[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3795-S3822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when 
Senator Feinstein has finished speaking, Senator Feingold be able to 
consume his time for debate on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the conference 
report on the African Growth and Opportunity Act and to express my deep 
disappointment that the conference decided to strip out of the report 
the amendment which has been spoken about on this floor which addresses 
HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. This is an amendment I offered with the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
  This amendment was accepted by the Senate, and it was intended to 
provide African countries experiencing an HIV/AIDS crisis with the 
ability to institute measures consistent with the World Trade 
Organization intellectual property rules that are designed to ensure 
the distribution of pharmaceuticals and medical technology to afflicted 
populations.
  We offered this amendment because we believed the act inadvertently 
threatened to undermine the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa. Our 
amendment was a simple, commonsense approach consistent with 
international law to fix this oversight. I believe the action of the 
conference in stripping this amendment was unconscionable. I found it 
especially disappointing because my office and staff had been working 
with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Roth, to develop 
compromise language that met our concerns and would be acceptable to 
the conference.
  Chairman Roth negotiated in good faith, and he and the other Senate 
conferees--Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Baucus--wanted to do the 
right thing. Unfortunately, as I understand it, because of the way in 
which the House and Senate Republican leadership dealt with this 
conference, the majority leader and the Speaker, as I have been told, 
decided my amendment was to be eliminated and presented a take-it-or-
leave-it offer to the conferees. The conference was never really even 
given a chance to address this issue.
  Perhaps they did not understand the full impact of what is happening 
in Africa, and in these remarks I hope to make both the extent and the 
nature of the AIDS crisis better known. I say this as someone who 
supports the legislation. I voted in favor of it. I believe the 
underlying principles of this legislation--opening up new possibilities 
for economic engagement and trade between the United States and the 
countries of sub-Saharan Africa--are good ones. I know the countries of 
this region want to receive the benefits of the bill which will assist 
their economic development and promote democracy in the region.
  I said in earlier remarks the problem is that the way things are 
going, there will not be an Africa left for this bill to help. I think 
people underestimate the impact of that statement. What I hope to do in 
these remarks is talk about the scope of the problem, give specific 
country reports, talk about the economic, social, and political impact 
of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, the need for affordable access to 
pharmaceuticals, what compulsory licensing and parallel importing is, 
and why the Feinstein-Feingold amendment is necessary.
  I want to talk about drug companies' revenues from these drugs and 
what else is to be done.
  But before I do so, I acknowledge the fact that this morning the 
White House has signed an Executive order to carry out the provisions 
of the Feinstein-Feingold amendment.
  At this point, I will read into the Record the following letter, 
dated May 10:

       I am pleased to inform you that today I will sign an 
     Executive Order that is intended to help make HIV/AIDS-
     related drugs and medical technologies more accessible and 
     affordable in beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. The 
     Executive Order, which is based in large part on your work in 
     connection with the proposed Trade and Development Act of 
     2000, formalizes U.S. government policy in this area. It also 
     directs other steps to be taken to address the spread of HIV 
     and AIDS in Africa, one of the worse health crises the world 
     faces.
       As you know, the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic has taken a 
     terrible toll in terms of human suffering. Nowhere has the 
     suffering been as great as in Africa, where over 5,500

[[Page S3796]]

     people per day are dying from AIDS. Approximately 34 million 
     people in sub-Saharan Africa have been infected, and, of 
     those infected, approximately 11.5 million have died. These 
     deaths represent more than 80 percent of the total HIV/AIDS-
     related deaths worldwide.
       To help those countries most affected by HIV/AIDS fight 
     this terrible disease, the Executive Order directs the U.S. 
     Government to refrain from seeking, through negotiation or 
     otherwise, the revocation or revision of any law or policy 
     imposed by a beneficiary sub-Saharan government that promotes 
     access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. 
     This order will give sub-Saharan governments the flexibility 
     to bring life saving drugs and medical technologies to 
     affected populations. At the same time, the order ensures 
     that fundamental intellectual property rights of U.S. 
     businesses and inventors are protected by requiring sub-
     Saharan governments to provide adequate and effective 
     intellectual property protection consistent with World Trade 
     Organization rules. In this way, the order strikes a proper 
     balance between the need to enable sub-Saharan governments to 
     increase access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals and medical 
     technologies and the need to ensure that intellectual 
     property is protected.
       I know that you preferred that this policy be included in 
     the Conference Report on the Trade and Development Act of 
     2000, as did I. However, through this Executive Order, the 
     policy this Administration has pursued with your support will 
     be implemented by the U.S. Government. The Executive Order 
     will encourage beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries to 
     build a better infrastructure to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS 
     as they build better lives for their people. At the same 
     time, the Trade and Development Act of 2000 will strengthen 
     African economies, enhance African democracy, and expand 
     U.S.-African trade. Together, these steps will enable the 
     United States to forge closer ties with our African allies, 
     broaden export opportunities for our workers and businesses, 
     and promote our values around the world.
       Thank you for your leadership on this critically important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the 
Executive order itself be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the President for this 
Executive order. It is the right thing to do and it is a major help. I 
very much hope that the African countries will make use of this 
Executive order and acquire the necessary pharmaceuticals that we here 
in this country know can extend the lives and well-being of people.
  Almost 1 year ago, on May 11, the World Health Organization declared 
that HIV/AIDS is now the world's most deadly infectious disease. As of 
December of last year, the AIDS Epidemic Update, published by the Joint 
United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, U.N. AIDS, and the World Health 
Organization, notes the following:

       As the 20th century draws to a close, some 33.6 million men 
     and women worldwide face a future dominated by a fatal 
     disease, unknown just a few decades ago. According to new 
     estimates from the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS and the 
     World Health Organization, 32.4 million adults and 1.2 
     million children will be living with HIV by the end of 1999.
       Sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt of the HIV/AIDS with 
     close to 70 percent of the global total of HIV positive 
     people. Most will die in the next 10 years, joining the 13.7 
     million Africans who have already died, and leaving behind 
     shattered families and crippled prospects for development.

  Indeed, the hardest hit African companies face infection rates in 
excess of 22 percent--that is 22 million people--an overall rate of 
infection among adults in sub-Saharan Africa eight times the rate of 
infection worldwide. In some countries of southern Africa, 20 to 30 
percent of the population of the country itself are infected.
  You can see from this chart the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. 
You see the major countries affected that I am speaking about--Namibia, 
Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia--leading with 16 to 32 percent of adults 
infected with HIV. The next tranche of 8 percent to 16 percent is in 
the orange and it drops down from there. In South Africa, you have 
almost 13 percent of the population infected; that is, 2.8 million 
people. In Zimbabwe, it is 25.8 percent; that is, 1.4 million people. 
In Uganda, it is 9.5 percent; that is, 870,000. In the Central African 
Republic, it is almost 11 percent; that is 170,000. In Zambia, it is 19 
percent; that is 730,000. In Kenya, it is 11.6 percent or 1.6 million 
people.

  The destruction caused by HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, by far, 
surpasses the devastation caused by famine, war, and even genocide in 
Rwanda. According to the United Nations, over 10 times as many people 
were killed by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa last year as by war. This 
chart shows the estimated adult and child deaths from HIV/AIDS during 
1998--2 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, out of a global total of 
2.5 million. You see why this is pandemic today, actually exceeding the 
bubonic plague in Europe centuries ago.
  The devastation caused by AIDS has dramatically reduced life 
expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa from the highs witnessed in the early 
to mideighties, before the devastating effect of AIDS began to be felt. 
This chart shows that in Botswana, which is this line, life expectancy 
has fallen from the age of 61 to age 50. In Zimbabwe, it fell from 59 
to 47. In Zambia, it fell from age 50 to 38 years. In Malawi, it fell 
from age 45 to 40 years. In Uganda, it fell from 48 to 38 years.
  If the present trends continue, life expectancy--already shortened by 
a decade or more in many sub-Saharan African countries--is projected to 
fall more dramatically still. In Zimbabwe, for example, life expectancy 
is expected to decline by 26 years by 2010, from the age of 59 to the 
age of 33. That is more than half the life expectancy in little more 
than two decades. I never thought I would ever see that kind of 
devastation in one country.
  AIDS is also affecting infant and child mortality rates, reversing 
the declines that have been occurring in many countries during the 
1970s and 1980s. According to the U.N., AIDS, by 2010, the child 
mortality rates of children under 5 will increase by 200 percent in 
Botswana, by 100 percent in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania, and Zambia by 
100 percent, and by 300 percent in Zimbabwe.

  This becomes critical, if you understand that four pills can prevent 
the transmission of HIV/AIDS from a mother to a child--four pills.
  Look at these expected child mortality rates.
  Over 30 percent of all children born to HIV-infected mothers in sub-
Saharan Africa will themselves be HIV infected. More than 500,000--half 
a million--babies were infected this past year by their mothers, most 
of them in sub-Saharan Africa.
  As these statistics in the U.N. AIDS Report that I cited attest, sub-
Saharan Africa has been far more severely affected by AIDS than any 
other part of the world.
  Mr. President, it is not just adults who are being killed by AIDS in 
sub-Saharan Africa. Out of 510,000 children killed by AIDS throughout 
the entire world, 470,000 were African children. That is 92 percent of 
the world's total.
  What does that say for the future? Almost a half million children are 
killed in one continent alone. For anyone who has ever been a mother or 
a father, a grandmother or a grandfather, this number is mind numbing.
  Beyond the carnage of the deaths, this disease has the potential to 
destabilize already fragile political and economic systems in sub-
Saharan Africa.
  The United Nations reports that 23.3 million adults and children are 
infected with the virus, up from 22 million a couple of years ago. 
Africa has only 10 percent of the world's population, but it has 70 
percent of the worldwide total of infected people.
  That is what this chart shows. And it is shocking.
  Worldwide, there were 5.6 million new AIDS infections in 1999--3.8 
million of them in Africa. That is two-thirds of the new infections of 
AIDS taking place in Africa. Every day, 11,000 more people are infected 
with HIV--1 in every 8 seconds--and 10,000 of the 11,000 new HIV 
infections that take place around the world occur in this area.
  Teachers, doctors, and nurses are today dying faster than they can be 
replaced. What does that say about the human development and the 
economic upward mobility of that country if the teachers, the doctors, 
and the nurses die faster than they can be replaced? In addition to the 
death toll striking down adults and children alike, as the ``Report on 
the Presidential Mission on Children Orphaned by AIDS in Sub-Saharan 
Africa'' notes:

       Tragically, the worst is yet to come. During the next 
     decade more than 40 million children will be orphaned by 
     AIDS--40 million children orphaned by AIDS, and this

[[Page S3797]]

     ``slow-burn disaster'' is not expected to peak until 2030. 
     According to UNICEF, the HIV-AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan 
     Africa is having and will continue to have more impact on 
     child survival and maternal mortality than all other 
     emergencies combined. Without a doubt, AIDS has placed an 
     entire generation of Africa's children in jeopardy.

  Of the 13 million children orphaned by AIDS so far, 10 million of 
them are in sub-Saharan Africa.
  In Zimbabwe, there are currently 600,000 AIDS orphans, and the 
projection is that there will be more than 1 million by 2005. That is a 
40-percent increase in orphans in one country alone in the next 5 
years. Think about it for a minute. It is staggering.
  There are rumors that some of the leaders of these countries don't 
want to deal with the drugs that can prevent passage from the mother to 
the child because they don't want to deal with the number of orphans 
that are going to be present in that country. I find this also 
shocking. You have more than 1 million orphans in 5 years growing up in 
poverty, without parents and with little or no social structure.
  What does this say about the success of an African Trade Act, if you 
think about it? No teachers, no doctors, no nurses, and millions of 
orphans without parents, what does that say about economic and human 
development of a country?
  In South Africa, there are already close to 250,000 AIDS orphans. The 
number is expected to skyrocket to 2\1/2\ million by 2010. This is 
South Africa. This is from 1990 to 2010. Here we are at 2000, and this 
is what is anticipated to be the number of orphans by 2010. The number 
is 2.5 million in one country alone. How can this bill provide them 
with the resources to lead better lives in the future? What good will 
this bill do if this happens?
  All told, over 34 million people in Africa have been infected by HIV 
since the pandemic began. That is the population of the State of 
California. And an estimated 13.7 million Africans have lost their 
lives to AIDS--more than the entire population of Los Angeles and New 
York City combined. By 2005, if policies do not change, the daily death 
toll will reach 13,000--double what it is today--with nearly 4 million 
AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa alone.
  A recent CNN Interactive story, ``AIDS in Africa: Dying by the 
Numbers,'' put the extent of the crisis in this way:

       . . . The bubonic plague is reckoned to have killed about 
     30 million people in medieval Europe. The U.S. Census Bureau 
     projects that AIDS deaths and the loss of future populations 
     from the deaths of women of child-bearing age means that by 
     2010, sub-Saharan Africa will have 71 million fewer people 
     than it would otherwise.

