[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.

                          ____________________