[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 30 (Thursday, March 16, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO AFRICA: SUPPORT AGOA TEXTILE PROVISIONS 
                         BENEFICIAL TO AFRICANS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 16, 2000

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we work toward final passage of the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act, I want to reiterate the importance 
of the provisions related to textile and apparel products. These 
provisions are paramount to the success of the legislation's primary 
objective--to promote the use of trade as a vehicle for sustainable 
development in sub-Saharan Africa.
  In the March 7, 2000 edition of my hometown journal, the New York 
Times, Tom Friedman makes a compelling case for a commercially viable 
trade bill for Africa. While 85% of the garments sold in the United 
States are sewn outside of the United States, all 48 sub-Saharan 
African countries produce less than 1% of these products. Twenty-two 
individual countries export more clothing to the U.S. market than all 
of the countries in the entire sub-Saharan Africa region. Friedman 
rightfully points out that even ``little Honduras'' exports seven times 
more textiles and apparel to the U.S. than all 48 nations of sub-
Saharan Africa combined.
  It is critical that the African Growth and Opportunity Act that we 
pass contains provisions that allow African countries to produce duty-
free textile and apparel without insurmountable hurdles and 
quantitative restrictions. Quantitative restrictions placed on that 
production are certain to discourage the investments necessary to grow 
industries and compete with Asian countries in the U.S. import market.
  In this case, the so-called ``technical details'' of the final bill, 
though often overlooked, will mean the difference between a bill that 
is commercially viable for African and a symbolic bill. A symbolic bill 
would fail to sufficiently bolster African economies so that these 
countries can become better trading partners with the U.S. and better 
friends in the fight against transnational threats, such as illicit 
drug trafficking, environmental degradation, international terrorism 
and infectious disease.
  I agree with Tom Friedman. Shame on all of us if we do not seize this 
historical moment to help, in a meaningful way, over 290 million people 
in sub-Saharan Africa living on $1 a day. In this era of globalization 
we must not ignore and leave behind 10% of the world's population.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2000]

                          Don't Punish Africa

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       There is a travesty brewing in Congress that, if allowed to 
     continue, will be a source of shame for all Americans. It 
     will certainly be an ugly stain on the U.S. labor movement, 
     particularly the apparel union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O.--a stain 
     that will highlight all the unions' phony-baloney assertions 
     in Seattle that they just want to improve worker rights 
     around the world and help the poor.
       This controversy has to do with a stalled trade bill called 
     The African Growth and Opportunity Act. And the bottom line 
     is this: At a time when Africa is ravaged by AIDS, at a time 
     when 290 million Africans--more than the entire population of 
     the U.S.--are living on a dollar a day, the main U.S. textile 
     union, UNITE!; the main textile manufacturers' lobby, ATMI; 
     and the lawmakers who bow to both of them are blocking a bill 
     that would allow Africans to export clothing to America duty 
     free--instead of with the current 17 percent import tax.
       Why the opposition? Because Africa might increase its share 
     of U.S. textile and apparel imports from its current level of 
     0.8 percent! Shame on the people blocking this bill. Shame on 
     them.
       Some 85 percent of the garments sold in the U.S. today are 
     already sewn abroad. Honduras, little Honduras, already 
     exports seven times more textiles and apparel to the U.S. 
     than all 48 nations of sub-Saharan Africa combined. With our 
     minimum wages, we can't produce jeans that retail for $16 and 
     we don't want to. North Carolina's textile industry has 
     already become highly automated and has moved away from low-
     value goods to high-value, high-tech fabrics. Much of the 
     unionized labor force sewing clothes in the U.S. is in large 
     cities and comprises new immigrants, many not citizens, since 
     most Americans don't want these jobs.
       If Africa were given duty-free access to our market, 
     sophisticated textile plants in North Carolina wouldn't move 
     to Madagascar. China would be the big loser, because Africans 
     have the same skills to knit cashmere sweaters cheaply as 
     people in China, and if Africa were given a 17 percent import 
     tax advantage in shipping to the U.S., manufacturers would 
     move their production from low-wage China to low-wage Africa. 
     Which is why a study by the U.S. International Trade 
     Commission concluded that ``the impact of quota removal [for 
     African imports] on U.S. producers and U.S. workers would be 
     negligible.''
       So why do the unions still oppose it? Sheer knee-jerk 
     protectionism--even though the bill has tough measures to 
     protect against any surge in imports from Africa, and 
     restricts free-trade status to African countries moving 
     toward democracy, economic reform and real worker protection.
       No matter. Right now the only version of the bill the 
     textile makers would permit is one that says Africa can only 
     import duty-free into the U.S. if it first buys all the 
     fabric, thread and yarn from U.S. factories, then ships it to 
     Africa to be sewn, and then ships it back to the U.S. to be 
     sold--a costly obstacle course that would prevent any new 
     investment in African factories. The real motto of U.S. trade 
     unions is: We're for more worker standards in Africa, not 
     more work.
       This is really bad. This bill isn't a panacea for Africa, 
     but it's important. Throughout the history of 
     industrialization, poor countries have started down the road 
     of development by sewing clothes. It's the one thing that 
     poor people can do right away. It's critical that this bill 
     go through now because by 2005 all the quotas on textile 
     imports into the U.S. will expire. It will be a free-for-all. 
     Right now investors are deciding where to locate plants for 
     2005--whether to stick with China or branch out to Africa, 
     Vietnam or Mexico. If Africa is shut out from these 
     investment decisions, it will fall even further behind.
       The Clintonites talk the talk of Africa and AIDS, but, 
     sadly, they have been afraid to get tough with the unions on 
     this textile issue. Why is AIDS spreading so quickly among 
     young women in Africa? One reason is that women have so few 
     jobs they have to sell themselves to men with AIDS. Apparel 
     jobs largely employ women. They make a difference.
       But this is of no interest to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. crowd. All 
     they care about is that Africa not sell more than 0.8 percent 
     of garments here. Shame on them for what they are doing, and 
     shame on us if we let them.

     

                          ____________________