  In all of these countries in sub-Saharan Africa, there will be 71 
million fewer people because of AIDS in the next 10 years. Just think 
about that for a minute.
  I would also like to spend some time addressing the situation in 
several different countries in the region--some hard hit, some less 
so--so that my colleagues have a better sense of the chaos and 
disruption this disease is causing in individual countries and society.
  The statistics that I cite below are drawn from UNA's World Health 
Organization epidemiological fact sheets on AIDS and includes data up 
to 1997. By all accounts, in almost every country in the region, the 
situation has grown much worse in the past 3 years. There could be 
little doubt about the pandemic.
  Let's begin with Botswana. In Botswana, over 25 percent of the 
population between 15 and 49 is infected with HIV. That is 25 percent 
of the population. In Botswana's major urban areas, 40 percent of 
pregnant women are infected with HIV. From 1994 to 1997, the rate at 
which children have been orphaned in Botswana quadrupled. Almost 50 
percent of Botswana's children under 15 are AIDS orphans. AIDS is 
responsible for over half of the deaths of all children under the age 
of five.
  Let's look at Ethiopia. Ethiopia has a relatively low infection rate 
for sub-Saharan Africa, just 9.3 percent, with 5.6 million out of a 
population of 60 million infected. Over 35 percent of women in Ethiopia 
age 20 to 24 have HIV. That is a rate 3 times higher than men. In 1985, 
less than 1 percent of prostitutes in Addis Ababa were HIV positive. By 
1990, that proportion had reached 54 percent. This is the point of 
spreading of the disease. Very little is being done about it.
  Kenya currently has a relatively low rate of HIV infection. It is 11 
percent. HIV prevalence is much higher in the major urban areas and is 
over 25 percent in Nairobi, where almost 90 percent of prostitutes are 
HIV positive. This is the wonderful city of Nairobi, where 90 percent 
of the prostitutes are spreading this disease heterosexually through 
the countryside. There are currently at least 350,000 AIDS orphans in 
Kenya, with the number expected to reach 1 million by 2005. By 2005, 
Kenya will have one million orphans, thanks to AIDS. That is a 200 
percent increase. The cumulative number of deaths due to AIDS has risen 
from 16,000 in 1989 to 200,000 in 1995 and is expected to pass the one 
million mark this year. One million dead and one million orphans.
  Kenya is a beautiful country. It is shocking what is happening. I 
hope some of the pharmaceutical companies that lobbied against this 
amendment are listening. Mr. President, 75 percent of AIDS cases in 
Kenya occur among adults age 20 to 45, the economically most productive 
time of the population. The prevalence of HIV in pregnant women in 
urban areas has risen from 2 percent in 1985 to 16 percent in 1997.
  Let's go to Malawi. It is estimated around 1 in 7 of the population, 
age 15 to 49, is HIV positive. That is 15 percent of the population, or 
670,000 people. More than 80,000 people died of AIDS in 1 year alone, 
1997, and Malawi has an accumulative death toll of over 450,000 people. 
I hope the pharmaceutical companies are listening.
  Over 25 percent of women attending prenatal clinics in the urban 
centers test positive for HIV. Girls 15 to 24 years in age are six 
times more likely to be positive than boys the same age. Other 
infectious diseases are also on the upswing. Tuberculosis has tripled 
since the late 1980s, largely due to AIDS. By the end of 1997, over 6 
percent of Malawi's children under 15 were orphans.
  Let's look at Nigeria, Africa's most populace country, with 118 
million people. More than 2.2 million people, around 5 percent, are HIV 
positive. Although Nigeria appears to have a relatively low incidence 
at present, trend lines are not comforting. The prevalence in pregnant 
women in urban areas went from below 1 percent in 1991 to almost 7 
percent in 1994. Likewise, the prevalence of HIV in prostitutes has 
more than doubled during this same period in urban areas, and increases 
from 3.9 percent to 23 percent in rural areas. Nearly 50 percent of the 
prostitutes in Lagos, the largest city, are HIV positive, spreading the 
disease. There were 350,000 AIDS orphans in Nigeria as of 1997.

  Let's look at South Africa. About 3 million people in South Africa 
are infected with HIV, 13 percent of a population of 43 million. 
Estimates are by 2010, 25 percent of South Africa's population will be 
HIV positive. By 1997, 180,000 children were orphaned. That figure will 
skyrocket to 2 million by 2010. There will be two million orphans in 
South Africa because of AIDS by 2010. Mr. President, 20 percent of 
pregnant women are infected. There are close to 400,000 deaths due to 
AIDS in South Africa since the beginning of the epidemic.
  Let's go to Zambia, with an infection rate close to 20 percent. It is 
one of the hardest hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. As of 1997, 
over 770,000 adults and children in Zambia were AIDS affected. There 
are more than 630,000 estimated AIDS cases. There have been 600,000 
cumulative deaths since the beginning of the epidemic. After Uganda, 
Zambia has the highest proportion of children orphaned by AIDS in the 
world. By the end of 1997, 360,000 children, almost 10 percent of the 
children under 15, were orphaned because of AIDS. Four simple pills 
could prevent the transmission of AIDS from a pregnant woman to a 
child. Mr. President, 28 percent of adults in the urban area and 15 
percent in rural areas are infected with HIV.
  To give a sense of how the crisis is eroding social stability in 
Zambia, last year alone, 1,300 teachers in Zambia died from AIDS. Only 
700 new teachers were available to take their place. How do you teach 
children to be able to get a job in the new marketplace that this bill 
hopes to bring about if the teachers

[[Page S3798]]

are dying of AIDS, if the children are orphaned? Zimbabwe has one of 
the worst AIDS epidemics in the world. Currently, 26 percent of all 
adults age 15 to 49 are infected with HIV, more than 1.5 million out of 
a total population of 5.5 million.
  The United Nations Population Division has projected that over the 
next five years half of all child deaths in the country will be due to 
AIDS.
  As in Zambia, by the end of 1997 there were over 360,000 AIDS orphans 
in Zimbabwe and, as I mentioned earlier, projections are for Zimbabwe 
to be faced with over 1 million AIDS orphans in the next five years.
  The HIV/AIDS crisis is driving families in sub-Saharan Africa worn-
down by widespread poverty to the brink of disaster, and eroding the 
ability of the regions governments to provide services while at the 
same time increasing the demand for them. This is especially true in 
health care, where AIDS-related illnesses sometimes account for almost 
half the hospital beds and in-patient days.
  The transition to democracy in the region may also be imperiled, and 
economic growth may grind to a halt as a result of the AIDS crisis 
destabilizing social structures.
  These numbers, and the impact this disease is having on individual 
counties in sub-Saharan Africa, is staggering, but it is difficult to 
capture the depth of the devastation and suffering in the region with 
statistics and charts. To try to give a better sense of the impact of 
HIV/AIDS, let me read the first few paragraphs from a story published 
in the Village Voice last year, part of a Pulitzer Prize winning series 
of articles by journalist Mark Schoofs.
  Let me warn you: the following is not for the faint of heart or faint 
of stomach.

       They didn't call Arthur Chinaka out of the classroom. The 
     principal and Arthur's uncle Simon waited until the day's 
     exams were done before breaking the news: Arthur's father, 
     his body wracked with pneumonia, had finally died of AIDS. 
     They were worried that Arthur would panic, but at 17 years 
     old, he didn't. He still had two days of tests, so while his 
     father lay in the morgue, Arthur finished his exams. That 
     happened in 1990. Then in 1992, Arthur's uncle Edward died of 
     AIDS. In 1994, his uncle Richard died of AIDS. In 1996, his 
     uncle Alex died of AIDS. All of them are buried on the 
     homestead where they grew up and where their parents and 
     Arthur still live, a collection of thatch-roofed huts in the 
     mountains near Mutare, by Zimbabwe's border with Mozambique. 
     But HIV hasn't finished with this family. In April, a fourth 
     uncle lay coughing in his hut, and the virus had blinded 
     Arthur's aunt Eunice, leaving her so thin and weak she 
     couldn't walk without help. By September both were dead.
       The most horrifying part of this story is that it is not 
     unique. In Uganda, a business executive named Tonny, who 
     asked that his last name not be used, lost two brothers and a 
     sister to AIDS, while his wife lost her brother to the virus. 
     In the rural hills of South Africa's KwaZulu Natal province, 
     Bonisile Ngema lost her son and daughter-in-law, so she tries 
     to support her granddaughter and her own aged mother by 
     selling potatoes. Her dead son was the breadwinner for the 
     whole extended family, and now she feels like an orphan.
       In the morgue of Zimbabwe's Parirenyatwa Hospital, head 
     mortician Paul Tabvemhiri opens the door to the large cold 
     room that holds cadavers. But it's impossible to walk in 
     because so many bodies lie on the floor, wrapped in blankets 
     from their deathbeds or dressed in the clothes they died in. 
     Along the walls, corpses are packed two to a shelf. In a 
     second cold-storage area, the shelves are narrower, so 
     Tabvemhiri faces a grisly choice: He can stack the bodies on 
     top of one another, which squishes the face and makes it hard 
     for relatives to identify the body, or he can leave the 
     cadavers out in the hall, unrefrigerated. He refuses to 
     deform bodies, and so a pair of corpses lie outside on 
     gurneys behind a curtain. The odor of decomposition is faint 
     but clear.
       Have they always had to leave bodies in the hall? ``No, no, 
     no,'' says Tabvemhiri, who has worked in the morgue since 
     1976. ``Only in the last five or six years,'' which is when 
     AIDS deaths here took off. Morgue records show that the 
     number of cadavers has almost tripled since the start of 
     Zimbabwe's epidemic, and there's been a change in who is 
     dying: ``The young ones,'' says Tabvemhiri, ``are coming in 
     bulk.''
       The wide crescent of East and Southern Africa that sweeps 
     down from Mount Kenya and around the Cape of Good Hope is the 
     hardest-hit AIDS region in the world. Here, the virus is 
     cutting down more and more of Africa's most energetic and 
     productive people, adults aged 15 to 49. The slave trade also 
     targeted people in their prime, killing or sending into 
     bondage perhaps 25 million people. But that happened over 
     four centuries. Only 17 years have passed since AIDS was 
     first found in Africa, on the shores of Lake Victoria, yet 
     according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 
     (UNAIDS), the virus has already killed more than 11 million 
     sub-Saharan Africans. More than 22 million others are 
     infected [and nobody cares].
       Only 10 percent of the world's population lives south of 
     the Sahara, but the region is home to two-thirds of the 
     world's HIV-positive people, and it has suffered more than 80 
     percent of all AIDS deaths.
       Last year, the combined wars in Africa killed 200,000 
     people. AIDS killed 10 times that number. Indeed, more people 
     succumbed to HIV last year than to any other cause of death 
     on this continent, including malaria. And the carnage has 
     only begun.

  In addition to the devastating health impact, HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan 
Africa is also threatening to undermine economic, social, and political 
stability in the region--the very issues which the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act is intended to address.
  In Zimbabwe and Botswana, for example, where roughly one of every 
four people have AIDS, the disease has cut sharply into population 
growth with profound consequences. According to Karen Stanecki, chief 
of health studies for the U.S. Census Bureau:

       The zero growth is coming because people are dying in their 
     young adult years, not after leading full lives and then 
     dying.

  People are dying in the years when they're supposed to be most 
productive.
  As World Bank President James Wolfensohn said at the United Nations 
this past January:

       Many of us used to think of AIDS as a health issue. We were 
     wrong. AIDS can no longer be confined to the health or social 
     sector portfolios. AIDS is turning back the clock on 
     development.

  As the HIV epidemic deepens in Africa, it is leaving an economically 
devastated continent in its wake.
  At the most simple level, already impoverished families that must 
care for a member who is ill with HIV/AIDS find that what little they 
had to pay for a child's education or invest for the future is now 
gone.
  The United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS found that urban 
families in the Cote d'Ivoire, known as the Ivory Coast in this 
country, with a member sick from AIDS cut spending on their children's 
education in half and reduced food consumption by about 40 percent as 
they struggled to cover health care costs.
  Moreover, as the epidemic has worsened, so have estimates of its 
effect on African economies, even without taking into account broader 
human welfare issues.
  Indeed, because of the impact of HIV/AIDS, David Bloom, a professor 
of economics and demography at the Harvard School of Public Health, 
warns that ``The whole economy [in Africa] could unravel.''
  In ``Confronting AIDS,'' the World Bank factored in labor supply 
issues and the amount to which health care would be financed out of 
savings to come up with a ``rough estimate'' of a 0.5 percent annual 
reduction in per capita GDP growth. I believe this estimate to be on 
the low side.
  One-half of 1 percent may not seem like much. Indeed, for countries 
with relatively high growth rates such as Uganda, that kind of 
reduction will not seem to be immediately crippling, but a lower growth 
rate has a cumulative effect.
  A country whose growth rate is 2 percent a year will increase its GNP 
per capita by 81 percent in one generation, or about 30 years. Each 
generation will live much better than the last.
  However, if AIDS reduces growth to just 1.5 percent per year, the 
same country will increase its GNP per capita by only about 50 percent 
in the same period.
  This chart shows the change in per capita GDP caused by AIDS in 
Kenya. The yellow is a no AIDS scenario, and one can see the enormous 
rise in GDP. The red is the AIDS scenario, even with the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act, and one can see how it is consequentially lower.
  Thus, in Kenya, for example, UNAIDS estimates that while per capita 
GDP was estimated to increase from 5,600 Kenyan shillings in 1990 to 
over 6,000 Kenyan shillings by 2005 without AIDS, with the impact of 
AIDS per capita GDP will remain stagnant over the same period of time.
  Likewise, in South Africa UNAIDS estimates that because of the impact 
of HIV/AIDS the Human Development

[[Page S3799]]

Index--which measures the level of human development through a formula 
based on life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, school enrollment, 
and real per capita GDP has dropped by over 15 percent from 1995 to the 
present. That is a 15-percent drop due to AIDS in 5 years. Without HIV/
AIDS South Africa's HDI was projected to remain more or less the same.
  Finally, the combined effects of HIV/AIDS on health, economic life, 
the social fabric, and political institutions, has created a genuine 
threat to future stability and security in sub-Saharan Africa.
  That is why, at the initiative of Ambassador Holbrooke and Vice 
President Gore, the 15-member United Nations Security Council decided 
to address AIDS earlier this year.
  As Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Security Council:

       In already unstable societies, this cocktail of disasters 
     is a sure recipe for more conflict. And conflict, in turn, 
     provides fertile ground for further infections.

  And, as Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United 
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, said:

       Visibly, the epidemic is eroding the social fabric of many 
     communities. In its demographic, social and economic impact, 
     the epidemic has become more devastating than war, in a 
     continent where war and conflict appear to be endemic.

  As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke said, if 
we do not work with Africa now to address the problems associated with 
the HIV/AIDS crisis, ``we will have to deal with them later when they 
will get more dangerous and more expensive.''
  It is in recognition of the destabilizing effects of HIV/AIDS in 
Africa that the Clinton-Gore administration has taken the step of 
designating AIDS a threat to U.S. national security interests, as 
reported the other week in the Washington Post. I believe the 
administration is to be congratulated for its recognition of the 
profound effects that this disease is having, and for this effort.
  There are many explanations for why this pandemic is sweeping across 
sub-Saharan Africa: Certainly the region's poverty, which has deprived 
Africans of access to health information, health education, and health 
care. Conflict, which has led to increases in refugee flows, and 
increases in prostitution have also played a role. Cultural and 
behavior patterns, which has led to sub-Saharan Africa being the only 
region in which women are infected with HIV at a higher rate than men, 
may also play a role.
  Clearly, in addressing the challenges presented by this disease there 
needs to be considerable emphasis addressing the health care 
infrastructure of sub-Saharan Africa and on additional resources for 
education. I intend to address both these points later.
  I also believe that if the international community is to be 
successful in meeting this challenge, we must make every effort to get 
appropriate medicine into the hands of those in need.
  In the United States and much of the industrialized world, even as 
sub-Saharan Africa has been ravaged by the impact of HIV/AIDS, we have 
succeeded, in large part, in turning HIV/AIDS into a chronic disease; 
not curing it--that must still remain a top priority--but managing it. 
We have done so, in large parts, by developing effective 
pharmaceuticals and getting them to those in need.
  Indeed, for too many years there were no effective drugs.
  I remember, as Mayor of San Francisco, I was the first mayor to 
implement a program to deal with AIDS in the United States, and 
remember trying to manage this disease in its early days, when cause, 
let alone treatment, was unclear; when drugs were simply not available; 
when HIV/AIDS was devastating our community, and many, many promising 
young people--many of them my friends--were struck down in the prime of 
their lives; and when we simply did not know how big the crisis would 
get, or if our health care system could handle it.
  So in some small way, I think I understand what policymakers in many 
sub-Saharan African countries are now going through.
  Now, thanks to recent medical research, we do have effective 
medicine. For example, some recent pilot projects have had success in 
reducing mother-to-child transmission by administering the anti-HIV 
drug AZT, or a less expensive medicine, Nevirapine, NVP, during birth 
and early childhood.
  In fact, new studies indicate NVP can reduce the risk of mother-to-
child transmission by as much as 80 percent. Just think of the 
statistics on orphans and HIV-infected children that could be stopped 
with four of these pills. NVP is given just once to the mother during 
labor and once to the child within three days of birth. Three or four 
pills can mean that a child is prevented from being born with AIDS.

