Senator refers to these penalties as
draconian, as too severe. Let's remember what this bill does. It gives
these importers a golden opportunity, a new opportunity to make a lot
of money through these new trade opportunities with Africa. I do not
think it is draconian to ask these importers to take reasonable steps
to avoid the kind of abuse China obviously intends to pursue in this
area.
The penalty for the first offense is a civil penalty in the amount
equal to 200 percent of declared value of merchandise, plus forfeiture
of merchandise. In light of the new opportunities this gives these
importers, I do not see this as draconian. I see this as a penalty that
is commensurate with the kind of opportunities they are provided. I
assume these importers in good faith do not want to facilitate
Chinese circumvention of our laws and our quotas. I assume their goal
is a good-faith desire to make a profit by trading with these African
countries. So we need to do something other than what is the current
law, and all the bill does in its current form is reiterate the current
law that does not work because it relies on foreign officials to
certify these products are really African goods.

That is not good enough. We need to place some responsibility on the
importer who is subject to American law. This is the critical point.
Either we are going to simply pass this bill, which, frankly, already
is very unbalanced and not sufficient to protect American workers, or
we are going to try to fix it. Surely, one area we need to fix is this
transshipment problem.
Let me quote, again, these web sites of the People's Republic of
China, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. They say,
about the current law which this bill continues:

There are many opportunities for Chinese business people in
Africa. Setting up assembly plants with Chinese equipment and
personnel could not only greatly increase sales in African
countries, but also circumvent the quotas imposed on
commodities of Chinese origin imposed by European and
American countries.

The opposition to this amendment simply wants to allow the Chinese
Government to continue this program. They provide no tough penalties,
no obligation for people we can do something about, such as importers
and people under American law. They want to let the good times roll for
these Chinese companies and governments that are trying to undercut
American jobs.
I think that is wrong. Clearly, if there is anything should be
adopted, it should be some cracking down on the extremely abusive
practice of transshipping. Let's not let these African countries be
pawns for the Chinese goal of undercutting American jobs.
Our amendment will strengthen this bill. It certainly will not weaken
the bill. It will make the bill a much more honest attempt to make sure
this fosters a trade relationship between the United States and the
countries of Africa--not a conduit for Chinese abuse of American
quotas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask consent it be in order for me to move
to table the following amendment----

Amendment No. 2483

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator withhold? When he moves
to table, that will terminate all debate, as I understand it.
I want to offer one more amendment. But with respect to the
environmental amendment, it is clear the distinguished chairman of
Finance says: Look, this environmental side agreement we had in NAFTA
would now discourage investment. It didn't discourage investment in
Mexico and didn't discourage investment in Canada. It would not
discourage investment. What we are saying is before you open up as
compared to the CBI, you have to have clean air and clean water and the
environmental protection statements. You have to have all of these
particular requirements. But, by the way, if you want to get rid of
them, then go down to the CBI.
The message is clear. This is what you might call the Job Export Act
of 1999.

Amendment No. 2485

(Purpose: To require the negotiation of a reciprocal trade agreement
lowering tariffs on imports of U.S. goods with a country before
benefits are received under this Act by that country)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2485, relative to
reciprocity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an
amendment numbered 2485:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS REQUIRED.

The benefits provided by the amendments made by this Act
shall not be available to any country until the President has
negotiated, obtained, and implemented an agreement with the
country providing tariff concessions for the importation of
United States-made goods that reduce any such import tariffs
to rates identical to the tariff rates applied by the United
States to that country.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is a matter of reciprocity. We have
that working, as they can tell you, wonderful success with Canada and
Mexico; reciprocity on all the trade items.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of tariffs in the Caribbean,
Sub-Sahara Africa, and the tariffs and other taxes on computer hardware
and software printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
In percent as high as
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textile Tariffs in the Caribbean

Dominican Republic.................... 43 (Includes 8% VAT).
El Salvador........................... 37.5 (Includes 12% VAT).
Honduras.............................. 35 (Includes 10% VAT).
Guatemala............................. 40 (Includes 10% VAT).
Costa Rica............................ 39 (Includes 13% VAT).
Haiti................................. 29.
Jamaica............................... 40 (Includes 15% general
consumption tax).
Nicaragua............................. 35 (Includes 15% VAT).
Trinidad & Tobago..................... 40 (Includes 15% VAT).

Textile Tariffs in Africa

Southern Africa Customs Union (South 74 (Includes 14% VAT for South
Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia Africa).
and Swaziland).
Central African Republic.............. 30.
Cameroon.............................. 30.
Chad.................................. 30.
Congo................................. 30.
Ethiopia.............................. 80.
Gabon................................. 30.
Ghana................................. 25.
Kenya................................. 80 (Includes 18% VAT).
Mauritius............................. 88.
Nigeria............................... 55 (Includes 5% VAT).
Tanzania.............................. 40.
Zimbabwe.............................. 200.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORLDWIDE TARIFFS AND TAXES ON COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardware Software
Country tariff (in tariff (in Other taxes
percent) percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Angola..................................... (\1\) 15 1% surcharge.
Benin...................................... (\1\) 18 5% customs.

[[Page S13665]]

