[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3792-S3795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I now turn my attention to this bill. I 
thank both the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New York, two 
exceptional Senators.
  I am going to divide my remarks into two parts. We have some other 
Senators, Senators Feingold and Feinstein, who are going to talk at 
great length about what happened in the conference committee. I am 
going to speak to that briefly. I shall not take a lot of time. But I 
say to both Senators that I will be pleased to come back later on this 
afternoon, if you need me, because I think we need to put a focus on 
what happened.
  I am in some disagreement with both my colleagues for, I hope, 
substantive reasons, which I will go into in a moment on the overall 
bill. It is not because of either one of the Senators on the floor 
managing this bill. But we had an amendment--Feinstein-Feingold, 
Feingold-Feinstein; I don't know the order. It doesn't matter; they are 
together--regarding the HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa. We will go into the 
specifics of the purpose of this amendment in a moment. But the purpose 
was to figure out a way that these countries could afford the 
combination of drugs that could help treat this illness so people 
wouldn't die.
  I strongly support the amendment my colleagues introduced. The 
amendment was accepted by the bill's managers, Senators Roth and 
Moynihan. It was simple. It basically prohibited the U.S. Government--
history is not very inspiring, frankly--or any agent of the U.S. 
Government from pressuring African countries to revoke or change laws 
aimed at increasing access to HIV/AIDS drugs so long as the laws in 
question passed by these countries adhered to existing international 
law and international standards.
  In other words, this amendment said to the executive branch--
colleagues, I am being bipartisan in my condemnation, if you will--stop 
twisting arms, White House and others, of African countries that are 
basically using legal means to improve access of their citizens to HIV/
AIDS pharmaceuticals. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold 
for this amendment.
  One would think this effort to make anti-AIDS drugs more cheaply 
available to citizens in African countries--so long as these countries 
didn't violate any WTO rules--would be acceptable to every Senator and 
every Representative and every human being.
  I think for a while the administration and others leaned on some of 
these governments to not use ``parallel'' importing in addition to 
local manufacturers, which is sort of interesting because some have 
legislation dealing with this subject. In other words, they would 
basically go to other countries and try to import FDA-approved drugs 
back from other countries at much less cost.
  The ``why'' of this is because 13 million African lives have been 
lost since the onset of this crisis. Today, there are some 23 million 
African people infected with the AIDS virus--men, women, and children.
  This was a modest amendment. This was the right thing to do. I don't 
blame

[[Page S3793]]

my colleagues. It is their institutional position.
  The Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New York speak with pride 
about this legislation. I am going to dissent from some of the 
legislation dealing with some other issues. But I don't think there is 
much to be proud of in terms of what happened in this conference. They 
fought. But let's look at the result after this amendment is taken out. 
Honest to goodness, I say to Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold, I 
have absolutely no idea--well, I do actually have some ideas as to why 
there is opposition. But I want to speak for the people of Minnesota.

  I guarantee both Senators Feingold and Feinstein that 99.99 percent 
of the people in my State of Minnesota are behind their amendment. I 
guarantee them that if anybody attempts to do this in the light of day, 
99.99 percent of the people in this country support this amendment. It 
is the right thing to do. Our values tell us we should do this. If 
these governments aren't violating any trade policy and they can make 
these drugs more available to their populace--the people there don't 
have a lot of money; they can't afford this cocktail of drugs--then 
people can have some accessibility and we can save lives given the 
magnitude of this crisis. What is happening is devastating. People in 
Minnesota say: God bless you for doing this.
  How do these conferees--whoever they are--justify pressuring these 
countries with, in some cases, a life expectancy that has dropped by 15 
years? What arrogance to tell these governments they cannot use all the 
legal means at their disposal to make sure the people in their 
countries, men and women and children, have access to these drugs. 
Otherwise, more people suffer and more people die. This is another 
example of why people in this country become so furious about some of 
what happens here.
  I love being a Senator. I love public service. But sometimes it is 
just too much. It really is. This amendment was accepted. If we had a 
vote on this amendment, I think it would be 100 to 0. However, it is 
taken out in conference. I guarantee people in the country are for 
this.
  Why don't we turn our attention to the pharmaceutical industry, the 
pharmaceutical companies? I can guarantee they were not worried about 
losing customers in Africa because the people cannot afford their 
prices. They were worried about any kind of effort--regarding these 
drugs that could save people's lives--at making them more affordable 
might cut into their profits. That is what they are worried about.
  This is a Fortune 500 report, of April 17, 2000. The annual Fortune 
500 report on American business is out. Guess what. The pharmaceutical 
industry ranks first in profits. In the words of Fortune magazine--and 
I absolutely love this quote; I wish I made it up myself, but I can't 
plagiarize:

       Whether you gauge profitability by median return or 
     revenues, assets or equity, pharmaceuticals had a Viagra kind 
     of year.