  For just $4 a tablet--a little more than the cost of a large latte at 
Starbuck's, not a lot here but a great deal in Africa--this inexpensive 
drug regime has created an unprecedented opportunity for international 
cooperation in the fight against AIDS. Currently, however, less than 1 
percent of HIV infected pregnant women have access to interventions to 
reduce mother-to-child transmission.
  In addition to such drugs as NVP, drug ``cocktails" administered in a 
treatment regimen known as HAART--highly active antiretroviral 
therapy--antiretroviral drugs can allow people living with AIDS to lead 
a normal life. And use of the drugs can lead to long-term survival 
rather than early death. Such treatment has proven highly effective in 
developed countries, including our own.
  Although some pharmaceutical companies may try to tell you otherwise, 
most antiretrovirals drugs are relatively inexpensive to produce. AIDS 
Treatment News recently reported that:

       AZT in bulk can be purchased for 42 cents for 300 mg from 
     the worldwide suppliers; this price reflects profits not only 
     to the manufacturer but also to the middleman bulk buyer. The 
     same drug retails at my local pharmacy for $5.82 per pill. 
     This ridiculous price bears no real relation to the cost of 
     production.

  Unfortunately--and inexplicably in my view--access for Africans to 
AIDS medications or ``antiretrovirals'' is perhaps the most contentious 
issue surrounding the response to the African epidemic.
  According to an article, ``Poor Nations Ravaged by AIDS Need the 
Right Resources'' that appeared in the December 1, 1999 issue of the 
Journal of the American Medical Association:

       For as many years as antiretroviral therapies have been 
     available, AIDS activists have accused pharmaceutical 
     companies of price gouging and challenged them to reduce 
     prices and cut their profit margins on drugs for people with 
     HIV infection and AIDS. In a pilot drug access initiative 
     launched in 1997 in Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire, Chile, and 
     Vietnam, UNAIDS succeeded in negotiating discounts on drugs 
     manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, 
     Glaxo Wellcome Inc, Merck & Co Inc, and Roche Laboratories.
       In Uganda, the cost of dual antiretroviral drug therapy has 
     been cut from $600 to $250 per month; triple combination 
     therapy that used to cost $1000 per month is now between $500 
     and $600 (J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1999;5:48-60). 
     Dorothy Ochola, MD, coordinator of the drug access initiative 
     in Uganda, said the US Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention has offered free laboratory monitoring of patients 
     for 2 years.
       While the program has helped hundreds of HIV-infected 
     people in Uganda gain access to therapy, it is far from a 
     cure-all. Along with government subsidies for drugs, the 
     initiative offers less expensive drugs for palliative care 
     and opportunistic infections, but patients must pay out of 
     pocket for antiretroviral drugs. With a population of 21 
     million and the number of HIV-positive persons estimated at 
     930,000, Uganda's approximately 825 patients receiving 
     antiretroviral drugs through the program are a drop in the 
     bucket.

  Unfortunately, it is true that even at reduced rates in all too many 
cases the cost of combination therapy is beyond the means of most 
people living with AIDS and governments in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Combination therapy in South Africa was estimated at $334 per month 
or $4,000 per year, and UNAIDS reports that Brazil treated 75,000 
people with antiretrovirals in 1999 at a cost of $300 million--or, 
again, $4,000 per person.
  I strongly believe that we have a strong moral obligation to try to 
save lives when the medications for doing so exist, and it is critical 
that the United States play a leadership role in the international 
community to increase access to life-saving drugs.
  For example, the United States should not oppose African governments 
and donor agencies from achieving reductions in the cost of 
antiretrovirals

[[Page S3800]]

through negotiated agreements with drug manufacturers.
  The British pharmaceutical firm Glaxo Wellcome, a major producer of 
antiretrovirals, has already stated that it is committed to 
``differential pricing,'' which would lower the cost of AIDS drugs in 
Africa. And I say, hooray; one company. These efforts are to be 
commended, and it is my sincere hope that companies willing to adopt 
``differential pricing'' will help African countries get the drugs they 
need at prices they can afford.
  Now I will speak about compulsory licensing and parallel importing 
for a moment.
  This is the issue raised by my amendment and now the President's 
Executive order. The United States must not oppose ``parallel 
importing'' and ``compulsory licensing'' by African governments to 
lower the price of patented medications so that HIV/AIDS drugs are more 
affordable, and more people in Africa will have access to them.
  Through parallel importing, patented pharmaceuticals can be purchased 
from the cheapest source, rather than from the manufacturer. Under 
compulsory licensing an African government could order a local firm to 
produce a drug and pay a negotiated royalty to the patent holder.
  Both parallel imports and compulsory licensing are permitted under 
the World Trade Organization agreement for countries facing health 
emergencies--and there can be little doubt that Africa is facing a 
health emergency of monumental proportions.
  My amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Wisconsin, would have 
simply codified current administration policy--as the administration 
has now opted to do itself via Executive order--which states that the 
U.S. Government will not oppose efforts by governments of the countries 
of sub-Saharan Africa to supply HIV/AIDS drugs to their citizens 
through compulsory licensing or parallel importing.
  This amendment did not create new policy or a new approach on 
intellectual property rights under the World Trade Organization 
agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 
know as TRIPS, nor does it require IP rights to be rolled back or 
weakened.
  There are few in this body as committed to the notion of strict 
protection of U.S. intellectual property rights as I am.
  Just a few years ago, for example, when the United States and China 
were involved in a dispute over IPR protection for movies, music, and 
computer software, I worked with the administration to convince China 
that it was important to respect the rights of the patent holder and 
live up to its commitments to respect intellectual property rights. 
And, I am pleased to note, China's record since that time on IP issues 
has improved.
  The compulsory licensing process under my amendment was fully 
consistent with the WTO's approach to balancing the protection of 
intellectual property with a moral obligation to meet public health 
emergencies such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.
  According to an opinion I solicited from the Congressional Research 
Service on this question, the amendment I offered:

       . . . would appear to be consistent with the TRIPS 
     agreement since on its face it only prohibits U.S. government 
     authorities, such as the U.S. Trade Representative (U.S.T.R.) 
     From seeking a revocation of law or policy which offers 
     adequate intellectual property rights protection consistent 
     with the TRIPS agreement. . . . The TRIPS agreement permits 
     compulsory licensing under certain conditions. . . .

  In other words, despite what some pharmaceutical companies have been 
saying behind closed doors about this amendment over the past few 
weeks, this amendment did not weaken intellectual property rights 
protection one iota. It left the bar exactly where it is right now.
  Let me be clear about this: My amendment--and now the President's 
Executive Order--does not create new policy or a new approach on IP 
rights under TRIPS, nor does it require IP rights to be rolled back or 
weakened. All it asked is that in approaching HIV/AIDS in Africa, U.S. 
policy on ``compulsory licensing'' and ``parallel importing'' remain 
consistent with what is accepted under international trade law.
  By doing so, this approach will allow the countries of sub-Saharan 
Africa to determine the availability of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals in 
their countries, and provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS 
drugs.
  It was, or so I thought, a simple, common-sense approach to dealing 
with one facet of one of the most pressing and important national 
security and international health issues that we face in the coming 
decades: The HIV/AIDS pandemic currently sweeping across sub-Saharan 
Africa.
  Let me provide one example of why the approach adopted by my 
amendment, and now the President's Executive Order, is necessary.
  On March 14 of this year, Doctor's Without Borders--the medical 
relief group that won the Nobel Prize last year--sent a letter to 
Pfizer calling on Pfizer to lower the price of fluconazole, a drug 
needed to treat cryptococcal meningitus, the most common systemic 
fungal infection in HIV-positive people, in developing countries.
  As the Doctors Without Borders letter notes, in Thailand fluconazole 
is available for just $1.20 for a daily dose. Yet in Kenya and South 
Africa, the daily dose costs $17.84, almost 15 times higher. That is 
unconscionable and is greed in the ultimate.
  What accounts for the difference in price?
  In Thailand a generic version is available. In Kenya and South Africa 
the only supplier is Pfizer.
  As Bernard Pecoul, director of the Doctors Without Borders Access to 
Essential Medicines Campaign has noted, ``People are dying because the 
price of the drug that can save them is too high.''
  As the March 14 Doctors Without Borders letter notes, ``While we 
appreciate that patents can be an important motor of research and 
development funding, there must be a balance to ensure that people in 
developing countries have access to life-saving medicines.'' I could 
not agree more.
  Under pressure from Doctors Without Borders, Pfizer has since agreed 
to provide free fluconazole to South Africa. This situation never 
should have existed to begin with.
  Without ``compulsory licencing'' and ``parallel importing,'' which 
would allow access to cheaper generic drugs, more people in sub-Saharan 
Africa will suffer and die.
  So why, given that it represented a common sense approach to a 
devastating problem fully consistent with international trade law did 
my amendment meet such stiff opposition in conference?
  After long and hard consideration, I have concluded that there can be 
only one possible answer to that question: Profits and corporate greed.
  Simply put, the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture HIV/AIDS 
drugs would prefer to be able to sell drugs for $18 a dose rather than 
$1 per dose, with the additional $17 going straight to fattening the 
bottom line.
  If there was a legitimate policy debate to be had, why did the 
opponents of including this provision in the bill not wage their fight 
out in the open?
  The answer is because they had no arguments which would stand up to 
the light of day--so they restricted their activities to attacking this 
amendment behind closed doors, out of the public view. And they 
succeeded, in conference, with literally no one in the room except for 
a few members, in getting this amendment killed.
  The pharmaceutical companies who were opposed to this amendment--
opposed because they want to squeeze every last drop of profit from the 
suffering of the millions of HIV/AIDS victims in sub-Saharan Africa--
were successful, behind closed doors, in killing my amendment.
  The revenue created from the sale of HIV/AIDS-related drugs is 
staggering.
  Crixivan, used to treat HIV infections, produced $675 million in 
revenue for Merck, in 1998; Zithromax, used to prevent Mycobacterium 
avium complex in people with advanced HIV infections, produced over 
$1.04 billion in revenue for Pfizer, in 1998; Fluconazole, used to 
treat cryptococcal meningitis, produced $916 million in revenue for 
Pfizer, in 1998; Epivir, used in combination with AZT as a treatment 
option for HIV infection in adults and pediatric patients that are at 
least three months old, produced $595 million in revenue for Glaxo 
Wellcome, in 1998; Combivir, used as a treatment option for HIV 
infection in adults and adolescent patients that are at least twelve

[[Page S3801]]

years old, produced $442 million in revenue for Glaxo Wellcome, in 
1998; AZT, used for the treatment of adults with AIDS, produced $248 
million in revenue for Glaxo Wellcome, in 1998; Taxol, used to treat 
AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma, produced over $1.2 billion in revenue 
for Bristol-Meyers Squibb, in 1998; Zerit, used for the treatment of 
adults with advanced HIV infections, produced $551 million in revenue 
for Bristol-Meyers Squibb, in 1998; Videx, used for the treatment of 
adult and pediatric patients with advanced HIV that are intolerant to 
or deteriorating on AZT, produced $162 million in revenue for Bristol-
Meyers Squibb, in 1998; Invirase, used for advanced HIV infections, 
produced $397 million in revenue for Hoffman-La Roche, in 1998; Hivid, 
used in combination with AZT for patients with advanced HIV, produced 
$65 million in revenue for Hoffman-La Roche, in 1998; Famvir, used for 
the treatment of recurrent mucocutaneous herpes simplex infections in 
HIV-infected patients, produced $172 million in revenue for SmithKline 
Beecham, in 1998; Gamimune N, used to prevent bacterial infections in 
HIV-infected pediatric patients, produced $235 million for Bayer, in 
1998; Biaxin, used to treat disseminated mycobacterial infections due 
to Mycobacterium avium-intracellular complex (MAC), produced $1.25 
billion in revenue for Abbott Laboratories, in 1998; Novir, used in 
combination with nucleoside analogues for the treatment of HIV-
infections, produced $250 million for Abbott Laboratories, in 1998; 
Epogen, used to treat anemia related to AZT therapy, produced $1.38 
billion in revenue for Amgen, in 1998; Sustiva, used to treat HIV-1 
infections in combination with other antiretrovirals, produced $75 
million in revenue for DuPont Pharmaceuticals in 1998.