Botswana................................... 0 18 14% VAT.
Cameroon................................... 10 10 15% tax on software, 10% on
hardware.
Congo...................................... 15 15 15% tax on software, 10% on
hardware.
Cote d'Ivoire.............................. 5 5 11% VAT on software, 20% on
hardware.
Ethiopia................................... 0 50 None.
Gabon...................................... 10 10 5% tax.
Ghana...................................... 10 25 35% customs tax and 40% entry tax
on software, 22.5% on hardware.
Kenya...................................... 31 50 18% VAT.
Lesotho.................................... 0 18 14% VAT.
Malawi..................................... 30 45 20% surcharge.
Mauritius.................................. 15 18 8% surcharge.
Mozambique................................. 7.5 35 30% tax on computer discs.
Namibia.................................... 0 18 14% VAT.
Nigeria.................................... 10 25 5% VAT, 7% surcharge.
Senegal.................................... 20 20 20% VAT.
South Africa............................... 0 0 14% VAT.
Sudan...................................... 0 40 None.
Swaziland.................................. 0 18 14% VAT.
Tanzania................................... 20 30 30% sales tax 5% surtax.
Zambia..................................... 15 25 20% sales tax.
Zimbabwe................................... 15 40 10% surtax.
Caribbean Basin:
Bahamas.................................... 15 35 4% stamp tax.
Belize..................................... 5 35 15% VAT.
Colombia................................... 5 5 16% VAT.
Costa Rica................................. 2 7.5 13% VAT.
Dominican Republic......................... 10 30 8% sales tax.
El Salvador................................ 0 10 13% VAT.
Guatemala.................................. 0 10 10% VAT.
Honduras................................... 1 19 7% VAT.
Jamaica.................................... 5 5 15% general consumption tax.
Nicaragua.................................. 0 10 15% VAT.
Panama..................................... 5 15 5% VAT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Tariffs on textiles, the 10-percent tariff, which is
ready to be blended out, in the blending out and termination of the
Multifiber Arrangement in the next 5 years. Be that as it may, we have,
in the Dominican Republic a tariff of 43 percent plus 8 percent VAT; El
Salvador, 37.5 plus; Honduras, 35 percent plus; Guatemala, 40 percent;
Costa Rica, 39; Jamaica, 40; Nicaragua, 35; 40 percent to Trinidad. We
have a similar group of tariffs with respect to the tariffs in Africa:
the Central African Republic, 30 percent; Cameroon, 30; Chad, 30;
Congo, 30; Ethiopia, 80 percent; Gabon, 30 percent; Ghana, 25; Kenya,
80 percent; Mauritius, 88; Nigeria, 55 percent; Tanzania, 40; Zimbabwe,
200 percent.
I plead for reciprocity. I plead for the information revolution,
which somehow bypassed me according to this morning's editorial in the
Wall Street Journal.
With respect to tariffs on computer hardware and software, we are
trying to make sure they do not do transshipments, as the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin has pointed out, and in turn, include such
tariffs as: Ethiopia, 50 percent on computer hardware and software;
Ghana, 25 percent, plus a 35-percent customs tax, plus a 40-percent
entry tax on software and a 12.5-percent complementary tax on hardware.
They are keeping out these advancements due to these high tariffs.
This will help not just the African countries, but protect the computer
information age material.
In Lesoto, 18 percent plus a 14-percent VAT.
In Malawi, 45-percent tariff plus a 20-percent surcharge.
In Mozambique, 35-percent tariff plus a 30-percent tax on computer
disks, a 5-percent circulation tax.
In Senegal, 20 percent with a 20-percent VAT plus 5-percent stamp
tax, for a total of 45 percent.
In Sudan, 40 percent.
In Tanzania, 30 percent plus a 30-percent sales tax plus a 5-percent
surtax. That is a 65-percent tax.
In Zambia, 25 percent and a 20-percent sales tax.
In Zimbabwe, a 40-percent tariff plus a 10-percent surcharge, for a
total of 50 percent.
Going down that list, we have traded a lot of things, and this does
not just relegate itself to textiles, it relegates itself to all trade.
The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is pointing out, very
appropriately, the transshipments. We encourage the transshipments
without reciprocity. That is why we put it into NAFTA. It should be
part of this. We voted on this. It was supported by the distinguished
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member with NAFTA. I
do not see why they cannot support it now rather than moving to table
the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose this Hollings amendment for three
reasons.
The first reason, as I have stated previously, is that the purpose of
this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the Caribbean,
and Central America by offering these poverty-stricken countries a
measure of preferential access to our market. The amendment would
undermine the effort by making eligibility explicitly dependent on the
offer of reciprocal benefits to the United States equivalent to those
to which the United States is entitled under NAFTA.
The underlying requirements of the African-CBI provisions of the
Finance Committee's substitute do encourage the beneficiary countries
to remove barriers to trade. The existing requirements also impose an
affirmative obligation to avoid discrimination against U.S. products in
the beneficiary country's trade. What the Finance Committee substitute
does not require is market access equivalent to that of NAFTA, a
standard that even the WTO members among these beneficiary countries
could not currently satisfy.
The second reason I oppose the amendment is that the Finance
Committee already instructs the President to begin the process of
negotiating with the beneficiary country under both programs for trade
agreements that would provide reciprocal market access to the United
States as well as a still more solid foundation with a long-term
economic relationship between the United States and its African,
Caribbean, and Central American neighbors.
Under the Africa provisions of the bill, the President is instructed
to assess the prospects for such agreement and is called on to
establish a regional economic forum. That forum could prove
instrumental in solving market access problems that U.S. firms may face
currently as well as a forum for any eventual negotiation.
Under the CBI provisions of the bill, the Finance Committee sought to
encourage our Caribbean-Central American trading partners to join with
us in pressing for the early conclusion and implementation of the free
trade agreements of the Americas. Each of the beneficiary countries of
the CBI program has played an active and constructive role in those
talks today.
In both Africa and the CBI, we are making progress in opening markets
and eliminating barriers to United States trade. The fact that we do
not currently enjoy precisely those benefits offered by Canada and
Mexico in

[[Page S13666]]

the context of the NAFTA is no bar to action here.
Finally, the bill does encourage reciprocity where it really counts
in the context of this bill. By encouraging the use of U.S. fabric and
U.S. yarn in the assembly of apparel products bound for the United
States, the bill establishes a solid economic partnership between
industry and the United States and firms in the beneficiary country.
That provides real benefits to American firms and workers in the
textile industry by establishing the platform by which American textile
makers can compete worldwide. That is precisely the benefit our
industry most seeks in the context of our growing economic relationship
with both regions.
In short, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to
move to table the following amendments with one show of seconds. The
amendments are: Hollings No. 2379, Feingold No. 2428, Hollings No.
2483, and Hollings No. 2485. I further ask unanimous consent that these
votes occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 3:45, with the time
between now and then equally divided in the usual form; there be no
other amendments in order prior to the votes; there be 4 minutes
equally divided just before each vote; and the votes occur in the order
in which the amendments were called up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I had indicated we
would like a chance to offer our amendment at about this time. I
inquire if this agreement could include an agreement to allow Senator
Grassley and me time to present our amendment before these votes.
Mr. ROTH. All these amendments are going to be disposed of by a
tabling motion.
Mr. CONRAD. I understand that. What I am inquiring is whether or not,
as part of this agreement, the Senator can indicate that Senator
Grassley and I will have a chance to offer our amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Before or after the vote?
Mr. CONRAD. Before the vote. We will be happy to take a vote as part
of that sequence or have it at a later point, but that we at least have
a chance, since we are both here, to present our amendment before these
votes are taken.
Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to add the Conrad-Grassley amendment to the
list if it is all right with my colleague.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. May I ask how much time the Senators from Iowa and
North Dakota wish?
Mr. CONRAD. I ask my colleague how much time he wants. May we have 10
minutes, at most, on our side to talk about this amendment?
Mr. ROTH. I then change my proposal to 4 o'clock rather than 3:45,
with the understanding my colleagues will take 10 minutes for their
side of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have a question for the chairman. He
and I talked about my adding another amendment prior to these votes as
well, amendment No. 2406. I also only need 10 minutes. I ask it be
included in the sequence of votes as well.
Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator give me the number of his amendment?
Mr. FEINGOLD. This is No. 2406.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me renew my request. I ask unanimous
consent that it be in order for me to move to table the following
amendments, with one show of seconds. The amendments are: Hollings
amendment No. 2379, Feingold amendment No. 2428, Hollings amendment No.
2483, Hollings amendment No. 2485, Conrad-Grassley amendment No. 2359,
and Feingold amendment No. 2406.
I further ask consent that these votes occur in a stacked sequence
beginning at 4 o'clock, with the time between now and then equally
divided in the usual form, and there be no other amendments in order
prior to the votes, and there be 4 minutes equally divided just before
each vote, and the votes occur in the order in which the amendments
were called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROTH. Each will be a 15-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would ask, to clarify the request,
that the debate on amendments Nos. 2359 and 2406 be limited to 10
minutes per amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my understanding was we were going to get
10 minutes on our side on our amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Yes; 10 minutes.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman modify his request in that regard?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I think he did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair restate its understanding. The
Chair's understanding is, it will be in order for the Senator from
Delaware to move to table the amendments which have been listed, with
one showing of seconds; further, that these votes would occur in a
stacked sequence beginning at 4 p.m.; between now and 4 p.m., however,
amendments Nos. 2359, and 2406 will be allowed to be debated for a
maximum of 10 minutes each. The remaining time until 4 p.m. would be
divided equally as stated in the unanimous consent request.
Is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. That is not correct from our standpoint because our
understanding was we were going to get 10 minutes on our side. As the
Chair has stated it, it would be 10 minutes total debate on our
amendment. So if you could just amend that unanimous consent request to
be that on amendment No. 2359, there be up to 10 minutes on a side--and
we will endeavor not to use that full time--it would be fully
agreeable.
Mr. ROTH. That is satisfactory.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I would ask for the same on the amendment I am
proposing with the expectation we will not use all the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. But, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the votes start
at 4:15, then, instead of 4 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I first congratulate the Chair for having
recapitulated this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Not a small intellectual feat, equal to my
understanding of some of the amendments themselves.
Sir, I am going to make two quick comments. One is anecdotal. I
was involved with the negotiation of the Long-Term Cotton Textile
Agreement under President Kennedy in 1962. This was a major effort. It
was done at the behest of the Southern mill owners and operators, the
producers of cotton textiles, and also of the trade unions that
represented the garment trades, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union
and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, now formed with
another union into UNITE. It was a precondition of getting the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962, the one major piece of legislation of President
Kennedy's first term.