  When the average Fortune 500 industry in the United States returned 
5-percent profits as a percentage of revenue, the pharmaceutical 
industry returned 18.6 percent--the automobile industry, a pretty big 
industry, 3.5 percent; chemicals, 5.1 percent; airlines, 5.7 percent; 
telecommunications, 11.7 percent; pharmaceuticals, 18.6-percent 
profits.
  I can anticipate the reaction of some: There goes that Senator from 
Minnesota, out there railing about profits.
  The idea that this industry can make such excessive profit off the 
sickness, misery, illness, and, in the case of Africa with this 
amendment, death of people, is obscene. I say to this industry: You may 
have had Viagra profits, but you are making your profits off the 
sickness, misery, illness, and death of people. And it is obscene. You 
got your greedy paws into this conference committee. You were able to 
use all of the money you contribute to the Congress and all of the 
political power you have and you were able to get this amendment out, 
take it out. The result of that is many people--millions of people--
will die.
  For a while, the administration was involved in this. I am not proud 
of that. They were pushing hard, putting pressure on these governments. 
This amendment says you can't use any government money for any of this 
kind of lobbying, to try to prevent a government, which legally is 
trying to do what it can do to make sure these drugs are more 
affordable.
  That is what this amendment said. It got taken out of conference 
committee. Can anyone imagine that happening? The Fortune 500 report 
stated: ``Viagra kind of year.''
  I am honored to support my two colleagues. Statistics show 23 million 
people in Africa are infected with the AIDS virus. By the way, I do not 
believe that it is pandering or appealing to some special interest for 
me to be speaking about a disease that infects more than 15,000 young 
people every day. I am not appealing to any special interest. I am 
representing values of Minnesotans. I am representing the values of the 
American people--which, obviously, were not the values of some people 
in this conference committee which took this amendment out.
  I oppose this bill for that reason alone. I have some other reasons 
for speaking in opposition to this bill. I think what has happened is 
absolutely egregious. I would like to say to the pharmaceutical 
companies: Your days of being able to do this are over. I am not sure 
that is the case, but people in the country are getting sick of you. 
They are really getting tired of these companies. They are similar to a 
cartel. They charge excessive prices, they gouge Americans, they do 
everything they can to make sure other countries with large numbers of 
poor people, that the governments cannot do what they are legally 
entitled to do to get the drugs to people and to make them affordable. 
It is absolutely unbelievable.
  The economic question and the political question is, Does this 
Congress belong to people in the country or does it belong to people in 
the pharmaceutical industry? The answer on the basis of what happened 
to this amendment is it belongs to the pharmaceutical industry. In 
other words, the pharmaceutical industry has great representation here 
in Washington. It is the rest of the people who do not. This is a real 
reform issue. This is about people who are dying in Africa. It is also, 
when we get into this debate about pharmaceutical coverage for people 
in our country, people who all too often in our country can die--not 
anywhere near the same magnitude. I think of senior citizens in my 
State who spend $300, $400, $500, $600 a month for drugs they cannot 
afford. And this industry makes not a profit--great, make profits, but 
do not make obscene profits off of the sickness, misery, and death of 
people.

  We are going to be out here today speaking about this over and over 
and over again. I do not think the pharmaceutical companies will like 
it. I would not. I doubt whether any Senator is going to come out here 
to defend them. I do not even know whether anybody in the conference 
committee would speak out. Let's have dueling press conferences today. 
Let's have different press conferences. The people who took out this 
amendment ought to speak publicly about why they did it.
  Part B: This legislation, I know, is called the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act--I heard both my colleagues speak--and enhanced 
Caribbean Basin Initiative. But I will say this one more time. Every 
attempt that we made with this legislation to make sure these benefits 
would trickle down to the people was defeated. I think the message of 
this trade bill to African and Caribbean countries is a double message. 
Here is what it boils down to. For people in the United States, this is 
the message: If you should dare to try to organize, join a union, and 
bargain collectively to get a better wage, to get more civilized 
working conditions, to try to get health care coverage for your 
children, we are gone. We are on our way to these other countries 
because we can pay, as Wal-Mart is paying, 14 cents an hour in China. 
We can pay 14 cents an hour; we are gone.
  In this trade bill to African and Caribbean countries, the message 
is, if you should dare to have even child labor standards, much less 
basic human rights standards, much less the right of people to organize 
and join a union to fight for themselves, then you do not get our 
investment. That is what this trade bill says.
  So this is not a question of the first trade bill since NAFTA or are 
we internationalists or are we not? We had a bill--Congressman Jesse 
Jackson, Jr. on the House side, Senator Feingold