  Viramune, used to treat HIV-infected adults experiencing clinical or 
immunologic deterioration, produced $154 million in revenue for 
Boehringer Ingelheim, in 1998; Serostim, used for the treatment of 
AIDS-wasting and cachexia, produced $88 million in revenue for the 
Ares-Serono Group in 1998; Viracept, used to treat HIV infection when 
antiretroviral therapy is needed in adults and pediatric patients that 
are at least two years old, produced $530 million for Agouron 
Pharmaceuticals, in 1998; and Abelcet, used to treat aspergillosis, a 
fungal infection, produced $73 million for The Liposome Company, in 
1998.
  All of the above-mentioned drugs were among the 500 best selling 
drugs in the world, in 1998.
  Driven in no small part by the profits on HIV/AIDS drugs, the 
pharmaceutical sector has proven to be one of the most profitable 
corporate sectors in the world. In 1999 pharmaceutical companies had a 
18.6 percent return on revenues, which is 17 percent higher than the 
number two sector on the list, and a 16.5 percent return on assets, 
which is 7 percent higher than the number two sector on the list.
  For shame, for opposing this amendment.
  Merck, the producer of Crixivan, had an 18 percent return on revenues 
and a 17 percent return on assets.
  Bristol-Meyers Squibb, the producer of Taxol, Zerit, and Videx, had a 
21 percent return on revenues and a 24 percent return on assets.
  Pfizer, the producer of Zithromax and Fluconazole, had a 20 percent 
return on revenues and a 15 percent return on assets.
  Abbott Laboratories, the producer of Biaxin and Norvir, had a 19 
percent return on revenues and a 17 percent return on assets.
  Amgen, the producer of Epogen, had a 33 percent return on revenues 
and a 27 percent return on assets.
  Ironically, the pharmaceutical companies would profit more from the 
approach embodied in my amendment than they do right now. Presently, 
most sub-Saharan African countries are not buying these drugs since 
they can not afford the price tag, so the pharmaceutical companies are 
not earning any money at all on these HIV/AIDS drugs in these 
countries. But if sub-Saharan African countries produced HIV/AIDS drugs 
through ``compulsory licensing,'' or purchased them by ``parallel 
importing,'' the pharmaceutical companies holding the patents on these 
drugs would receive royalties.
  I have a very hard time understanding how lobbyists behind closed 
doors prevail on this body, in the middle of a world health crisis, to 
prevent the use of cheaper drugs when the figures I have documented are 
decimating these countries in a major public health emergency. I don't 
know how they sleep at night. I really do not. I don't know how they 
can look at a country with 1 million or 2 million AIDS-produced orphans 
and sleep at night. I really do not understand it.
  Let me touch for a moment on what else is to be done.
  By itself, the approach of the Feinstein-Feingold Amendment, and the 
President's Executive order, will not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS in 
Africa. It only addresses one area--an important area, but only one--of 
a large and complex problem.
  As Dr. David Satcher, the Surgeon General of the United States, wrote 
in ``The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic'' in JAMA, the Journal of the 
American Medical Association, in April 1998:

       More than a decade of experience has taught us how to 
     control HIV/AIDS--we know what works. Many developed 
     countries have successfully checked the spread of the 
     epidemic. While development of therapy and a vaccine 
     continue, prevention must be emphasized. The basic elements 
     of prevention include education, behavior change, voluntary 
     testing and counseling prevention of perinatal transmission, 
     and political commitment. Each country must find the mix of 
     methods appropriate to its particular conditions.
       Education about HIV/AIDS is necessary but alone does not 
     change the behavior of populations. Promotion of voluntary 
     testing and counseling must complement education. Testing and 
     counseling break the deadly silence around HIV/AIDS and 
     empower individuals to make informed decisions and change 
     behaviors. Breaking the silence also will begin to diffuse 
     the stigma surrounding the disease. We have seen success with 
     behavioral change in Uganda and Thailand, the only two less-
     developed countries with extensive capacity for voluntary 
     testing and counseling.
       It is known that perinatal transmission of HIV can be 
     reduced by more than 50% by using antiretroviral therapy; 
     however problems with access to these drugs limit their use 
     in some countries. Transmission of HIV through breast-feeding 
     and poor survival of orphans make the avoidance of disease 
     via treatment for perinatal transmission more complex. We 
     continue to work with international organizations, other 
     governments, and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs and 
     expand access to antiretroviral drugs. Current treatment for 
     perinatal transmission, as well as use of antiretrovirals in 
     general, in less-developed countries is also limited by the 
     fact that very few people have been tested for HIV infection.
       Treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is 
     important to control the spread of HIV. One of the reasons 
     HIV has spread so rapidly in Africa is that so many STDs go 
     untreated. Untreated STDs break down natural barriers that 
     prevent transmission. Access to even basic treatment for STDs 
     remains a problem for many less-developed countries.
       Perhaps most important in the global battle against HIV/
     AIDS is political commitment. Leaders at the national, 
     provincial, and local levels of government must speak out 
     about HIV/AIDS and encourage businesses and nongovernmental 
     organizations to commit to work against the disease. I was 
     encouraged by U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Deputy 
     President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, who put the HIV/AIDS 
     threat at the top of the international agenda at the recent 
     meeting of the United States-South Africa Joint Commission. 
     They set an important example for leaders in developed and 
     less-developed countries.
       American medicine and public health have an important role 
     to play in the global battle against HIV/AIDS by supporting 
     international organizations such as the Joint United Nations 
     Program on HIV/AIDS, the World Health Organization, and the 
     World Bank.
       HIV/AIDS can be likened to the plague that decimated the 
     population of Europe in the 14th century. While the modern 
     epidemic affects people of all age groups, those of working 
     age are at highest risk, posing potentially dire economic, 
     social, and political consequences for the global community. 
     Unfortunately, the world continues to devote greater 
     attention and resources to traditional national security 
     issues such as wars, postponing notice of an epidemic that, 
     if left to spread unchecked, will kill more people than any 
     of the terrible conflagrations that have so marked this 
     century.

  Because of the complexity of dealing with this issue, the Clinton-
Gore Administration has asked Congress to commit $150 million toward 
vaccine research and AIDS treatment and prevention programs in Africa.
  The Administration's initiative dedicates $100 million for the 
prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS in Africa, Asia and other 
regions, doubling current U.S. funding of AIDS prevention efforts. An 
additional $50 million will go to the Vaccine Fund of the

[[Page S3802]]

Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations for research, and the 
purchase and distribution of vaccines for other infectious diseases in 
developing nations.
  The Administration's initiative, announced by the Vice President this 
past January, also includes plans for a public-private partnership with 
U.S. business leaders active in Africa, with a goal of developing 
workplace education programs designed to end the stigma and ``break 
down the barriers against discussing AIDS.''
  The Vice President has also proposed specific funding for the U.S. 
military to work with armed forces in Africa to combat AIDS, an 
especially important initiative given the high rates of infection among 
soldiers.
  I believe that it is crucial that we provide support for these 
efforts at least at the level the Administration has called for.
  In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by my colleague from 
California, Senator Boxer, which calls for USAID to make HIV/AIDS a 
priority in foreign assistance funding and authorizes $2 billion over 
five years, with at least 50 percent targeted at sub-Saharan Africa, 
for a comprehensive coordinated effort to combat HIV/AIDS, including 
testing, education, treatment, and the provision of medicines to 
prevent mother-to-child transmissions.
  I should note here that I was also disappointed that the Conference 
choose not to include an Administration initiative to provide a tax 
credit for the President's Millennium Vaccine Initiative tax credit 
proposal. This proposal would create a tax credit to encourage the 
development of vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, or any 
infectious disease that causes over 1 million deaths annually 
worldwide.
  Such a tax credit would encourage the development of a vaccine for 
HIV/AIDS. As Dr. Seth Berkley, president of the International AIDS 
Vaccine Initiative has put it: ``We need new prevention technologies, 
and the most critical one is a vaccine. . . . Ultimately, only a 
vaccine can stop the epidemic.''
  These actions and policies must be part of a larger development 
effort if we are to help these sub-Saharan African countries control 
the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  Debt relief must also be part of a this larger development effort. It 
is unconscionable that many of these countries are spending more than a 
quarter of their precious export earnings on debt service payments to 
bilateral and multilateral creditors. The World Bank is correct when it 
declares that debt burdens at these levels are unsustainable.
  The citizens of most of these countries are extremely poor, and they 
are burdened with unsustainable debts built up during the Cold War. 
These debts were accrued during the 1970s and 1980s by unaccountable 
governments.
  Debt service diverts scarce resources away from spending on health 
care, health education, and poverty reduction initiatives in these 
countries. Debt servicing absorbs up to 40 percent of national revenue 
among a majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
  We must lead the international community in efforts to write-off 
unsustainable debts so these countries can spend more money health 
education, infrastructure and services, as well as other development 
needs.
  Let me conclude and thank the Senate for its forbearance. I am sorry 
for my display of emotion. I have watched people die of AIDS. I know 
what it is like. I can't imagine what it must be like in Africa where 
citizens maybe don't have a home, where they have an enormous cultural 
taboo attached to it, where there is no food, there is no medicine, and 
to know that a few pills can prevent the transmission of AIDS to a 
child for a nominal sum of money, and to know, literally, that in the 
coming years this could save 5 to 10 million people.
  Just to think of what went on behind closed doors by lobbyists for 
pharmaceutical companies is unconscionable. The TRIPS agreement, the 
World Trade Organization, at a time of national health emergency, 
permits compulsory licensing and parallel importing. For these 
pharmaceutical companies that have made the kind of money they have 
made--and I know they will say they spent millions and millions on 
research and development; I have a member of my family who was director 
of research for one of the companies that worked on an antiretroviral--
the bottom line is every one of these annual reports shows a 
substantial increase in profit.
  Yet in little-known countries in sub-Saharan Africa, people are 
literally dying by the millions. Today we are considering a trade 
initiative bill which aims at giving them a better way of life. What is 
the better way of life if you can't live? What is the better way of 
life if you are dying of AIDS? What is a better way of life if you were 
1 of 5 million orphans born in sub-Saharan Africa? What is a better 
life if you were born one of these HIV-infected orphans?
  I find the act of pharmaceutical companies in opposing this amendment 
unconscionable.
  I thank the Chair for its forbearance, and I thank the Senate. I also 
thank the administration for doing a major act of conscience in the 
production of an Executive order which will allow the purchase of these 
drugs at the lowest possible rates.

                               Exhibit 1

                            Executive Order


      access to hiv/aids pharmaceuticals and medical technologies

       By the authority vested in me as President by the 
     Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, 
     including section 141 and chapter 1 of title III of the Trade 
     Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2171, 2411-2420), section 
     307 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 2421), and 
     section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended 
     (22 U.S.C. 2151b), and in accordance with executive branch 
     policy on health-related intellectual property matters to 
     promote access to essential medicines, it is hereby ordered 
     as follows:
       Section 1. Policy. (a) In administering sections 301-310 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, the United States shall not seek, 
     through negotiation or otherwise, the revocation or revision 
     of any intellectual property law or policy of a beneficiary 
     sub-Saharan African country, as determined by the President, 
     that regulates HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical 
     technologies if the law or policy of the country:
       (1) promotes access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical 
     technologies for affected populations in that country; and
       (2) provides adequate and effective intellectual property 
     protection consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related 
     Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 
     referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)).
       (b) The United States shall encourage all beneficiary sub-
     Saharan African countries to implement policies designed to 
     address the underlying causes of the HIV/AIDS crisis by, 
     among other things, making efforts to encourage practices 
     that will prevent further transmission and infection and to 
     stimulate development of the infrastructure necessary to 
     deliver adequate health services, and by encouraging policies 
     that provide an incentive for public and private research on, 
     and development of, vaccines and other medical innovations 
     that will combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa.
       Sec. 2. Rationale: (a) This order finds that:
       (1) since the onset of the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic, 
     approximately 34 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa 
     have been infected with the disease;
       (2) of those infected, approximately 11.5 million have 
     died;
       (3) the deaths represent 83 percent of the total HIV/AIDS 
     related deaths worldwide; and
       (4) access to effective therapeutics for HIV/AIDS is 
     determined by issues of price, health system infrastructure 
     for delivery, and sustainable financing.
       (b) In light of these findings, this order recognizes that:
       (1) it is in the interest of the United States to take all 
     reasonable steps to prevent further spread of infectious 
     disease, particularly HIV/AIDS;
       (2) there is critical need for effective incentives to 
     develop new pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and therapies to 
     combat the HIV/AIDS crisis, including effective global 
     intellectual property standards designed to foster 
     pharmaceutical and medical innovation;
       (3) the overriding priority for responding to the crisis of 
     HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa should be to improve public 
     education and to encourage practices that will prevent 
     further transmission and infection, and to stimulate 
     development of the infrastructure necessary to deliver 
     adequate health care services;
       (4) the United States should work with individual countries 
     in sub-Saharan Africa to assist them in development of 
     effective public education campaigns aimed at the prevention 
     of HIV/AIDS transmission and infection, and to improve their 
     health care infrastructure to promote improved access to 
     quality health care for their citizens in general, and 
     particularly with respect to the HIV/AIDS epidemic;
       (5) an effective United States response to the crisis in 
     sub-Saharan Africa must focus in the short term on preventive 
     programs designed to reduce the frequency of new infections 
     and remove the stigma of the disease,

[[Page S3803]]