It came and went on to produce what we know as the Kennedy Round.
That sequence of long negotiations, most recently was the Uruguay
Round, which produced the World Trade Organization. There is another
round coming up, we hope, in the aftermath of the Seattle meeting.
Years went by, and I found I was Ambassador to India. On an occasion,
in meeting with the Foreign Minister, I said to him, just curiously: Do
you find that the quota which India received in the American market of
cotton textiles is onerous? It had now been a decade since it was in
place. I asked: Is it a trade restriction that is particularly of
concern to you? Because if it was, I was required to report it back to
Washington.
The Foreign Minister said: Oh, no. That quota guarantees us that much
access to the American market which we would otherwise not have,
because American textile manufacturers are the low-cost producers. We
do not hand loom cotton textiles in this country or wool for that
matter. We have the most advanced machinery in the world.

[[Page S13667]]

Not to know that, to depict us as the potential victims of the
Chinese, with their child labor, does not show any understanding of why
nations have child labor. They do so because they do not have machines.
They do not have the infrastructure of a modern economy.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act requires that the President
certify basically the openness of the trading system, as much as it is
going to be open, of the respective countries. The African Growth Act,
for example, requires that he determine the country involved has
established or is making continual progress towards establishing an
open trading system for the elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and
investment and the resolution of bilateral trade and investment
disputes.
Sir, does anyone wish to name me a nation in the world that would not
be open to American investment today? I would ask my friend, the
chairman of the committee, is he aware of any country in the world that
would refuse American investment?
Mr. ROTH. I would say to the contrary, every country is eager to have
American investment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. They spend their time sending us delegations.
Mr. ROTH. Absolutely.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. There may have been a time--yes, there was, in the era
of a planned economy, in the era of the Soviet Union, in another era.
Are we debating another era?
We are going to ask the President, under one of these amendments--I
have lost track which one--to negotiate 147 reciprocal trade treaties--
147--and then, sir, in one of them--I will not say which, because I do
not think it would be quite fair--but in one of them, for the third act
of imported children's wear, that somehow involves textiles made in the
Far East or wherever, the violation is punishable by a fine of $1
million and 5 years in prison.

Do we send people to prison for the mislabeling of cotton goods? I
mean, heavens, a little balance, a little perspective. We are talking
about marginal producers on the margin of the world economy, trying to
give them a hand. In the case of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we are
trying to do what President Reagan said was only fair and balanced: If
we were going to have the North American Free Trade Agreement, it
should not close out Central America and the Caribbean.
I hope we will proceed as long as we have to with such amendments,
but I hope some perspective will be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would note, in order to comply with
the time agreement previously agreed to, the Conrad amendment would be
called up at this time.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

amendment No. 2359

(Purpose: To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade adjustment
assistance to farmers)

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, the Conrad-
Grassley amendment, amendment No. 2359, that has been previously filed
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and
Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 2359.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to give full
consideration to this amendment. I consider this a fairness amendment
because this amendment, which would extend trade adjustment assistance
to farmers, says we ought to be giving them the protection we already
give other folks who work for a living.
Right now we have trade adjustment assistance on the books. It is
law. If you are working on a job, and you lose your job because of a
flood of unfairly traded imports, you have a chance to get back on your
feet. But farmers are left out. Farmers are excluded because farmers do
not lose their job when they are faced with a flood of unfairly traded
imports. Instead, they are faced with a dramatic drop in income.
Instead, I would like to run through a number of charts that show the
conditions facing American farmers today.
This shows what has happened to prices over the last 53 years. These
are wheat and barley prices. These are in real terms, inflation
adjusted, constant dollars. We have the lowest prices in 53 years. One
reason is a flood of unfairly traded Canadian imports.
This is the result. This chart shows what the cost of production is.
That is the green line. The red line shows what prices for wheat have
been over the last 3 years.
Colleagues, wheat prices are far below the cost of production and
have been for over 3 years, again partly because of a flood of Canadian
imports unfairly traded.
The question is, Are we going to help farmers the same way we help
other workers who are faced with this condition? I hope we say yes. I
hope we recognize that it is simple fairness to extend the same
protection to farmers we extend to other folks who are working for a
living in this country.
This amendment is carefully crafted. It is limited to $10,000 per
farmer per year with an overall cap cost of $100 million that is fully
and completely paid for. We have an offset.
Interestingly, it is one of those rare circumstances where our offset
is supported by the industry that would be paying. We have an offset
that affects the real estate investment trust. It is supported by the
real estate industry. They are willing to pay a little something more
to get what they consider is a fair result. It is the same provision
that was in the President's tax bill. It is the same provision that has
had support on other matters before the Senate but not included in any
final packages.
This matter is completely and fully offset. It simply allows that in
a circumstance where the price of a commodity has dropped by over 20
percent as certified by the Secretary of Agriculture and where imports
contributed importantly to this price drop, farmers will then be
eligible for trade adjustment assistance.
This is the same standard the Department of Labor uses to determine
whether workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance when they
lose their jobs. In order to be eligible, farmers would have to
demonstrate their net farm income has declined from the previous year,
and they would need to meet with the Extension Service to plan how to
adjust the import competition.
If all of those conditions are met, training and employment benefits
available to workers would then be available to farmers as an option.
My colleague, Senator Grassley, is the cosponsor of this amendment
and has played a key role in its development. I know he has words he
would like to say about this measure as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment
I am sponsoring with Senator Conrad to establish a new, limited Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program for farmers and fishermen. There are two
key reasons why this new program is so necessary, and why Senator
Conrad and I are offering this legislation.
The first and most important reason is that the existing Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program simply does not work for farmers. When a
sudden surge in imports of an agricultural commodity dramatically
lowers prices for that commodity, and sharply reduces the net income
for family farmers, these farmers are undeniably hurt by import
competition.
They are just as hurt as steel workers, or auto workers, or textile
workers who experience the same thing. But because farmers lose income,
but not their jobs, they do not qualify for the existing Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers program. The reduction in family farm
income from important competition hurts farmers in a very serious way,
because it comes at a time when farmers desperately need cash
assistance to repay their operating loans and adjust to the import
competition.
The second reason why I offer this legislation is to correct an
inequity that should not continue. The inequity is that it is clear
that President Kennedy, who designed the original Trade

[[Page S13668]]

Adjustment Assistance program as part of the Trade Expansion Act of
1962, clearly intended farmers to benefit from the program, just as
much as other workers hurt as a result of a federal policy to reduce
barriers to foreign trade. In his message to the Congress on the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962, President Kennedy spoke about his Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program. In fact, in his March 12, 1962 message,
he referred to farmers at least three times.
Here is part of what President Kennedy said.