[[Page S3794]]

on the Senate side--that expanded Africa's access to U.S. markets, but 
it also included labor rights and genuine debt relief. That is really 
important. We had jubilee. We had people here in Washington. When you 
look at sub-Saharan Africa, about a quarter of its export earnings are 
lost to its never-ending foreign debt service. If you really want to 
talk about what we need to help these countries, there you have it.
  We had an alternative bill. I do not think it was ever voted on in 
the House.
  This is not about whether or not you are an internationalist or 
isolationist. My father was born in Ukraine. He lived in Russia. He 
fled persecution in 1914. He never was able to see his family again. 
His family was, in all likelihood, murdered by Stalin. I grew up as an 
internationalist. I have said on the floor of the Senate--I get to say 
it once; I will not go on and on about this--it is a story that means 
something to me. He was almost 50 when I was born, and he was old 
country and he was an embarrassment because he did not fit in with my 
friends' parents. He just wasn't cool. But when I got to be high school 
age, I realized what a treasure he was. He spoke ten languages fluently 
and I miss him dearly. He was a very wise person--profound.

  So Sunday through Thursday night at 10 o'clock, we would meet in the 
kitchen and we would have hot tea and sponge cake and he would talk 
about the world. I am ``not an internationalist.'' I am not going to 
let anybody put that label on me.
  The question is what kind of trade, under what kind of terms? Who 
decides who benefits and who is asked to sacrifice? Those are the 
questions that are before us.
  Every time I go to some of these trade meetings and I hear the 
ministers from some of the developing countries say: Those of you, 
Senator Wellstone, who are opposed to these trade bills, you are in 
opposition to the poor--I always look for the poor there. I never see 
the poor there. I see trade ministers; I see the elites; but I don't 
see the poor.
  But then, luckily, since I get a chance to work with the human rights 
community, I get to either meet with or hear about the poor and the 
citizens in these countries, ordinary people who are trying to get 
better wages, who are trying not to work with chemicals that are going 
to kill them, who are trying to do something about child labor 
conditions, who are trying to do something about the poisoning of their 
environment, who want to have jobs with dignity and who get thrown in 
jail for trying to change their lives for the better. They tell me that 
all this discussion about the poor and how great this is for the poor 
in these countries is a bit disingenuous, as they see it.
  My colleagues can have a different point of view, and do--many, most, 
the vast majority.
  My last point is this: I don't think I am going to do justice to 
this. But I saw an interesting piece in American Prospect that Bob 
Reich wrote, our former Secretary of Labor, that many of us might 
actually consider as a middle ground. Basically his argument went as 
such.
  He said, assume for a moment, Paul, even if you don't want to--he 
didn't use my name, but I felt like he was speaking to me--even if you 
don't want to agree, just assume for the moment the position of those 
who make the argument, ``Like it or not, this really will lead to 
economic growth for these countries, and this is a better chance for 
people than they have right now.'' Then consider your own position, 
which I have tried to lay out today.
  He was saying, why not have some kind of framework that says when you 
have such bills, they pass, and the proponents say they will lead to 
economic growth and more opportunities, then what you would do would be 
to have a commitment, a priori, beforehand, commensurate with that 
growth and more opportunities and the country is doing better, minimum 
wage is going up and labor standards then put into effect.
  I think it is an interesting idea. Maybe that will be a middle ground 
eventually where some of us can come together. But right now there is 
no middle ground to this. I will say it one more time. I know this bill 
is called an opportunity act and all the rest, but I think that is the 
message to this legislation--not the bill that Representative Jackson 
and Senator Feingold introduced--to people in this country. You can't 
blame ordinary citizens. The polls show pretty conclusively that people 
with incomes under $60,000 or thereabouts are more than a little bit 
suspicious of these agreements. They do not think they are going to be 
in their best interests. They think they are going to be great for the 
big multinational companies but not them. You cannot lay blame on them 
for thinking that way because the message of this bill is, again, if 
you try to organize, try to join a union, try to fight for higher 
wages, these countries will go to Africa, Mexico, wherever, where they 
do not have to go by any of this. Goodbye.