     and should place a priority on basic health services that can 
     be used to treat opportunistic infections, sexually 
     transmitted infections, and complications associated with 
     HIV/AIDS so as to prolong the duration and improve the 
     quality of life of those with the disease;
       (6) an effective United States response to the crisis must 
     also focus on the development of HIV/AIDS vaccines to prevent 
     the spread of the disease;
       (7) the innovative capacity of the United States in the 
     commercial and public pharmaceutical research sectors is 
     unmatched in the world, and the participation of both these 
     sectors will be a critical element in any successful program 
     to respond to the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa;
       (8) the TRIPS Agreement recognizes the importance of 
     promoting effective and adequate protection of the 
     intellectual property rights and the right of countries to 
     adopt measures necessary to protect public health;
       (9) individual countries should have the ability to take 
     measures to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic, provided that such 
     measures are consistent with their international obligations; 
     and
       (10) successful initiatives will require effective 
     partnerships and cooperation among governments, international 
     organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 
     sector, and greater consideration should be given to 
     financial, legal, and other incentives that will promote 
     improved prevention and treatment actions.
       Sec. 3. Scope. (a) This order prohibits the United States 
     Government from taking action pursuant to section 301(b) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to any law or policy in 
     beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries that promotes 
     access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical technologies 
     and that provides adequate and effective intellectual 
     property protection consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. 
     However, this order does not prohibit United States 
     Government officials from evaluating, determining, or 
     expressing concern about whether such a law or policy 
     promotes access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical 
     technologies or provides adequate and effective intellectual 
     property protection consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. In 
     addition, this order does not prohibit United States 
     Government officials from consulting with or otherwise 
     discussing with sub-Saharan African governments whether such 
     law or policy meets the conditions set forth in section 1(a) 
     of this order. Moreover, this order does not prohibit the 
     United States Government from invoking the dispute settlement 
     procedures of the World Trade Organization to examine whether 
     any such law or policy is consistent with the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements, referred to in section 101(d) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act.
       (b) This order is intended only to improve the internal 
     management of the executive branch and is not intended to, 
     and does not create, any right or benefit, substantive or 
     procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against 
     the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its 
     officers or employees, or any other person.
                                               William J. Clinton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent, at the conclusion of my 
remarks, a Republican Senator be recognized to speak, if one seeks 
recognition, and that Senator Hollings be the next speaker recognized 
to speak thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first say the senior Senator from 
California certainly should not apologize for her emotion. If there 
ever was an issue that deserves such a powerful display of passion and 
emotion, it is this issue of the AIDS crisis in Africa and the 
outrageous nerve of these pharmaceutical companies of removing this 
modest provision that the Senate unanimously placed in the bill in the 
conference report. It is an abysmal moment.
  I thank the Senator for her leadership, her passion, and for her 
willingness to continue this fight that we all will continue as long as 
it takes.
  Before we go any further with this conference report, I come to the 
floor to follow on the comments of the Senator from California to make 
something clear to my colleagues. I think we can do better than this. 
We have lost our way with this new Africa policy. We have to chart a 
new course if we are to seek a better world for Africa and for America.
  I say this as a Senator, an American, and as a human being who has 
been to Africa, seen its promise, and been appalled by its suffering. I 
come here to express my disappointment about the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act and my deep dismay about how and why the Feinstein-
Feingold amendment on the HIV/AIDS crisis was kept out of the 
conference report.
  Very simply, I am talking today about the future of U.S.-Africa 
policy. We have a role to play in Africa's future and we have to decide 
what that role is going to be. Some in this body think AGOA is the 
right example of what our role in Africa's future should be. The 
African Growth and Opportunities Act supporters believe this 
legislation is somehow a landmark, that it represents a real 
opportunity for growth on the continent, a new way of thinking about 
Africa. They want us to believe, as they believe, that to reject it 
would be to reject all engagement with the continent and, indeed, to 
reject all of the enterprise and energy of the people of Africa.
  But they are wrong. This bill is deeply flawed. For 7 years I have 
served on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and I have 
committed myself to supporting democratization, peace, and development 
in the many countries of that continent. I support engagement with 
Africa as strongly as any Member of this body. I am deeply concerned 
about the dearth of economic ties between the people of the United 
States and those of the African Continent. The current level of trade 
between us is depressingly small. Africa represents only 1 percent of 
our imports, 1 percent of our exports, and only 1 percent of our 
foreign direct investment.
  So if the question is, Should something be done to stimulate our 
trade with Africa, the answer is ``absolutely.'' But I urge this body, 
let's not pretend we are now somehow debating a comprehensive trade 
package for Africa, for this bill is not in any sense comprehensive. 
Let's not fail to address the need to build an environment, an actual 
environment that will foster and sustain mutually beneficial economic 
relationships. If we fail to assemble the components of that 
environment in this trade package, it cannot be called comprehensive, 
and I would certainly say it should not even be passed.
  There really are only two defensible views of this bill. It either 
does virtually nothing at all, or it does actual harm. This legislation 
does very little for Africa. The trade benefits we are talking about 
are not terribly significant, primarily making African states eligible 
for temporary preferential access to the U.S. markets for textiles and 
apparel. Many of Africa's primary exports are not addressed at all by 
this legislation. This legislation does little to address the African 
context for economic growth and that context is a challenging one. It 
is a context of boundless potential amid a web of obstacles.
  Economic growth in sub-Sarahan Africa faces the obstacle of a 
staggering $230 billion in bilateral and multilateral debt. Africa's 
debt service requirements now take over 20 percent of the region's 
export earnings. How can Africa, to which the Presiding Officer has 
certainly devoted a lot of his attention, become a strong economic 
partner when its states must divert funds away from schools, away from 
health care, and away from infrastructure in order to service this 
crushing debt burden? How can we talk about economic engagement and 
simply pay lip service to these painfully obvious realities?
  I am sorry to say in several ways I think this legislation actually 
would do harm. By addressing seriously only one industry, the textile 
industry, it fails to support the kind of diversification that any 
economy, including African economies, need to regain strength and 
stability. I fear AGOA also fails to adequately tackle the serious 
problem of transshipment.

  Transshiment is a practice whereby, for example, producers in China 
and other third party countries establish sham production facilities in 
countries which may export to the United States under more favorable 
conditions. Then these producers ship goods, made in their factories at 
home and meant for the U.S. market, to the third country. In this case 
it would be an African country. They pack it or assemble it in some 
minor way and send it off to the United States of America with a new 
label ``Made In Africa,'' thereby enjoying all the trade benefits that 
label would bring.
  As I told my colleagues on a number of occasions, and as I think they 
know, transshipment is really a very serious problem. Approximately $2 
billion worth of illegally transshipped textiles

[[Page S3804]]

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.
  In this regard, just to give you a sense of the thinking that goes on 
behind this kind of scam, I would like to share some of the words from 
the People's Republic of China. This is a quote taken directly from the 
official web site of the Chinese Ministry of Trade and Economic 
Cooperation. This is the quote:

       There are many opportunities for Chinese business people in 
     Africa. . . . Setting up assembly plants with Chinese 
     equipment, technology 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.

  There it is, right on their web page. It is not hard to see that 
those who would engage in transshipment are not too worried about the 
protections we currently have in place to guard against it. This same 
visa system that has failed us in the past is the basis, again, for the 
allegedly effective AGOA protections. In fact, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act does not require that Africans themselves be employed 
at firms that are receiving the trade benefits. This is progress? If 
nothing else, I think it raises a red flag for my colleagues, when they 
consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This should be a 
crystal clear signal: Nothing in this Act ensures that whatever 
opportunities this legislation may create--there is no guarantee these 
will be opportunities for Africans, for citizens of African countries.
  AGOA does not mention environmental standards at all, but any plan 
for sustainable economic development must include some notion of 
environmental protection. I think this is especially true of a 
continent like Africa where, in some countries, 85 percent of the 
people live directly off the land. We are all affected when logging and 
mining deplete African rain forests and increase global warming.
  We all lose when species unique to Africa are lost to hasty profit-
making schemes, hatched without regard to sustainability or long-term 
environmental effects. Environmental quality also has serious 
implications for peace and stability in the region. As we have seen in 
the Niger Delta, environmental degradation can lead to civil unrest. 
Responsible trade policies must adequately address human rights and 
environmental issues, not just because it is the right thing to do but 
because also in the long run it will create a better business climate 
for Africans and Americans alike.
  In addition, the African Growth and Opportunity Act fails to address 
the critical role that development assistance ought to play in 
promoting African growth and opportunity. That failure has raised an 
alarm here at home and internationally. The perception is that the 
United States has deluded itself into believing that a small package of 
trade benefits, benefits which may not actually benefit Africans 
themselves, can replace a responsible and well-monitored program of 
development assistance. I am afraid that this inevitably will cast 
doubt on the U.S. commitment to development in Africa.
  I care about each of the objections I just raised to this bill. But 
let me tell you, just as the senior Senator from California indicated, 
more than anything else what makes me doubt the U.S. commitment to 
development in Africa is that this conference report turns a blind eye 
to the AIDS crisis by excluding the modest Feinstein-Feingold 
amendment. As the ranking member of the subcommittee on Africa, I have 
always felt very strongly about the issue of AIDS in Africa. I tried to 
raise it last year and this year in the context of the Africa trade 
debate. I raised it on many occasions in meetings with African heads of 
state.
  I applaud the U.N. Security Council's decision to address the crisis 
earlier this year, and I do support the administration's call to 
increase the resources directed at this AIDS crisis. But what I cannot 
support, what I cannot applaud, and what I cannot even understand is 
how this body can pass up an opportunity to take just one small step 
toward addressing the AIDS crisis in Africa. I am referring to the 
Feinstein-Feingold amendment. It was very modest. It simply prohibited 
Federal money from being used to lobby a government to change TRIPS-
compliant laws, allowing access to HIV drugs. Our amendment was taken 
out in the conference committee. So now this bill, which makes a weak 
attempt to address Africa trade as it is, does nothing--an African 
Growth and Opportunity Act does nothing to actually address the HIV/
AIDS crisis that affects every aspect of the African economy, not to 
mention every African life.
  We have before us a conference report which does nothing to fight the 
AIDS crisis that is ravaging Africa, threatening to destroy its 
economies and decimate its communities. Why? How can it be that we will 
debate a bill of this nature and ignore the single most important issue 
facing sub-Sarahan Africa today? Why is it that one modest provision 
included by this Senate, the Feinstein-Feingold amendment regarding 
HIV/AIDS drug in Africa, was removed from this bill?
  When the Senate was debating that legislation last year, Senator 
Feinstein and I offered our amendment, which was readily accepted by 
the bill's managers, Senators Roth and Moynihan, to address a 
critically important issue--an issue relating to Africa's devastating 
AIDS crisis; an issue that has cast a dark shadow on United States-
African relations in the past.
  Our amendment was simple. It prohibited the U.S. Government 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 adhere to existing international 
regulations governing trade. Quite simply, our amendment told the 
executive branch to stop twisting the arms of African countries that 
are using legal means to improve access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals for 
their people.
  The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights, or TRIPS, allows for compulsory licensing in cases of national 
emergency. Approximately 13 million African lives have been lost since 
the onset of the crisis. According to the Rockefeller Foundation's 
recent report, ``on statistics alone, young people from the most 
affected countries in Africa are more likely than not to perish of 
AIDS.'' Consider that I say to my colleagues: more likely to perish 
than not. If these do not constitute emergency conditions, then I do 
not know what does.
  This was a very modest amendment, but the final version of the 
amendment discussed by the conferees was even more modest. It was a 
true compromise. It was not as strong as I would have liked it to be, 
and I worked hard to keep it strong, but even the compromise pushed our 
policy closer to the right thing. I again thank the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, 
and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, and their staffs for working 
so hard to keep this amendment in at the conference level.
  But despite these efforts, despite the concessions that Senator 
Feinstein and I made, despite the fact that this is the right thing to 
do, the Feinstein-Feingold amendment was stripped in conference. The 
opposition to our amendment is baffling. How do the conferees who 
killed this provision justify pressuring these countries, where in some 
cases AIDS has reduced life expectancies by more than 15 years, not to 
use all legal means at their disposal to provide effective medicines 
for their citizens? Without broader access to these drugs in Africa, 
more people will suffer, more people will die--that is a simple fact.
  I cannot imagine that ordinary Americans are urging their 
representatives to oppose the Feinstein-Feingold amendment. I cannot 
imagine that anyone would try to prevail upon my colleagues to oppose 
this measure--except perhaps for pharmaceutical companies. The 
pharmaceutical industry does not fear losing customers in Africa, 
because they know that Africans simply cannot afford their prices. But 
they do fear that taking this modest step in this time of crisis could 
somehow, in some ill-defined scenario in the future, cut into their 
most important consideration: their bottom line.
  That brings me to the calling of the bankroll.
  From time to time on this floor when we debate the issues, I review 
some

[[Page S3805]]

facts and figures that most of my colleagues are unwilling to discuss.
  I have dubbed it the ``calling of the bankroll''--a chance for my 
colleagues and the public to consider not just the issues, but the 
money that drives the issues in our democracy today.
  I can tell you, the pharmaceutical industry is certainly no exception 
when it comes to playing the political money game--in fact, huge 
donations to the parties are the rule in the pharmaceutical industry.
  I would like to discuss a few of the companies that fought against 
the Feinstein-Feingold amendment, not in terms of policy, although I 
have certainly done that and will continue to, but in terms of 
political donations.
  All the figures I am about to cite are for the first 15 months of the 
current election cycle--all of 1999 and the first 3 months of this 
year.

  I will start with Pfizer, which is one of several pharmaceutical 
giants that rank among the top soft money donors in 1999, and with good 
reason. Pfizer and its executives gave more than $511,000 in soft money 
during the period, including a $100,000 contribution earlier this year. 
Pfizer was also a top PAC money donor in its industry during the 
period, with more than $242,000 to Federal candidates during the 
period.
  Then there's Bristol Myers Squibb, another top soft money donor, 
which, with its executives, gave nearly $529,000 in soft money to the 
parties, including two $100,000 contributions during the period. 
Bristol Myers Squibb also gave more than $146,000 in PAC money during 
the period.
  Merck and Company gave more than $51,000 in soft money and nearly 
$168,000 in PAC money during the period.
  And finally, Glaxo Wellcome and its executives gave more than 
$272,000 in soft money to the parties and gave more PAC money than any 
other pharmaceutical company during the period--more than $291,000.
  Those are the donations of some of the pharmaceutical companies that 
fought so hard against the Feinstein-Feingold amendment. They are 
donations that signal influence, power, and political clout--political 
clout that most Americans could never hope for, and no African living 
with HIV could ever dream of. In the fight over the Feinstein-Feingold 
amendment, the pharmaceutical companies clearly got their way, while 
millions of Africans suffering from HIV and AIDS were left without even 
one glimmer of hope from this body or this bill.
  The people of Africa desperately need hope in the midst of the AIDS 
crisis. I am going to share some numbers, along the lines of other 
speakers, that put the staggering AIDS crisis in Africa in stark 
relief.
  The disease is already the fourth biggest cause of death in the 
world. In at least five African countries, more than one adult in five 
has HIV.
  Economic growth in Africa faces the obstacle of a devastating HIV/
AIDS epidemic. In the course of 1998, AIDS was responsible for an 
estimated 2 million African deaths. That is 5,500 deaths a day. At 
least 12 million Africans have been killed by AIDS since the onset of 
the crisis. Africa accounts for over half of the world's cases of HIV. 
The realities of a continent gripped by this disease are truly 
horrifying--lines outside cemeteries as families wait to bury the dead, 
and morgues that operate around the clock, 7 days a week. I am told in 
Harare, Zimbabwe there are 24-hour morgues.
  For Africa's children, it may be most horrifying of all. Eighty-seven 
percent of the world's HIV-positive children live in Africa. According 
to World Bank President James Wolfensohn, the disease has left 10 
million African orphans in its wake. Their lives are that continent's 
future. Their chronic illness and their deaths each day erode a little 
more of Africa's promise. It is difficult to see how the United States 
can enjoy mutually beneficial trade relations with Africa unless we 
commit ourselves to addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis on a scale beyond 
anything we have done before.
  In Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, 25 percent of the people 
between the ages of 15 and 19 are HIV positive.
  One report by ING Barings, an investment bank, said that almost 19 
percent of all skilled workers in South Africa will have HIV by 2015. 
To make matters worse, food production in southern Africa has been 
impacted by the crisis. For example, maize production in Zimbabwe 
declined 61 percent last year due to illness and death from AIDS.
  By 2010, sub-Saharan Africa will have 71 million fewer people than it 
would have had if there had been no AIDS epidemic.
  My recent trip to ten African countries only renewed my resolve to 
address this matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves.
  When we were in Namibia, I saw a group of HIV-positive citizens pull 
up to a meeting in a van with curtained windows, and they hurried to 
the safety of the meeting room as soon as they arrived. They were 
fearful. They were afraid that their identity would be revealed, and 
that the stigma still attached to the disease would cause them to lose 
their jobs and maybe even to be disowned by their own families. It was 
shocking--in a country gripped by the epidemic, people are still afraid 
to acknowledge the crisis.
  In Zambia I visited an orphanage of sorts, where 500 children, many 
of them orphaned when AIDS killed their parents, gathered by day.
  This isn't even an orphanage where you get to stay at night. It is 
just a place where a bunch of kids who don't have any parents hang out 
during the day before they go out to the streets at night to sleep. At 
night, there is only room for 50 of them--the rest must make their own 
arrangements, and many end up sleeping on the streets, sometimes 
prostituting themselves--thereby risking exposure to HIV in their own 
struggle to survive. By the end of this year, an astonishing 10.4 
million African children under 15 will have lost their mothers or both 
parents to AIDS--90 percent of the global total of AIDS orphans.