I am recommending as an essential part of the new trade
program that companies, farmers, and workers who suffer
damage from increased foreign import competition be assisted
in their efforts to adjust to that competition. When
considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid
higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not
be required to bear the brunt of the impact. Rather, the
burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the
Federal Government.

What President Kennedy said was so important I want to emphasize what
he said: those who are injured by the national trade policies of the
United States should not bear the brunt of the impact. And trade
adjustment assistance should be available for companies, farmers, and
workers.
Mr. President, this is simply an issue of fairness. Basic American
fairness. The United States has lead the world in liberalizing trade.
We started this process of global trade liberalization in 1947, when
most of the world was reeling from the enormous physical and economic
devastation of World War Two. We saw then that the way to avoid this
type of catastrophe in the future was to bring nations closer together
through peaceful trade and open markets. That process has been
spectacularly successful. Through eight series, or rounds, of
multilateral trade negotiations, we have scrapped ten of thousands of
tariffs. Many non-tariff trade barriers have been torn down. Others
have been sharply reduced. The result of 50 years of trade
liberalization has been the creation of enormous wealth and prosperity,
and millions of new jobs. But not everyone has prospered.
Some have been injured by this deliberate policy of free trade and
open markets. And that's exactly why President Kennedy and the 87th
Congress created the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. To help those
injured by our national policy of free trade and open markets adjust to
their changing circumstances with limited assistance.
President Kennedy's Secretary of Labor, Arthur J. Goldberg put it the
best. Secretary Goldberg said:

As a humane Government, we recognize our responsibility to
provide adequate assistance to those who may be injured by a
deliberately chosen trade policy . . . It is because of the
desire to do justice to the people who are affected. . .

Mr. President, we cannot do justice by helping only some of the
people affected by our national trade policy. We cannot do justice by
ignoring farmers. We must do justice by ignoring farmers. We must reach
out to everyone, including farmers, just as President Kennedy
envisioned. Now, I know there are some in this Chamber who believe that
we should wait to make changes in the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program until we can do a full review of the entire TAA program.
I do not agree with that view, for a very fundamental reason. We are
only about four weeks away from the start of the WTO Ministerial
Conference in Seattle. In Seattle, the United States will help launch
the ninth series, or round, of multilateral trade negotiations since
1947.
A key goal of the Seattle Ministerial will be to liberalize world
agricultural markets even more. This will mean increased import
competition for American agricultural products, not less. Farmers have
always been among the strongest supporters of free trade, because so
much of what they produce is sold in the international marketplace.
The income our farm families earn in these foreign markets sustains
our economy, and contributes greatly to our national well-being. But
farm support for free trade cannot, and should not, be taken for
granted.
As I said in support of this legislation last week, we are in the
worst farm crisis since the depression of the 1930s. Now, low commodity
prices are not caused exclusively by import competition. But it is
certainly a contributing factor to these historically low prices.
If we lose the support of the farm community for free trade, Mr.
President, I doubt that we will be able to win congressional approval
for any new trade concessions that may be negotiated in the new round
of trade talks. So this is all about fairness. It is about equality. It
is about common sense.
For all of these reasons, and because, as Labor Secretary Goldberg
said 37 years ago, we must recognize our responsibility as a humane
government, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment
(#2359) proposed by Senators Conrad and Grassley which would tailor the
Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that it helps farmers and
fishermen--two groups that are not adequately assisted under the
current TAA program.
I voted for this amendment at the Finance Committee markup, and was
disappointed that it failed by a narrow margin. But I am pleased that
Senators Conrad and Grassley persevered in pushing this important issue
forward. I also want to thank the authors of this amendment for working
with my staff to ensure that the provisions cover fishermen in Alaska
and Louisiana and other areas along with farmers in the Midwest because
these two groups face similar problems.
Finally, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance
Committee, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, for accepting this
amendment today. I urge them to insist on retaining this language at
conference with our House colleagues.
I have long been an advocate of opening markets abroad for U.S.
exporters, and putting in place rules to facilitate trade between the
nations. I voted for the NAFTA and the Uruguay Round. I support the
Finance Committee managers' amendment to the underlying bill which will
change our focus in Africa from aid to trade, will give the Caribbean
nations parity in their trade with the United States. In addition, I
support reauthorizing two important programs; the Trade Adjustment
Assistance program and the Generalized System of Preferences program.
But even as we pursue liberalized trade initiatives, we must work
harder to help Americans adjust to a changing business climate that is
often affected by events half way around the World. For while we can
take pride in an historically low unemployment rate nationwide that
occurred partly as a result of our open and innovative workplace and
trading rules, certain sectors and certain parts of the country are
still facing employment losses or income losses as a result of low
worldwide commodity prices. Fishermen and Farmers fall in this
category.
Let me just use one example. An Alaskan fishing Sockeye Salmon was
getting $1.18 per pound in 1996. But last year, that price had sunk to
85 cents--a 28% drop, and a 17% drop over the five-year average. And
the drop came in the face of rising imports. Foreign imports of seafood
have steadily risen since 1992 while exports have steadily fallen over
the same period.
The current TAA program is better suited to traditional manufacturing
firms and workers, than to farmers and fishermen. When imports cause
layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers are eligible for TAA. In
my own state of Alaska, TAA has played an important role both in the
oil industry and for the seafood processors. But an independent
fisherman does not go to the dock and receive a pink slip, he goes to
the radio and hears the latest price for salmon, and he knows that his
family's livelihood is threatened. TAA has not been available in his
circumstances.
As the authors of this amendment have explained, the TAA for Farmers
and Fishers would set up a new program where individual farmers could
apply for assistance if two criteria are met.
First, the national average price for the commodity for the year
dropped more than 20% compared to the average price in the previous
five years.
Second, imports ``contributed importantly'' to the price reduction.
If these two criteria are met, fishermen would be eligible for cash
benefits based on the fishermen's loss of income. The cash benefits
would be