  Then the message to the people in these countries in this legislation 
is: Governments, people in these countries, don't you dare join a 
union. Don't you dare fight for your family. Don't you dare try to get 
better wages. Don't you dare try to abolish these abominable, 
exploitative child-labor conditions. Don't you do any of that because 
if you do, you will not get our investment. That is the message of this 
legislation.
  I have spoken about the amendment that was deleted. I believe what 
happened in the conference committee is atrocious, and I have laid out 
the basis of my opposition to this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
his spirited comments and also for his support of having two Capitol 
Police officers at each entry. I want him to know, as the ranking 
member on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, I am 
fully supportive of that request. I believe the chairman, Senator 
Bennett, is as well.
  Because he approached me with a big smile and I very much like it 
when the Senator from Texas smiles rather than frowns, I ask unanimous 
consent to amend my unanimous consent agreement to permit him to speak 
for 4 minutes and that I retain my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first, I thank our wonderful colleague from 
California for doing such a sweet thing. She is going to speak for some 
time. I know it would help educate me to stay and hear it, but like so 
many other people, I am too busy and I want to say a few things.
  First of all, I congratulate the President for proposing the Africa 
Growth and Opportunity Act. The President recognized wisely that even 
if we took all the aid provided by every country in the world and gave 
it to sub-Saharan Africa, obviously we could have a short-term impact 
on them, but the long-term impact would be small when compared to the 
impact we can have through trade.
  This bill is an opportunity for us to open up our markets for goods 
from some of the poorest countries in the world. I know there are some 
who say that even though this will mean clothing will be cheaper for 
American consumers, for working and low-income Americans, somehow there 
is a sacrifice involved. I fail to see it. I see everybody benefiting 
from trade. Desperately poor people in Africa will have an opportunity 
to produce products that can be sold in America, and we can raise their 
living standards and our own through the miracle of world trade.
  This is not a perfect bill. I wish it were less protectionist. One 
provision in the bill requires that in order for textiles from sub-
Saharan Africa to come into the country, they have to be made out of 
American yarn and American thread. That provision is going to reduce 
their competitiveness, but I appreciate the fact that the conference 
put in an exception for the 41 countries that have per capita incomes 
of below $1,500 a year.
  So the bill is not perfect, but it is a movement in the right 
direction, and I strongly support it.
  It is important for us to promote world trade. I know our colleague 
who spoke before me believes that trade only helps rich people and big 
companies, but I believe trade helps working people. It creates jobs. 
It creates opportunity. It expands freedom. That is

[[Page S3795]]

why I am so strongly in support of this bill.
  I thank the Finance Committee for working out a compromise that will 
mean more trade, that will mean more products. I have to say I do not 
understand how, with a straight face, the textile industry was so 
adamantly opposed to this bill. If we unleashed all of the energies of 
sub-Saharan Africa and all of their productive capacity and had them 
produce textiles to sell in America, they would still have no 
substantial impact on our market.
  I do not understand why we continue to let special interests in 
America direct our Government to limit our ability to buy goods that 
would raise the living standards of working Americans. It is outrageous 
and unfair, and it is important that we stand up against these 
protectionist forces. Who gives the American textile industry the right 
to say that, as a free person, I cannot buy a better shirt or a cheaper 
shirt produced somewhere else in the world? How is America diminished 
by it? I say it is not. My freedom is diminished by such forces.
  We have a mixture of protectionism and trade in this bill. But, 
overall, it is a movement in the right direction, and I am in favor of 
it. When the Multifiber Agreement is implemented, we will open up trade 
in textiles. As late as 5 years ago, the average American family paid 
$700 more a year for clothing because of textile protection in America 
than they would with free trade. This is a small step in the right 
direction. I rejoice in it, and I support it.
  I thank the Senator from California for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I notice that the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama is on the floor. So I ask unanimous consent to 
yield to him, and then to have the floor returned to me when he 
concludes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________