  In Zimbabwe, some estimates indicate that life expectancy has 
precipitously dropped from 65 to 39 years. Let me repeat that: life 
expectancy in Zimbabwe dropped from 65 to 39. Walking past the 
Parliament building one day, I asked how old one had to be to become a 
legislator there in Zimbabwe. What was the answer? The answer was 40. 
Life expectancy is 39, but you have to be 40 to be elected to the 
legislature. That exchange helped me to grasp how far-reaching the 
consequences of this disease really are--no society is structured in a 
way that prepares it to deal with an unchecked epidemic like AIDS. In 
southern Africa, life expectancy at birth is dropping at a frightening 
rate. According to one recent U.N. report, expected life spans in the 
region will drop from 59 years in the early 1990s to just 45 by the 
year 2010.
  In July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on 
the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine--NVP--in preventing 
mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Studies indicate that this drug 
can reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission by more than 50 
percent.
  NVP is given just once to the mother during labor and once to the 
baby within 3 days after birth. It cost $4 per tablet. This relatively 
simple and inexpensive drug regimen has created an unprecedented 
opportunity for international cooperation in the fight against the 
vertical transmission of HIV.
  And Uganda is making real headway with regard to prevention. There 
was a time in Uganda when, of the women coming to the reproductive 
health clinics, 35 to 40 percent of them tested positive for HIV. But 
since 1992, the Ugandan Government's very frank and high-profile public 
education efforts have helped to reduce the incidence of HIV infection 
by more than 15 percent. Uganda has shown that something can be done. 
Uganda has demonstrated that prevention can work.
  But despite these positive signs, there are many fronts on which 
there has been very little progress. Virtually no one has access to 
drugs to treat the disease. Prevention is unquestionably the most 
important element of the equation, but treatment cannot be ignored. 
Poverty should not be a death sentence--not when the infectious disease 
that is destroying African society can be treated.
  The AIDS crisis in Africa is exactly what the TRIPS agreement was 
meant to address. This is a crisis, an emergency on an incomprehensibly 
vast scale. This is the rare and urgent situation that calls for 
something beyond a

[[Page S3806]]

dogmatic approach to intellectual property rights.
  If allowing for a TRIPS-compliant response seems expensive, just 
think how expensive it will be, in the long run, not to do so. Even 
beyond the human tragedy, there are vast economic costs to this 
epidemic. AIDS affects the most productive segment of society. It is 
turning the future leaders of the region into a generation of orphans.
  It is simply unconscionable for the U.S. Government to fight the 
legal efforts of African states to save their people from this plague. 
I cannot imagine why any of my colleagues would support such action. 
Those dissatisfied with the TRIPS agreement should focus their efforts 
on changing it--not on twisting the arms of countries in crisis who 
seek only to protect their people from sickness and death in a manner 
that complies fully with international law.
  Again, how could the irresponsible and callous decision to strip the 
Feinstein-Feingold amendment from the conference have been made? I have 
some idea, as I said before. Some may have bowed to the pressure of the 
pharmaceutical industry. And some members just don't get it.
  But this body has to ``get it.'' We don't have time to posture while 
HIV infects more than 15,000 young people each day, and the most 
productive segment of a society is wiped out by disease. We cannot 
waste precious legislative opportunities as millions of orphans grow up 
on Africa's streets, without any guidance or education. After 
witnessing the shocking violence that resulted, in large part, from the 
masterful manipulation of disenfranchised youth in West Africa over the 
last decade, I think we all have to take this threat seriously, and 
acknowledge that the threat is fueled each day by the withering scourge 
of AIDS that today is galloping through so much of Africa and other 
parts of the developing world.

  Mr. President, until recently this Senate has been moving in the 
right direction on these issues. I have been pleased to work with many 
of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort--I do want to mention in 
particular the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Tennessee for his 
efforts in this regard--we have worked together to raise the profile of 
the epidemic and to work toward a comprehensive package aimed at 
addressing this crisis. It disturbs me a great deal to think that 
Members of this body have somehow failed to hear us, or perhaps refused 
to listen.
  As long as we fail to grasp the magnitude of the epidemic and its 
consequences, AIDS will continue to take its terrible toll on families 
and communities, on economies, and on stability around the world. And 
as long as we pass legislation like AGOA, we fail to seriously address 
virtually every crucial aspect of our trade relationship with sub-
Saharan Africa.
  Everytime we make this kind of weak attempt to improve our trade 
relationship with Africa, we admit that we are willing to dismiss 
African countries' problems, and that we are comfortable ignoring the 
continent's boundless promise.
  I care deeply about Africa and about U.S. policy towards Africa, and 
my colleagues know that. But I am here today not just because of my own 
concerns, but because of others--because I know how deeply they care 
about Africa, and I have heard them voice their very serious concerns 
about AGOA.
  African-American leaders ranging from Cornel West to Randall Robinson 
have opposed the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Last year, a group of African-American Ministers representing 
communities from Massachusetts and Mississippi, California and New 
Jersey, Virginia and Illinois came to Capitol Hill to express their 
opposition to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I would like to 
submit the statement of Reverend Alexander Hurt of the Hurt Inner-City 
Ministries for the Record.
  Here is what he said.

       I have never fully felt like an American until the day that 
     I watched my President land in the land of my fathers. It was 
     like introducing two old friends to each other. That the AGOA 
     is in any way associated with that trip is saddest part of 
     this debate. There are millions of African-Americans who, 
     like me, connect the President's trip of Africa with a start 
     of a new kind of relationship between not only Africa and 
     America, but Africa and the West. AGOA closes that 
     possibility. For it represents not a new future, but a return 
     to the past.
       America in a period of abundance that is unknown in human 
     history, can not be moved to reach out to Africa to help 
     starving nations. In the end we must decide if we will have a 
     foreign policy that reaches out with a hand toward nations as 
     equals, or with a hammer and pound them into subjection.  Few 
     things have changed with America's position toward Africa. 
     What was once done with the canon and the gun is now being 
     done with medicine and debt.

  I have heard African voices raise the alarm about AGOA as well as 
American ones. The Congress of South African Trade Unions, COSATU, has 
issued a statement opposing the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  A statement issued by 35 African NGOs--including Angola's Journalists 
for the Environment and Development, Kenya's African Academy of 
Sciences, South Africa's International People's Health Council and 
Zambia's Foundation for Economic Progress--strongly opposed AGOA.
  Women's groups have spoken out as well. WiLDAF--Women in Law 
Development in Africa, a coalition of African women and women's 
advocacy groups, opposes the African Growth and Opportunity Act, as 
does Women's EDGE, a coalition of international development 
organizations and domestic women's groups.
  The Africa-America Institute organized focus group discussions in 
eight African countries and the U.S. to foster discussion of proposed 
U.S.-Africa trade legislation. They found that AGOA will not contribute 
to African development unless the U.S. and other donor countries also 
increase investments in African human resource development and take 
measures to relieve Africa's debt burden.
  I know that others have voiced support for AGOA, and I don't question 
their motives. Some of those supporters believe that this is the only 
game in town, and that a deeply flawed Africa trade bill is better than 
no bill at all. They are wrong. This bill should not become law.
  Originally, I tried to make this bill better. I proposed alternative 
legislation, the HOPE for Africa Act. It was based largely on the 
efforts of my colleague from the House, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., 
who has been an important leader on this issue.
  The provisions of the HOPE bill pointed the way toward a more 
comprehensive and a more responsible U.S.-Africa trade policy.
  Mr. President, I wanted to amend AGOA to make goods listed under the 
Lome Convention eligible for duty-free access to the U.S., provided 
those goods are not determined to be import-sensitive by the President. 
These provisions would mean more trade opportunities for more African 
people.
  My proposals clearly spelled out the labor rights that our trade 
partners must enforce in order to receive benefits. They also contained 
a monitoring procedure that involves the International Federation of 
Trade Unions, so that violations would not be glossed over at the 
expense of African workers.
  I proposed stronger human rights language, and incentives for foreign 
companies operating in Africa to bring their environmental practices 
there up to the standards that they adhere to at home.
  I proposed tough transshipment protections that give American 
entities a stake in the legality of the products they import. I wanted 
to be sure that Africans and Americans really would benefit from our 
U.S.-Africa trade policy.
  In that same vein, I proposed that trade benefits be contingent upon 
the level of African content in products and the employment of African 
workers.
  I proposed that the U.S. re-assert its commitment to responsible, 
well-monitored development assistance for Africa.
  Mr. President, I would have been irresponsible not to propose changes 
to AGOA to address the factors crippling Africa's economic potential 
today--debt, HIV/AIDS, and corruption.
  I urged this Senate to include anti-corruption provisions, to address 
debt relief, to prioritize HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and to 
address the issue of Africa's intellectual property laws, to ensure 
that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not spent to undermine the legal efforts 
of some African countries to gain and retain access to low-cost 
pharmaceuticals.

[[Page S3807]]

  Mr. President, if all of this sounds ambitious, it was. Any plan to 
seriously engage economically with Africa must be ambitious. We must be 
willing to do what is necessary to knock down the obstacles to a 
healthy, thriving and just commercial relationship between the 
countries of Africa and the U.S. The bill before us falls far short of 
the minimum meaningful effort. The rhetoric that surrounds the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act is certainly ambitious. It is the content 
that is insufficient.
  We must demand more of a U.S.-Africa trade bill than AGOA has to 
offer. Ambitious plans can lead to rich rewards for both America and 
Africa. Every time we turn our backs on a strong economic partnership 
with African nations, we pass up an opportunity to bring stability, 
democracy, and prosperity to the continent.
  We can do better than this, Mr. President. We must do better. We have 
veered dangerously off course with this legislation and with this 
conference report. It is time to reconsider this bill and the direction 
of U.S.-Africa policy because, very simply, our current course promises 
failure of U.S. policy toward Africa and decades more of despair and 
lost opportunity for Africa's people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report to H.R. 434, the Africa/CBI bill.
  This is a bad proposal, and it should not become law. In fact, the 
only good thing that I can say about it is that it's not as bad as it 
could have been. Still, it should not pass.
  In recent years, we have lost over 5,000 textile jobs in southern 
Kentucky. Nationwide, we have lost over 100,000 textile jobs since 
NAFTA. They're gone. They're not coming back.
  Now there aren't many left, and I am not going to support any 
legislation that I believe is going to ship the rest of these jobs 
overseas.
  But, that's just what this bill would do. It would suspend quotas and 
duties on clothing made from many African-made fabrics. It calls for 
duty-free imports of T-shirts and fabric from the Caribbean.
  In short, it's going to make it cheaper and more enticing for the 
textile companies to locate overseas, where labor costs are lower, and 
to take jobs with them.
  The bill also extends duty-free treatment to other ``import 
sensitive'' items like certain types of watches, electronic articles, 
steel products, footwear, handbags, luggage, and glass products.
  I respect the good intentions of those who support this bill in 
wanting to help poor countries in Africa and the Caribbean. But I don't 
think we should do that at the expense of American workers and their 
jobs.
  Furthermore, this bill simply looks like a one-way street to me. It 
makes it easier for African and Caribbean nations to import products to 
the United States, but as far as I can tell it doesn't do much for the 
United States.
  Of course, our economy is a lot bigger and stronger than all of 
their's put together, but that doesn't mean we just give away part of 
the store for free.
  Mr. President, I believe strongly in free trade. I have long 
supported fast-track legislation to give the President broad authority 
to negotiate trade agreements. And I voted for the GATT legislation the 
last time it came before Congress.
  But I also believe in fair trade, and this bill isn't fair.
  As I said earlier, this bill is bad but it is not as bad as it could 
have been. When Congress first started working on this bill over 5 
years ago, it was intended to provide NAFTA-like treatment to imports 
from Caribbean nations. Fortunately, this bill doesn't go that far.
  But, it still follows the same flawed concepts that are behind NAFTA 
and have driven at least 7,000 Kentucky jobs south to Mexico.
  Supporters of this bill say that economic growth and investment in 
African and Caribbean nations will benefit us in terms of increased 
exports and increased domestic employment because of those exports.
  Of course we want healthy economies in this area to help strengthen 
the growth and stability of democracy. But it doesn't make sense to 
sacrifice a United States industry to do it.
  As I pointed out on the Senate floor last year, the Caribbean Basin 
apparel and textile business is already booming. Last year, apparel and 
textile exports from the Caribbean and Central America to the United 
States grew 9 percent, double that of the United States economy.
  Passing this bill simply rewards the U.S. companies that have already 
moved offshore, and entices others to do the same. In the process, we 
stand to lose another 1.2 million jobs in the apparel and textile 
industry.
  We keep talking about creating a level playing field when it comes to 
fair trade. But this bill pulls the field right out from under U.S. 
industries which have already had an uphill fight just to stay alive.
  This is a flawed bill and I'm going to vote against it. I just don't 
see where it's in our interest to make it easier for other countries to 
compete with American industries, and to entice U.S. companies to 
relocate abroad.
  This bill is not fair to the American worker.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it and any amendments that even try to 
make it better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as one would say on the bill affecting 
textiles, in the famous words of President Reagan, ``Here we go 
again.''
  This is about more than textiles and textile jobs. It involves the 
economic strength of the Nation. It involves its political strength. 
The middle class is disappearing fast. We talk about the digital 
divide. I want to comment on the disappearance of the middle class 
itself.
  Let me go right to textiles.
  I was a witness some 40 years ago relative to the textile industry. 
In that particular time period, 10 percent of America's consumption in 
textiles was going to be represented in imports. That was a threat not 
only to industry itself but to the Nation.
  Specifically, I testified before the International Trade Commission. 
At the time, President Eisenhower was in office. We went by to see 
General Persons, his Chief of Staff. He said: Don't worry, you will win 
the case. But in June we got an adverse decision.
  At that time, with that adverse decision, I went to our friend, 
Senator John F. Kennedy, a candidate for the Presidency of the United 
States, and discussed at length the particular problem. We agreed on an 
exchange of letters, so to speak, with me outlining the problem, and in 
turn Senator Kennedy outlining what he thought would be a solution.
  We all know then, that Kennedy was elected President. Early in 1961, 
we had a conference at the White House. He said: In line with what I 
outlined to you in the campaign, I want it to come under the national 
security provisions of our trade laws.
  So, hark, ye, all who talk and lament that we haven't passed a trade 
bill in 6 years. It is a good thing we did not pass one, because what 
we really need to do is get competitive and stop treating foreign trade 
as foreign aid. This is not a Finance Committee. This is a Foreign 
Relations Committee. It is a giving away the manufacturing backbone of 
the United States of America.
  Under that national security provision to protect the textile and 
apparel industry, you had to have a hearing and a determination that 
the particular commodity, or article, or product was important to our 
national security.
  I will never forget it. We set up the hearing with Secretary Ball--he 
was the undersecretary for Dean Rusk at State--Secretary Goldberg of 
Labor, Secretary Freeman of Agriculture, Secretary Hodges of Commerce. 
A few people remember that Senator Kennedy had a bipartisan Cabinet 
with a Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Dillon, and a 
Republican Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara.
  We had those five. We brought the witnesses. They made the finding 
that, next to steel, textiles were second most important to our 
national security. I remember the particular ``wag'' at that time, 
that, look, you couldn't send them to war in a Japanese uniform. So we 
had to be able to make the clothing and the uniforms.