[[Page S13669]]

capped at $10,000 per fisherman. Retraining and other TAA benefits
available to workers under TAA also would be available to fishermen
interested in leaving for some other occupation.
Mr. President, I believe that this change in the TAA program is long
overdue. Again, I want to stress that the traditional TAA program still
plays an important role, and I do not want to diminish its current
role--but to expand it. The TAA program averts the need for more money
in unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps and other
unemployment programs--in short, it keeps Americans employed and able
to support themselves and their families.
Let me end, Mr. President, by returning to a few points on the
underlying bill. It is unfortunate, in my view, that this might be the
only piece of trade legislation that we move this entire Congress.
As you might guess, trade with Africa and the Caribbean Basin
countries is not that important to Alaska. I am deeply disappointed
that we are not looking at a WTO agreement with China. I continue to
believe that President Clinton made a mistake by rejecting the deal
that was put together in April, and might not ever get put back
together in the same manner. I am also deeply disappointed that we have
not considered trade negotiating authority that would be a strong vote
of confidence as our negotiators head to the Seattle Round.
Nevertheless, I commend the Chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Roth, and the Ranking Member, Senator Moynihan, and our
Majority Leader for bringing this legislation to the floor. Perhaps, if
we are able to move forward on this piece of legislation, the logjam
will be broken. Let's hope.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in view of the very persuasive arguments of
my two colleagues, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the prior
consent agreement regarding the Conrad-Grassley amendment, that the
amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my chairman in saying this is a
valuable amendment. Having been involved in drafting the legislation in
1962 which created the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, I think this is
an important extension of the same principle.
It is altogether agreeable to this Senator. I hope there will be no
objection.
Mr. GRASSLEY. We thank the Senator very much.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Thank me?
Mr. GRASSLEY. All of you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2359) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member
for their support of the amendment. We appreciate it very much.
I think this amendment is a matter of fairness. I deeply appreciate
the response today. I hope this will prevail through the conference. I
have the utmost confidence in the chairman's ability to persuade our
colleagues over on the House side of the merits of this amendment.
I again thank the chairman. I thank our ranking member, who all along
has recognized that this is a logical extension of trade adjustment
assistance we provide other workers in our economy.
I thank also my cosponsor, Senator Grassley from Iowa. He and I have
worked together closely not only on this amendment but many other
matters as well. I thank him very much for his leadership and support.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be made an original cosponsor of amendment
No. 2408 relating to anticorruption efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2406

(Purpose: To ensure that the trade benefits accrue to firms and workers
in sub-Saharan Africa)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2406.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) proposes an
amendment numbered 2406.

Mr. FEINGOLD. 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:

Strike Sec. 111 and insert the following:

SEC. 111. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506 the following new
section:

``SEC. 506A. DESIGNATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR
CERTAIN BENEFITS.

``(a) Authority to Designate.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the President is authorized to designate a country
listed in section 4 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act
as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country eligible for the
benefits described in subsection (b), if the President
determines that the country--
``(A) has established, or is making continual progress
toward establishing--
``(i) a market-based economy, where private property rights
are protected and the principles of an open, rules-based
trading system are observed;
``(ii) a democratic society, where the rule of law,
political freedom, participatory democracy, and the right to
due process and a fair trial are observed;
``(iii) an open trading system through the elimination of
barriers to United States trade and investment and the
resolution of bilateral trade and investment disputes; and
``(iv) economic policies to reduce poverty, increase the
availability of health care and educational opportunities,
expand physical infrastructure, and promote the establishment
of private enterprise;
``(B) does not engage in gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights or provide support
for acts of international terrorism and cooperates in
international efforts to eliminate human rights violations
and terrorist activities.
``(C) subject to the authority granted to the President
under section 502 (a), (d), and (e), otherwise satisfies the
eligibility criteria set forth in section 502;
``(D) has established that the cost or value of the textile
or apparel product produced in the country, or by companies
in any 2 or more sub-Saharan African countries, plus the
direct costs of processing operations performed in the
country or such countries, is not less than 60 percent of the
appraised value of the produce at the time it is entered into
the customs territory of the United States; and
``(E) has established that not less than 90 percent of
employees in business enterprises producing the textile and
apparel goods are citizens of that country, or any 2 or more
sub-Saharan African countries.
``(2) Monitoring and review of certain countries.--The
President shall monitor and review the progress of each
country listed in section 4 of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1) in order to determine the current or
potential eligibility of each country to be designated as
a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for purposes of
subsection (a). The President shall include the reasons
for the President's determinations in the annual report
required by section 105 of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act.
``(3) Continuing compliance.--If the President determines
that a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country is not making
continual progress in meeting the requirements described in
paragraph (1), the President shall terminate the designation
of that country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country
for purposes of this section, effective on January 1 of the
year following the year in which such determination is made.
``(b) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
``(1) In general.--The President may provide duty-free
treatment for any article described in section 503(b)(1) (B)
through (G) (except for textile luggage) that is the growth,
product, or manufacture of a beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country described in subsection (a), if, after receiving the
advice of the International Trade Commission in accordance
with section 503(e), the President determines that such
article is not import-sensitive in the context of imports
from beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
``(2) Rules of origin.--The duty-free treatment provided
under paragraph (1) shall apply to any article described in
that paragraph that meets the requirements of section
503(a)(2), except that--
``(A) if the cost or value of materials produced in the
customs territory of the United States is included with
respect to that article, an amount not to exceed 15 percent
of the appraised value of the article at the time it is
entered that is attributed to such United States cost or
value may be applied toward determining the percentage
referred to in subparagraph (A) of section 503(a)(2); and
``(B) the cost or value of the materials included with
respect to that article that are produced in one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries shall be applied in
determining such percentage.

[[Page S13670]]

``(c) Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries, etc.--For
purposes of this title, the terms `beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country' and `beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries' mean a country or countries listed in section 4 of
the African Growth and Opportunity Act that the President has
determined is eligible under subsection (a) of this
section.''.
``(c) Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries, etc.--For
purposes of this title, the terms `beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country' and `beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries' mean a country or countries listed in section 104
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act that the President
has determined is eligible under subsection (a) of this
section.''.
(b) Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation.--Section
503(c)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(c)(2)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Least-developed beneficiary developing countries and
beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any least-developed beneficiary developing
country or any beneficiary sub-Saharan African country.''.
(c) Termination.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after section 506A, as added by
subsection (a), the following new section:

``SEC. 506B. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN
COUNTRIES.

``In the case of a country listed in section 104 of the
African Growth and Opportunity Act that is a beneficiary
developing country, duty-free treatment provided under this
title shall remain in effect through September 30, 2006.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents for title V
of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 505 the following new items:

``506A. Designation of sub-Saharan African countries for certain
benefits.
``506B. Termination of benefits for sub-Saharan African countries.''.