[[Page S3808]]

  As a result, President Kennedy on May 13, 1961, promulgated his 
Seven-Point Program relative to the importation of textiles.
  Mind you me: We feared at the time that 10 percent of America's 
consumption in textile products was being imported or just about to be 
imported.
  As I look at the Chamber now, two-thirds of the clothing I am looking 
at is imported--not 10 percent. With this particular conference report, 
there isn't any question that certain parts of the textile industry 
will immediately disappear, and the rest of it in a 4- or 5-year period 
will be on the ropes.
  You say: Why, oh, why, Senator from South Carolina, are you 
objecting? Because the American Textile Manufacturers Institute is in 
favor of the conference report
  That selfish crowd. I call them selfish in a studied way. I authored 
five textile bills that have gotten through this Senate. I had four of 
those textile bills go through the House and the Senate, and four of 
them were vetoed. I know from whence this particular Senator got the 
votes for these bills. Yes. It was the apparel group in America, the 
ones who make the clothing.
  The little ditty is: We produce for America. We have the fine middle-
class jobs, and we are working around the clock. And, yes, we are the 
most productive textile workers in the world.
  The industry itself has invested some $2 million a year over the past 
15 years, keeping up with modernization, with the best of machinery, 
the best of approaches in employment.
  I have made many a sneak through and they don't want to let a 
Democrat in the plant. But I would sneak in on one floor and duck down 
into the plant on the bottom floor. It is totally automated in the 
weave room with the looms, spinning away. They used to have 115 
employees, and now have only 15. They have cut back on the employees 
and put in the most modern machinery. The worker, the machinery, and 
the industry is the most productive. It is not a question of 
productivity. We don't have to get globalization and competition so we 
can make them productive. The politicians run around on the floor of 
the Senate and some of them have never worked for a living. They don't 
know what productivity is.
  We have quite an opposition. Let me say a word about that. When we 
first started out, we only had, say, the Japanese Government, with 
their representatives coming in to talk. But soon after, Chase 
Manhattan and Citicorp made a majority of their money outside of the 
United States.
  So, in addition to Koreans and Japanese, now we have the 
international banks. Along with the international banks came the 
international groups funding campus studies with contributions and they 
began to get the expert studies off the campuses with the consultants. 
So we had the banks, the universities, the consultants, and the foreign 
operation. Then, of course, we had the retailers. They wanted to sell a 
cheap product. So we had the National Retail Federation. They are the 
biggest supporters of the print media in America, the newspapers. They 
make their money off of retail advertising. So we have these 
editorialists, who never bit into customs or the trade practices, 
writing about free trade, free trade, free trade.
  So we have the retailers. Then go to the book ``Agents of 
Affluence,'' published about 10 years ago. At that time, Japan was 
paying $113 million for over 100 representatives in Washington, DC, to 
look out for their industry, their game of market share.
  This bill is all backed up. The white tent is out. We saw it in 
NAFTA. Only they are afraid to bring the tent down. They are meeting in 
the White House itself. They are all getting together and running 
around with the former Presidents, the former Secretaries of State. The 
former chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished ranking 
member, Senator Moynihan of New York said: When a freshman at City 
College of New York, I heard that corporations ran America. He was 
telling corporate America to get out and get the vote.
  We had that crowd and we have my ATMI, which is my point. They don't 
know from ``sic 'em'' about competition. They know extremely well how 
we got the votes from Evelyn Dubrow and the apparel workers of America. 
That's how we passed those bills. The cloth manufacturers have divorced 
themselves from the apparel manufacturers and said: Fend for yourself. 
We've got a better offer and we are going to start free trade. It 
doesn't make any difference so long as we can get fabric forward. If we 
can get the cloth, we can sell it to them in Africa, in the Caribbean 
or in Mexico. We will let any trade bill go so long as we can sell. But 
fend for yourself. You are out of business.
  Let me tell you how many jobs we have now that are bound to be gone 
because the States will be inundated. Alabama has presently 26,500 
apparel jobs. Goodbye, Alabama. I want to see those Senators come here 
now.
  California, 146,900 textile, middle-class American jobs, earning $8 
and sometimes $10 or more an hour. Middle class--I want to emphasize 
that. Henry Ford said he wanted to make sure the person manufacturing 
his product was capable of buying it. So he put in the wage scale which 
allowed that and he started developing a strong middle class.
  Florida, let's see the Florida Senators come here and say: Free 
trade, free trade. Forget about the 19,700 apparel jobs. They are gone. 
Why?

  Because of us, because of us as Senators and Members of Congress, 
setting the standard of living for industrial America. We say before 
you can open up that ABC Manufacturing Company, that what you need do, 
first, is have a minimum wage, then Social Security, then Medicare, 
then Medicaid, then plant closing notice, then parental leave, then 
clean air, then clean water, then safe working machinery, then a safe 
working place--or we sent OSHA after you. Republicans and Democrats all 
agree, before you open the front door, you better have all of that in 
the plant or you are in violation of Federal law. You are out of step 
with the standard of American living.
  But if you can take off and get your T-shirts made in Bangladesh, you 
have none of those requirements, and pay one cent an hour. In Burma, it 
is 4 cents an hour. In China, it is 23 cents an hour. In the country of 
Colombia, it is 70 to 80 cents an hour. In the Dominican Republic, it 
is 60 cents an hour. In El Salvador, it is 59 cents an hour. In 
Guatemala, it is 37 to 50 cents an hour. In Haiti, it is 30 cents an 
hour. In Honduras, 43 cents an hour. In India, 20 to 30 cents an hour. 
In Indonesia, 10 cents an hour. Malaysia, $1 an hour. Mexico, 50 to 54 
cents an hour. Nicaragua, 23 cents an hour. Pakistan, 20 to 26 cents an 
hour. Peru, 90 cents an hour. The Philippines, 58 to 76 cents an hour. 
Romania, 24 cents an hour. Sri Lanka, 40 cents an hour. Thailand, 78 
cents an hour.
  As you well know, 30 percent in manufacturing is your labor cost, and 
you can save as much as 20 percent by transferring your production 
offshore to a low-wage country. That is, maintain your executive 
office, maintain your sales force, but with a company of $500 million 
in sales, transfer the production to Mexico or a low-wage country 
offshore and you can make $100 million before taxes. Or you can 
continue to work your own people and go broke. That is the trade policy 
of this wonderful Finance Committee that runs all over the floor, 
bleating and wailing and wondering: Oh, what are we doing for Africa? 
Isn't this a grand thing we have for the Caribbean and everything else, 
with no regard to the reality.
  They taught us early on, at the beginning of the war in artillery, no 
matter how well the gun is aimed, if the recoil is going to kill the 
guncrew, you do not fire. The aim is good.
  I would like to put in a Marshall Plan for Mexico. It is a fine 
business. Let's help the Caribbean, let's help Africa, let's help 
anybody. There is hunger in the world so let's find it and help with 
it. But this crowd, wow, they are not going to pay for anything--
nothing. They are not going to have any regard from whence they came 
and the strength of America itself.
  Two-thirds of the garments already coming in are imported. In 
Georgia, there are 26,100 apparel workers; Kentucky, 18,900; Maine, 
2,600; Massachusetts, 10,400; Mississippi--the distinguished majority 
leader said it is a wonderful thing. I want him to go back and tell 
these 16,600 apparel workers it is the last call for breakfast.
  In my beginning days, they used to have that early morning program, 
the

[[Page S3809]]

``Breakfast Club,'' in Chicago, the Stevens Hotel, with Don McNeil. 
They would get to the very end and they would say: ``It is the last 
call for breakfast.'' I can hear the music now. This is the last call 
for Texas, certainly the last call for the apparel workers, because 
they are gone. Goodbye Mississippi, 16,600 will be applying for 
unemployment compensation or going--where? I will tell you where they 
are going. I think we had a list from the Department of Commerce of 
these great jobs. I will tell you where they are.
  You say: Wait a minute, Senator. How about that employment rate? We 
have such low unemployment.
  Here is where they are going: cashiers, janitors, cleaners, retail 
salespeople, waiters and waitresses, registered nurses, systems 
analysts, home health aides, security guards, nursing aides, anything 
they can get that they can possibly do--for less pay, obviously. In 
fact, the retail workers, they found out you can hire them as 
independent contractors and you don't even have to pay for their health 
care. They have every gimmick in the book to squeeze that middle class 
here in the United States and bring them down to nothing.
  So it goes, for New York, the Senators from New York, I want to 
inform them, advisedly, there are 74,700. There is no one I respect 
more, of course, than the senior Senator from New York and the senior 
House Member, my friend, Charlie Rangel. But if I had Charlie here I 
would say: Charlie, 74,700: Going, going--gone. This vote is fixed. 
That is why we have this exercise here.
  They talk about the most deliberative body. They do not call a thing 
until it is greased; the jury is fixed. Then, after you have gotten the 
vote of the jury, then you let them talk because it is all over.
  North Carolina, 38,300; Pennsylvania, 34,900; South Carolina, 18,500; 
Tennessee, 23,500; Virginia, 12,900--those are the apparel jobs that 
are going, going, gone once we get this conference report voted on by 
tomorrow, I take it. It will go to the President. They will all stand 
around with big smiles in the Oval Office: Look what we have done. We 
understand humankind. We want to help sub-Sahara. We want to help the 
Caribbean.
  Let me get right to the point with respect to the apparel versus the 
cloth manufacturers. As you well know, the manufacture of the fabric 
itself is capital intensive, so that is why they have not caught up 
with them yet. But now they are beginning to build those facilities 
down in Mexico. So, as I said a minute ago, it will be about 5 years 
and then they will have their own fabric manufacturers down there 
shipping into the American market. Otherwise, all that fine Japanese 
machinery that we have in American plants, all of a sudden the price is 
going to go up. They know how to compete. Our trade policy is anything 
but reciprocal.

  Cordell Hull said ``reciprocal free trade.'' My friend, the 
distinguished Senator from New York, gets with Smoot-Hawley and Cordell 
Hull and how we started the reciprocal trade agreements in the 1930s, 
and we have been for freedom.
  Not so at all. No. The very Congress that passed the reciprocal free 
trade, historically they put in subsidies for agriculture in Montana--
yes. Subsidies for agriculture in Montana, and protective quotas. Do 
not give me free trade for agriculture, you will not get my vote. No, 
sir, I am not for free trade for agriculture because our protections, 
our subsidies have made America's agriculture the showcase of the 
world. We feed ourselves and 15 other countries.
  But wait until the China bill. I can't wait for that one to come. 
They are trying to sell the farmers a bill of goods. There are 
3,338,000--go look at the record at the Department of Agriculture. 
There are 3,338,000 farmers in America. In China, they have 700 to 800 
million farmers. They talk about the percentage of arable land. Do not 
be getting along with that percentage of arable land and everything 
else. We already have a deficit in the balance of trade in cotton with 
China. In wheat and cereals and corn and other feedgrains, we had a 
plus balance 4 years ago, with the country of China, of 440 million. It 
is down last year to 39 million. You watch them, in 2 years they will 
have a plus balance. They will be shipping us wheat. But you are going 
to hear these farmers out on the floor bleating--whoa, we have China 
free trade for America's agriculture.
  So with the wrong facts they have to go to the Department of 
Agriculture and go to the People's Republic of China and see exactly 
what they are doing. Actually, they have a glut in the People's 
Republic of China in agriculture. They do not have the transportation. 
They do not have the distribution. They do have hunger. But mind you 
me, when they solve that transportation and distribution problem, then 
they will be feeding the world like we have been bragging. And the 
farmers will be coming up here again.
  Like that Freedom to Farm, we gave them that sort of freedom to farm. 
They came up and got, I think it was, $7 or $8 billion last year. They 
are looking for another $6 billion here. You know that is the crowd 
that looks to me, the textile Senator, saying: Free trade, free trade, 
free trade, the whole time they are drooling at those subsidies, those 
protective quotas, you know; looking at me like something is wrong, 
that I do not understand how to be nice in this world globalization.
  So here we go. Since NAFTA alone, we have lost, in the United States, 
440,000 textile and apparel jobs--440,000.
  I know in South Carolina we have lost 37,000 textile and apparel jobs 
since NAFTA. This is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Remember, we 
were going to create 200,000 jobs with NAFTA. Oh, we were going to do 
everything. We were going to solve the drug problem. We were going to 
solve the immigration problem. We were going to create jobs. And we 
have gone from a $5 billion-plus balance of trade with Mexico to $23 
billion minus, a deficit in the balance of trade. The average Mexican 
worker has less take-home pay today than prior to NAFTA. It has not 
helped anybody, but they are talking now about NAFTA for Africa and 
NAFTA for the Caribbean.
  I could get into that at length with respect to the disparity in 
tariffs, with respect to our own quotas. They are being phased out by 
2004.
  Let me go to the main thrust of my point this afternoon, and that is 
the importance of these middle-class jobs to the economy. I will never 
forget a seminar in Chicago in the early eighties with Akio Morita, the 
chairman of the board of Sony. He was lecturing about Third World 
countries, emerging countries. He said the Third World countries had to 
develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation 
state. Then, pointing to me, he said: And, by the way, Senator, the 
world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a 
world power.
  Was Morita making some original observation? Not at all. Alexander 
Hamilton made the same observation to the British in the early days of 
1789. The British corresponded with the fledgling Colonies and said: 
Now that you won your freedom, you trade with us what you produce best, 
and we will trade back what we produce best--David Ricardo, the 
Doctrine of Comparative Advantage.
  Mr. Alexander Hamilton wrote a booklet. It is at the Library of 
Congress, if someone on the Finance Committee wants to read it. In a 
word, Hamilton told the British: Bug off; we are not going to remain 
your colony; we are not going to export to you our agriculture, our 
foodstuffs, our cotton, grain, indigo, our timber and iron ore and 
import from the mother country the finished product; we are going to 
develop our own manufacture.
  The second bill that ever passed with respect to the National 
Congress, in which I am privileged to serve, the second bill--the first 
bill was the Seal of the United States--the second bill, on July 4, 
1789, was a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 different articles. We 
started this economic giant, the United States of America, with 
protectionism.
  Abraham Lincoln followed it in the building of the transcontinental 
railroad. They said: Mr. President, we can get the steel from England. 
He said: Not at all. We will build our own steel plants, and when we 
are through, we will not only have the railroad, we will have the steel 
capacity.
  Roosevelt, in the darkest days of the Depression, passed import 
quotas on the subsidies for America's agriculture.
  Dwight Eisenhower in 1955 put quotas on oil.
  We have practiced, more or less, a protected trade policy--we have 
many

[[Page S3810]]

tariffs on many things still--while we have bleated: Free trade, free 
trade, free trade, and joined the chorus: I like fair trade; I like a 
level playing field.
  Do not give me a level playing field. I want to trade to my advantage 
and my interests. Business is business, and the game is market share. 
The Japanese have set the tone, the practice, and the policy in the 
Pacific rim, and the Europeans are following.
  Let's talk China. There is not a deficit in the balance of European 
countries. The European countries have a plus balance of trade with 
China. What do we have with this ``free trade, free trade''? We have 
$68 billion deficit and growing. That is not the most recent figure, 
but $68 billion is the most authoritative figure I can give right now, 
and it is getting worse every day. They know how to trade and how to 
administer. We actually export about the same to Belgium and Singapore 
than we do to the 1,300,000,000 Chinese in the People's Republic of 
China.