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the African
Growth and Opportunity Act, we have to keep asking ourselves the key
question: Growth and opportunity for whom?
It is an important question because the Africa trade legislation we
are now considering does not require that Africans themselves be
employed at the firms that are going to receive the trade benefits. In
fact, AGOA, as it now stands, actually takes a step backwards for
Africa. The GSP program requires that 35 percent of a product's value
added come from Africa, but this legislation actually lowers the bar to
20 percent.
Under this scheme, it is possible that a product would meet the 20-
percent requirement and qualify for AGOA benefits. For example, if non-
African workers physically standing in West Africa simply sewed a
``Made in Togo'' label on apparel and then shipped it to the United
States, that is all they would have to do. It makes something of a
mockery of how this is supposed to help African countries and African
workers.
This plan undercuts the potential for trade to boost African
employment and encourages transshipment of goods from third countries
seeking to evade quotas. As I said before on the other amendment, the
U.S. Customs Service has determined that for every $1 billion of
illegally transshipped products that enter the United States, 40,000
jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost.
So this amendment would also fight transshipment but in another way,
requiring that 60 percent of the value added to a product has to come
from Africa. It is a significant improvement over the 20 percent of the
bill. I think it is an appropriate improvement over the 35 percent of
the GSP standard.
This amendment also emphasizes African opportunities. It requires
that any textile firm receiving trade benefits must employ a workforce
that is 90-percent African. This doesn't mean that all 90 percent of
the people have to come from a particular African country where the
company might be or the activity might be, but they do have to be
citizens of an African country.
This provision holds out an incentive to African governments,
businesses, and civil society to develop their human resources. That
would not only be good for Africa; it would be good for America, as
well as our trading partners in the region gaining economic strength.
Without these amendments, this legislation offers neither growth nor
opportunity to Africans themselves. In fact, unless the Senate makes
these changes, we will simply see a continuation of a disturbing trend.
In the first 4 years of this decade, corporate profits in Africa
average 24 to 30 percent compared with 16 to 18 percent for all
developing countries. But real wages in Africa continue to fall, as
they have for nearly three decades now. The number of African families
unable to meet their basic needs has doubled. It would be irresponsible
to pass an African trade bill that reinforced this dangerous disconnect
between corporate profits and African wages.
I know my colleagues who support the African Growth and Opportunity
Act do so because they genuinely want to engage with the continent. I
share their goal, and I believe this amendment would push U.S. Africa
policy in that direction by linking economic growth and human
development protecting both African and American interests.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Feingold's
amendment which incorporates provisions of S. 1636, the HOPE for Africa
Act.
Frankly, this legislation would be better described as the ``No
Growth and No Opportunity Act.'' Even a cursory reading of the
provisions reflect an intent to throttle any form of productive
investment in Africa. Rather than offering the nations of sub-Saharan
Africa the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty on their own
terms, this bill says Africa will have to do so on our terms or not at
all.
Let me explain why.
The sponsors of the bill have made two principal arguments on its
behalf: First, that it would expand trade; second, that it would yield
responsible investment in Africa. In fact, the bill would have the
opposite effect on both counts. The bill would actually impose greater
restrictions on trade with Africa than would currently be the case and
would actively discourage any form of private investment.
For example, under the current GSP program, the rules require that
products from beneficiary countries must contain 35-percent value added
for the beneficiary country to qualify; and the HOPE for Africa bill
would raise that to 60 percent, which would effectively end any
prospects for firms in African countries that hope to enter into
production-sharing arrangements for the assembly of products in Africa.
Current law does not impose any requirement that all employees of an
enterprise be from the beneficiary country for the company's product to
qualify. But the HOPE for Africa bill would dictate that 90 percent of
the employees of any enterprise producing textile and apparel goods
must be citizens of beneficiary countries. In other words, no legal
residents or immigrants would be employed in these plants above a
certain set limit.
How, I wonder, would the U.S. Customs Service enforce these
provisions? Would U.S. Customs have to investigate and certify every
plant in advance? Would Customs have to require reports on all new
hires by the individual enterprise? Or would Customs have to be
involved in the individual firm's hiring decisions from the start in
order to be sure the firm was precisely at 90-percent employment from
beneficiary countries?
In short, the amendment does exactly the opposite of what it purports
to do. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in response to the chairman's remarks, I
believe those provisions would be enforceable. We already have a
mechanism where an import's country of origin must be verified. The
consent must also be verified. I suggest we use the same mechanisms in
place to certify African value content. In fact, it was indicated under
GSP that it is a 35-percent requirement and under this bill is a 20-
percent requirement.
The question doesn't seem to be whether we can enforce it or identify
it; the question seems to be, What should the percentage be?
In response to the broader point that somehow this is going to be
unfair to the countries of Africa, it is just the opposite. What we are
trying to avoid

[[Page S13671]]

with this amendment is, in effect, the exploitation of African
countries as a way for other countries to get away with something they
can do right now very easily; for example, the Chinese willingness here
to use transshipment through African companies to undercut American
jobs. All we are trying to do is have a reasonable assurance, in two
ways, that Africans are actually having a chance to do the work and
they are actually contributing to the product.
A 60-percent requirement is not 100 percent, it is a reasonable
level. It still leaves room for joint activities with other entities.
And a 90-percent requirement is not restricted, as the chairman has
suggested, to one country, but 90 percent have to be African citizens
of any one of the over 50 African countries. It still leaves a 10-
percent possibility for workers from other countries. If we don't do
this, this proposal has nothing to do with making sure African workers
get an opportunity to have a decent living and to have these economic
opportunities. This bill has to be a two-way street at some level, Mr.
President; it is not that now. This amendment is a good-faith effort to
make it more balanced and to be fairer to African workers. I strongly
suggest it is a modest step that needs to be taken to improve this
bill.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I don't wish to suggest there is
anything but good intentions behind all these measures. But to
introduce the idea of--is it citizenship we are talking about,
ancestry, or what? What is an African, sir? South Africa would be part
of the arrangements in this African Growth Act.
Suppose there was a plant in Johannesburg that was owned by the
descendants of Dutch settlers who arrived in the 17th century; some of
the managers were Indian persons who had emigrated in the 19th century
under the British Empire--under the British Empire, people moved all
over the world. We recently had the great honor of meeting, just off
the Senate Chamber, with heads of state from the Caribbean area, and
the President of Trinidad and Tobago is of Indian ancestry. That is
very normal. Indians moved to California, having gone to the British
Empire and gone to Canada and were coming down. And suppose there were
Zulu workers there--African, obviously, but they are more recent
arrivals than most.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I wish to ask a question. Our bill only provides that
90 percent of the people who work in the firm have to be citizens of an
African country. It does not suggest in any way anything about their
ethnic or racial background. I am very sensitive to that. I wonder if
the Senator is aware that that is the only requirement, so anyone who
is a citizen of any one of the African countries, regardless of their
background, would be within the 90 percent.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am aware of that, and I recognize that is a very
reasonable thought. But I do know, from some experience in that part of
the world, that citizenship is not a standard statutory entitlement of
the individual, as it would be--well, even in our country, if you come
here, you have to go through a great deal to become a citizen. If you
are born here, you already are. That can be a very ambiguous situation,
sir. I don't know.
May I ask my friend, are Mauritians Africans or Indians? One of the
big issues, I can say to the Presiding Officer, is that in Mauritius a
considerable textile trade has developed with Mauritian sponsors and
Chinese migrant workers. Are Mauritians Africans?
Mr. FEINGOLD. If you are suggesting they are citizens of Mauritius,
for the purposes of this bill, they would certainly qualify as people
who could be counted within the 90 percent.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. If you are on the Indian Ocean, how sure are you that
you are in Africa?
Mr. FEINGOLD. It is the definition of African countries as set forth
in the bill. I believe that would be in the list of countries.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I get to the point, and I don't make it in any hostile
manner. I just say the complexities of the world, just that part of it,
are very considerable. I am reluctant to see such categories enter
trade law. No one has ever asked whether the products of the American
clothing workshops in New York City were made by American citizens.
There surely would have been a time when the majority--or many of
them--were not American citizens at all. They would have come from what
would become Poland, and there was no concept of citizenship for the
occupants of the shtetls. I just suggest there is considerable
ambiguity. I don't wish to press the matter.

I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in response to that, I recognize the
argument regarding American history. Surely there is a different
scenario when we talk about African countries.
The problem I am trying to address--and I appreciate the Senator's
point--is that we are fearful, with good reason, that African countries
will be used as a conduit to allow the kind of activity the Chinese
entities obviously intend to pursue, which is to essentially run these
products through an African country, stamp the label on it, not really
let Africans play a significant role in producing the product, and
undercut our quota laws. That is the reason for doing this. I don't
think it is particularly difficult to administer or to do when we
suggest we are talking here about citizenship of an African country
without any other criteria.
We do allow for migration in Africa. We allow for Africa seeking out
opportunities where they find them. We are trying to make sure this is
some nexus between this legislation and the opportunities for Africans
to benefit, as well as large corporations that may benefit. This is an
attempt to make the bill better. I think it is one that is not too
difficult to achieve.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me join in with the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin.
One of the areas I am trying to find with respect to the amount of
work or the amount of production or percent of production of an
article, it was found by merely placing the label on the article
because one had to unload, load back, and assimilate in a particular
way in order to get the label. The mere labeling was considered to be
20 percent. That would have complied with parts of this particular CBI/
Sub-Sahara bill.
The requirement of the Senator from Wisconsin at 60 percent makes
sure we can't get this specious argument about the percentage and the
extra work of loading and unloading and putting it through a different
set of machinery, tools, adding a label. That constitutes 20 percent. I
understand the intent is to get investment and jobs with respect to the
Caribbean Basin and with respect to the sub-Sahara countries. There is
no question it is well considered. It ought to be at least 60 percent,
as called for by Senator Feingold's amendment.
With respect to my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from
New York, dramatically asking the question, Can anybody name a country
where they don't want American investment? That is very easily done. Go
to Japan. They started this. Companies still can't get investment there
unless the investment doesn't pay off as an investment. Companies have
to have a license technology, make sure the jobs are there, make sure
the profits stay there.
We have been trying to invade the Japanese market for 50 years
without success. They have their Ministry of Finance. They have their
Ministry of Industry and Trade (MITI). There is no question, companies
can't get in there.
Go to China. Ask Boeing how they got in China. Read the book ``One
World Ready or Not.'' It was pointed out, 40 percent of the Boeing 777
parts are not made up in Seattle or anywhere in the United States; they
are made by investments in China. How do those investments happen? They
said yes, you

[[Page S13672]]

can invest here if you license the technology, if you produce the parts
and create the jobs here and keep your profits here. That is fine
business.
To the rhetorical question, Does anyone know of a country that
doesn't want the American dollar? That is what they are talking about.
I can tell Members, as we look at the stock market, they are going from
the American dollar to the Japanese yen or to the Deutsche mark. We
will be devaluing that dollar shortly at the rate of $300 billion trade
deficit and $127 billion fiscal deficit. We did not run a surplus at
the end of September; we ran a deficit of $127 billion. That is
according to the Treasury's own figures we submitted.
Yes, I can answer that question readily. These countries don't want
investment unless you can get what I am trying to get. I am trying to
get the jobs. I am trying to get the investment.
Don't tell a southern Governor how to carpetbag. We have been doing
that for years on end. I know it intimately. I have traveled all over
this country trying to solicit and bring industry to South Carolina. I
was the first Governor in the history of this country to go to Latin
America, and later took a gubernatorial mission after the election in
1960 with some 27 State Governors, trying to get investment into South
Carolina. I traveled to Europe. I called on Michelin in June of 1960.
Now we have beautiful plants and the North American headquarters of
Michelin. We can go down the list.
We know how to do it, and the others are doing it to us. We
understand that. However, there is a degree of takeover, so to speak,
or export of these jobs. We cannot afford it, particularly in the
textile area. It will happen in all the other hard industries, as has
been characterized by Fingleton, if this continues.
Rather than talk about the agriculture getting a special trade
representative--agriculture is never left out. The Secretary of
Agriculture is always there, the special trade representative, the
export-import financing is there; everything is there for agriculture.
I don't mind them putting this amendment on there, but it points up, if
Members get politically the right support, they can get their amendment
accepted around here even though it is not germane and it is not
relevant.
However, if one gets a good amendment as required, as both the
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member required in
the NAFTA bill, it was included in the NAFTA bill. Fortunately, the
ranking member did vote with us. The chairman of the Finance Committee
went along and supported the side agreements with respect to labor, the
side agreement with respect to the environment, and the reciprocity
from both Canada and Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has used his
hour under cloture.
Mr. ROTH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There are 4 minutes equally divided before the vote.

Amendment No. 2379

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware said this
amendment would discourage investments. The very same amendment was
included at his behest in the Finance Committee on NAFTA. It has not
discouraged investment whatever in Mexico. On the contrary, the
Koreans, the Chinese, Taiwanese, the Americans, everyone is investing
like gangbusters down in Mexico.
That is what they talk about, the success of NAFTA. So this is worded
to include the language exactly as they have included it in the NAFTA
agreement. Could it be on labor rights that this body wants to put a
stamp of approval on a situation such as the example I gave of a 13-
year-old young girl working 100 hours at 13 cents an hour until 3 in
the morning? Do we want that kind of thing going on?
I am sure we do not want to put the stamp of approval on the threats
they will be killed when they ask for certain labor considerations down
in Honduras. I went through all of those particular examples.
We do not want to invest in scab labor. What we want to invest in is
an opportunity and an improved lot with the Caribbean Basin Initiative
here. So it is, the amendment should not be tabled. It is in force,
working with respect to NAFTA. There is no reason why it cannot work in
this particular place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to table the
amendment. I do so for two reasons. First, as I have stated previously,
the goal of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the
Caribbean, and Central America. This amendment would undermine that
effort by requiring the difficult negotiations of side agreements that
would delay the incentive the bill would create. That, I argue, is of
no help to these developing countries and will not lead to any great
improvement in their labor standards.
The second reason I oppose the amendment is that it essentially
depends on economic sanctions to work. Its threat is that the economic
benefits of the beneficiary countries will be cut off if the countries
do not comply with the terms of some agreement yet to be negotiated.
That not only undercuts the investment incentive by increasing the
uncertainty of a country's participation in the program, but it also
does little to raise labor standards. For that reason, I urge this
amendment be tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join the chairman in urging this
matter be tabled. We have a fine underlying bill and we hope to take it
to conference with as little encumbrance as can be, certainly none to
which there would be instant objection on the House side.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, under the provisions of the previous
consent, I now move to table the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 2379.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced, yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 345 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--43

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Snowe
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Gregg
McCain

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Change Of Vote

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on Hollings amendment No. 2379, the
junior Senator from West Virginia voted ``aye'' and wishes to change
his vote to ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent to be able to change my
vote. My

[[Page S13673]]

change of vote would have no effect on the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. ROTH. 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.

Amendment No. 2428

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe a vote is scheduled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator is correct.
There are 4 minutes evenly divided for debate prior to the vote.
Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment simply intends to try to
make sure that the African portion of this legislation does not become
a mechanism whereby governments or businesses from China, for example,
ship their goods through Africa as a way to evade American quotas.
This is another process called transshipment. During the debate, I
pointed out that on a web site of the Chinese Government, they
essentially say this is exactly what they are going to do. It is what
they are already doing.
We have put some responsibility on importers. American importers will
have the benefit of this bill to make sure they vouch for the
legitimate content of this product having some characteristic of being
actually from Africa. It is a very important provision to make sure
this bill has some balance and it doesn't threaten American jobs. The
figures I quoted indicate that for every $1 billion in illegally
transshipped goods, it costs about 40,000 American jobs in the textile
and related areas.
This is a very straightforward amendment that opposes the practice of
transshipment I think every Member of this body would like to support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
ask that it be tabled.
First, the Finance Committee bill already contains the specifically
enhanced transshipment provisions beyond those contained in the House
bill. The Finance Committee bill would suspend exporters and importers
from the benefits of the program for 2 years if found to have
transshipped in violation of the rule.
Second, the Customs Service already has extensive power to combat
transshipment. Let me be clear what transshipment is. It is Customs
law. Customs already has the enforcement power to address these
concerns.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in
this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with
the chairman and note that this measure, among other things, provides
for up to 5 years imprisonment for a third dispute. We don't want to
criminalize international trade.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me add that the Senator from Wisconsin
has done nothing to address my concerns regarding the constitutional
infirmity of his amendment. As I have already stated, my colleague's
amendment would expose individuals to criminal and civil penalties
without the due process required by the U.S. Constitution. That is
simply unconscionable.
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote to table the amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to respond to both the chairman
and the ranking member.
They have suggested, it seems to me, that somehow this provision
automatically involves imprisonment. That is simply not correct. Under
the first offense, there is only a civil penalty involved for the
importer in the amount equal to 200 percent of the declared value of
the merchandise. A second offense then would involve perhaps up to 1
year of imprisonment. It is only in a third offense that it would be 5
years.
It is simply not correct to suggest that if somebody makes a mistake
once, suddenly they are going to be imprisoned. It is not nearly as
harsh as that. It is a reasonable series of penalties for people who
are going to get enormous benefit under this legislation.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I believe I said
the provision provided ``up to'' on the third event. But we will not
dispute it. The facts are accurately stated by the Senator from
Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded?
Mr. ROTH. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table
amendment No. 2428. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 346 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--44

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Conrad
Collins
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Gregg
McCain

The motion was agreed to.
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.

Amendment No. 2483

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Under the previous
order, there are 4 minutes of debate equally divided for the motion to
table amendment No. 2483. The Senate will be in order. Who yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than the
previous amendment on side agreements on labor. This one would require
the side agreements with respect to the environment. The distinguished
Presiding Officer knows I know the feeling of strength out on the west
coast for the environment. I have traveled up there, for example, in
Puget Sound and have had the hearings with Dixie Lee Ray when she was
the oceanographer, John Linberg, and all the rest. I come back to the
statement by my distinguished ranking member quoted in the Wall Street
Journal this morning----
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we do not have order. We cannot hear the
Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators will take their conversations to
the Cloakroom.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. As quoted in the morning Wall Street Journal, the
distinguished Senator Moynihan of New York said:

We were planning to spend a few days in Seattle, just
meeting people.

But if you could not get this bill passed, they would not have any
credibility.

I don't want to show my face.

I know in general the Democrats are considered prolabor and the
Republicans are considered generally as antilabor. But with respect to
the environment it has been bipartisan. There

[[Page S13674]]

was no stronger protector of the environment than our late friend, John
Chafee of Rhode Island. He led the way for Republicans and Democrats. I
would not want to show my face in Seattle, having voted that you could
not even sit down, talk, and negotiate something on the environment,
the very same provisions that the chairman of the Finance Committee
required in the NAFTA agreement. It is in the NAFTA agreement. I am
only saying, since we are going to extend NAFTA to the CBI, let's put
the same requirements there with consideration for the environment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I say that will teach me to ask for
order when the Senator from South Carolina is speaking.
But we are required, as managers, to make the same point on this
measure, this amendment, that we made on the earlier Hollings
amendment. This would require us to negotiate 147 environmental
agreements around the world before any of the provisions of the African
bill or the Caribbean Basin Initiative or the tariff preferences under
the Generalized System of Preferences can be extended.
NAFTA was a relatively simple three-party negotiation. We have very
few differences with Canada, and such as we had with Mexico were worked
out. In so many of the countries we are talking about in sub-Saharan
Africa, the nation, the area, is an environmental disaster. That is why
we are trying to develop some trade, some economic influx--trade not
aid. We would not do it. What would be your standard for the Sudan?
What would be your standard for parts of the Congo? What would you know
about the country with which you are negotiating?
These are terribly distressed regions. We have had three decades of
declining income, of rising chaos. The best hopes are the countries
that want this agreement. We are not going to leave environment behind,
but we should move ahead on this measure. I think my chairman agrees
with me in this matter. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 2483.
The yeas and nays have previously been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--40

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Gregg
McCain

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. 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.

Change of Vote

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that on a vote I cast on
amendment No. 2483 which I indicated in the affirmative to table, I be
permitted to change that vote without affecting the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Amendment No. 2485

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 4 minutes of debate equally
divided on amendment No. 2485.
Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, by this vote we will determine whether
we are for foreign aid or foreign trade. The truth is that the Marshall
Plan in foreign aid is really a wonderful thing. We have defeated
communism with capitalism. It has worked.
But now after 50 years, with running deficits in excess of $100
billion for some 20 years, we are just infusing more money into the
economy than we are willing to take in. There was the deficit of $127
billion here just at the end of September for the year 1999; otherwise,
running a deficit in the balance of trade of $300 billion; then with
our current account deficit totaling $726 billion in the last 7 years
and our net external assets really in the liabilities over the last 7
years from $71 billion to $831 billion.
We are going out of business. It would be a wonderful thing. But
let's have some reciprocity. All we are saying is, when we make an
agreement, we take some of these particular regulations affecting, for
example, textiles--there is a whole book of them here--and if we lower
ours, let them lower theirs.
Cordell Hull, 65 years ago, with the reciprocal trade agreements of
1934, is what got the country going again industrially, and that is
what will get it going again if we obey the reciprocity that we
included in NAFTA.
All I am trying to do, if we are going to extend NAFTA, let's have
the same reciprocity we had in NAFTA in these particular CBI
agreements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. I do so for three
reasons. The first reason, as I have stated previously, is that the
purpose of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the
Caribbean, and Central America by offering these poverty-stricken
countries a measure of preferential access to our markets.
This amendment would undermine that effort by making eligibility
explicitly dependent on the offer of reciprocal benefits to the United
States equivalent to those that the U.S. is entitled under NAFTA. This
is a standard even the WTO members among the beneficiary countries
could not currently satisfy.
The second reason I oppose the amendment is that the Finance
Committee bill already instructs the President to begin the process of
negotiating with the beneficiary countries under both programs for
trade agreements that would provide reciprocal market access to the
United States, as well as a still more solid foundation for the long-
term economic relationship between the United States and its African,
Caribbean, and Central American neighbors.
Finally, let me point out that the bill does encourage reciprocity
where it really counts in the context of this bill. By encouraging the
use of U.S. fabric and U.S. yarn in the assembly of apparel products
bound for the United States, the bill establishes a solid economic
partnership between industry in the United States and firms in the
beneficiary countries. That provides real benefits to American firms
and workers in the textile industry by establishing a platform from
which American textile makers can compete worldwide. That is precisely
the benefit our industry most seeks in the context of our growing
economic relationship with both regions.
In short, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as
well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 2484. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

[[Page S13675]]

The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]

YEAS--70

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--27

Akaka
Boxer
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Mikulski
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Thurmond
Torricelli

NOT VOTING--2

Gregg
McCain

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. 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.

Amendment No. 2406

Mr. ROTH. At the request of the Senator from Wisconsin and with the
approval of the senior Senator from New York, I ask that the yeas and
nays be vitiated with respect to amendment No. 2406. I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate conduct a voice vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No.
2406.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. 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. BIDEN. Mr. President, under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the
Democratic leader.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the
majority manager of the bill.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the
minority leader.
Mr. COCHRAN. Under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the majority
manager.
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield 50 minutes allotted to me to the senior Senator
from New York so he may yield to the junior Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the Senator from
New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________