  Talk about exports, exports, exports, and the wonderful agreements--
we will have plenty of time to get into those agreements. They want to 
continue that so we will not have even a touch of sobriety. Give us one 
chance at bat to sober America up because America is becoming very 
anxious and very concerned.
  The Nation's strength of security is like a three-legged stool: We 
have the one leg, the values of the Nation, and that is unquestioned. 
The people the world around admire the United States of America. We 
have stood for years on end for individual rights, human rights, and 
democracy. I can talk on that because I am so proud of this country.
  The second leg is the military, which is also unquestioned.
  The third leg is the economic leg that has been fractured in the last 
50 years and needs refurbishing, strengthening, and rebuilding. I say 
fractured, I emphasize intentionally fractured.
  I heard the distinguished Senator from Iowa say, since 1945, look at 
the commerce, the commerce, the commerce. We were just like England in 
1789. We had the only industry, the only production. In 1945, Europe 
was devastated and the Pacific rim was devastated. We were looking for 
customers. We were looking for buyers. We had production. Yes, we said 
free trade, free trade. Concurrent with that, we instituted the 
Marshall Plan and sent the money. We instituted along with that plan 
the machinery and the expertise. We sent it overseas in the contest 
between capitalism and communism, and it has worked. After 50 years, we 
can stand proudly and say it has worked. Capitalism has defeated 
communism. We are all proud of that and the sacrifice that went along 
with it, because in those days of 1945 we were willing to sacrifice. 
Today, we are not willing to sacrifice to save America itself--the 
middle class and the economic strength of our society.
  What happens is we have been engaged in this for some time and, as a 
result, we have treated foreign trade as foreign aid. I think of Akio 
Morita and losing manufacturing capacity. In 1945, we had 41 percent of 
the workers in the United States engaged in manufacturing. In the year 
2000, we are down to 14 percent.
  In the nineties, in the United States, we have lost some 779,000 
manufacturing jobs and in South Carolina, my State alone, some 40,500. 
The industrial strength is fast diminishing.
  I look at the different things about textiles, but I look also at the 
ratios of imports to consumption and what we are going to manufacture 
for ourselves. Let's see.
  As a young Governor, they looked at me at that hearing I told you 
about, at the very beginning, and said: Governor, what do you expect 
them to make? Let them make the shoes. Let them make the clothing. And 
we will make the airplanes and the computers.
  My problem today is, they are making the shoes, they are making the 
clothing, and they are making the airplanes and the computers. And so 
it is.
  Certain industrial thermal-processing equipment, 48.9 percent--almost 
half of what we consume is imported--67 percent of textile machinery 
and parts used in the United States we have to get from abroad; 55.3 
percent of the machine tools for metal forming and parts; 51.9 percent 
of semiconductor manufacturing equipment and robotics--we import it.
  I remember one good thing President Reagan did was to put in 
SEMATECH. He saved Intel microprocessing. Everybody is running around 
here falling over each other after that Silicon Valley money: high 
tech, high tech. We have somebody here from high tech. Bill Gates walks 
around convicted of violating the Sherman antitrust law but you would 
think he is a visiting potentate. All the little staffers and Senators 
streaming behind him as he goes through the Halls. And then I go to 
another policy meeting, and they announce we have another 
microprocessing, high tech, Silicon Valley.
  Let's get right to the point. Microsoft has 20,000 employees in 
Seattle and Boeing of Seattle has approximately 75,000. They are in the 
manufacturing. General Motors has 250,000. Mind you me, they are not 
satisfied in high tech. They want to do away with the income tax, the 
capital gains tax, the estate tax. They want to do away with 200 years 
of State tort law--Y2K. They want to do away with the immigration laws 
because--why?--they can import the Indians and the Filipinos in here 
next to nothing.
  Generally speaking, America Online has a service center now in the 
Philippines. Call them and ask them. My light bill in South Carolina is 
run through India. But high tech, high tech--they are all in a heat to 
see. Who is fooling whom. They are after the money. High tech is after 
the exemptions. They do not want to pay their wage. So there you go.
  Right to the point, why do you think that the march in Seattle--I am 
not talking about the crazies who came up there from Eugene, OR, and 
broke up the town; I am talking about the march in Seattle in December; 
the AFL-CIO, the responsible individuals--that march was led by Boeing 
machinists. Why? Read Bill Greider's book ``One World, Ready or Not'' 
and you will see that much of that Boeing 777, before it can be sold in 
downtown Shanghai, has to be made in downtown Shanghai. So they are 
taking the airplane jobs there.
  Or pick up the morning paper and you will see the automobile jobs in 
China that are being taken from us. All the time I have to hear that 
nauseating chant: free trade, free trade. Yes, I am for free trade. All 
the interviewers. GE owns NBC. The president of GE, Jack Welch, told 
everybody to go down to Mexico: All you suppliers, you aren't going to 
be a GE supplier because I can get it cheaper. I will show you that 
article in ``Business Week.''
  Let's go right down to boilers and turbines; 44.4 percent of what we 
consume has to be imported; electrical transformers, 43.2 percent; 
aircraft engines and gas turbines, 70.3 percent; motorcycles, 48.5 
percent; aircraft, 45.7 percent--we used to have 100 percent of that 
business--office machines, 47.2 percent; microphones, loud speakers, 
audio amplifiers, and combinations thereof, 77.9 percent; tape 
recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, turntables, compact 
disc players, 100 percent; radio transmission and reception, 57.9 
percent of what we consume--used to be made by middle-class America; no 
longer--television apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, and cable 
apparatus, 68.5 percent.

  I remember when Zenith had their case, and their competitors had been 
found in violation for dumping. And the International Trade Commission 
in a unique decision held for Zenith--because they usually cancel out 
the trade administration--but the trade commission exacted the penalty. 
And the last stop, of course, was in the White House, in the Oval 
Office, where the President had the authority to cancel it out.
  The Cabinet all around the table, they all voted to enforce the 
decision of the International Trade Commission. And in walked President 
Reagan. He said: I just talked to Nakosone and we are not going to do 
that.
  You see, yes, it has been wonderful. It has been fine. It has worked. 
We have peace in the world--whatever--and we have a booming economy. 
But in a booming economy, you have to look at the consummate, the 
concurrent effect here.
  Electrical capacitors and resistors, 69.5 percent; automatic data 
processing machines, 51.6 percent.

[[Page S3811]]

  I read this because colleagues in the Senate say: There he goes again 
on textiles. I have given up on textiles. I resign. I quit. When the 
ATMI tackles me from behind, and they leave out the people who have 
been getting the votes--the polls all taken--poor old Jay Mazur, poor 
Evy Dubrow, and the rest of them--and unit, and the others who have 
been working together--Seth Bodner, the knitwear folks, the apparel 
folks--I just have to say it is gone. This bill is passed.
  But while it passes, we have to have a stop, look, and listen at the 
crossing and realize that 62.2 percent of clocks and timing devices 
that we use in America are now imported; watches, 100 percent--
apparently we do not manufacture them anymore--drawing and mathematical 
calculating and measuring instruments, 71.4 percent; luggage, handbags, 
and flat goods, 79.7 percent; musical instruments and accessories, 57.2 
percent; umbrellas, whips, riding crops, and canes, 81.1 percent; 
silverware, 59.9 percent. We can go to precious jewelry, which is 55.8 
percent imported.
  They have different clothing and all--sweaters, 76.4 percent; robes, 
nightwear, and underwear, 68.8 percent--right on down the list.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this 
compilation of the import penetration of these articles.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Ratios of imports to consumption

                              [In percent]

Certain industrial thermal-processing equipment and certain furnace48.9
Textile machinery and parts........................................67.0
Metal rolling mills and parts thereof..............................46.6
Machine tools for cutting metal and parts..........................48.1
Machine tools for metal forming and parts thereof..................55.3
Semiconductor manufacturing equipment, robotics....................51.9
Boilers, turbines, and related machinery...........................44.4
Electrical transformers, static converters, inductors..............43.2
Molds and molding machinery........................................44.8
Aircraft engines and gas turbines..................................70.3
Automobiles, trucks, buses, and bodies and chassis of the foregoing40.6
Motorcycles, mopeds, and parts.....................................48.5
Aircraft, spacecraft, and related equipment........................45.7
Office machines....................................................47.2
Microphones, loudspeakers, audio amplifiers, and combinations there77.9
Tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, turntables, and 
  compact disc players..............................................100
Radio transmission and reception apparatus, and combinations thereo57.9
Television apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, and cable 
  apparatus........................................................68.5
Electric sound and visual signaling apparatus......................49.9
Electrical capacitors and resistors................................69.5
Diodes, transistors, integrated circuits, and similar semiconductor 
  solid-state devices..............................................45.2
Electrical and electronic articles, apparatus, and parts not elsewhere 
  provided for.....................................................49.1
Automatic data processing machines.................................51.6
Optical goods, including ophthalmic goods..........................51.5
Photographic cameras and equipment.................................63.8
Watches.............................................................100
Clocks and timing devices..........................................62.2
Drawing and mathematical calculating and measuring instruments.....71.4
Luggage, handbags, and flat goods..................................79.7
Musical instruments and accessories................................57.2
Umbrellas, whips, riding crops, and canes..........................81.1
Silverware and certain other articles of precious metal............59.9
Precious jewelry and related articles..............................55.8
Men's and boys' suits and sportcoats...............................47.5
Men's and boys' coats and jackets..................................62.5
Men's and boys' trousers...........................................50.4
Women's and girls' trousers........................................56.4
Shirts and blouses.................................................62.9
Sweaters...........................................................76.4
Women's and girls' suits, skirts, and coats........................59.0
Robes, nightwear, and underwear....................................68.8
Body-supporting garments...........................................42.8
Neckwear, handkerchiefs, and scarves...............................46.7
Gloves, including gloves for sports................................76.1
Headwear...........................................................54.1
Leather apparel and accessories....................................67.2
Fur apparel and other fur articles.................................81.7
Footwear and footwear parts........................................84.2

  Mr. HOLLINGS. It has 84.2 percent on footwear. So 85 percent of the 
shoes on the floor here in the Senate Chamber are imported.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in this particular list from 
the International Trades Commission.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 1998 Ratios of Imports to Consumption

                              [In percent]

Certain industrial thermal-processing equipment and certain furnace48.9
Textile machinery and parts........................................67.0
Metal rolling mills and parts thereof..............................46.6
Machine tools for cutting metal and parts..........................48.1
Machine tools for metal forming and parts thereof..................55.3
Semiconductor manufacturing equipment and robotics.................51.9
Boilers, turbines, and related machinery...........................44.4
Electrical transformers, static converters, and inductors..........43.2
Molds and molding machinery........................................44.8
Aircraft engines and gas turbines..................................70.3
Automobiles, trucks, buses, and bodies and chassis of the foregoing40.6
Motorcycles, mopeds, and parts.....................................48.5
Aircraft, spacecraft, and related equipment........................45.7
Office machines....................................................47.2
Microphones, loudspeakers, audio amplifiers, and combinations there77.9
Tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, turntables, and 
  compact disc players..............................................100
Radio transmission and reception apparatus, and combinations thereo57.9
Television apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, and cable 
  apparatus........................................................68.5
Electric sound and visual signaling apparatus......................49.9
Electrical capacitors and resistors................................69.5
Diodes, transistors, integrated circuits, and similar semiconductor 
  solid-state devices..............................................45.2
Electrical and electronic articles, apparatus, and parts not elsewhere 
  provided for.....................................................49.1
Automatic data processing machines.................................51.6
Optical goods, including ophthalmic goods..........................51.5
Photographic cameras and equipment.................................63.8
Watches.............................................................100
Clocks and timing devices..........................................62.2
Drawing and mathematical calculating and measuring instruments.....71.4
Luggage, handbags, and flat goods..................................79.7
Musical instruments and accessories................................57.2
Umbrellas, whips, riding crops, and canes..........................81.1
Silverware and certain other articles of precious metal............59.9
Precious jewelry and related articles..............................55.8
Men's and boys' suits and sportcoats...............................47.5
Men's and boys' coats and jackets..................................62.5
Men's and boys' trousers...........................................50.4
Women's and girls' trousers........................................56.4
Shirts and blouses.................................................62.9
Sweaters...........................................................76.4
Women's and girls' suits, skirts, and coats........................59.0
Robes, nightwear, and underwear....................................68.8
Body-supporting garments...........................................42.8
Neckwear, handkerchiefs, and scarves...............................46.7
Gloves, including gloves for sports................................76.1
Headwear...........................................................54.1
Leather apparel and accessories....................................67.2
Fur apparel and other fur articles.................................81.7
Footwear and footwear parts........................................84.2
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is one little reading of the U.S. 
deficits in advanced technology because you know we have gone, they 
say, from manufacturing to high tech.
  They told England at the end of World War II: Don't worry. Instead, 
of a nation of brawn, you are going to be a nation of brains. Instead 
of producing products, you will provide services. Service economy, 
service economy is the chant. And then, instead of creating wealth, you 
are going to handle it and be a financial center.
  England has gone into an economic hand basket. They have a bunch of 
just scandal sheets--the newspapers and Parliamentarians--debating and 
shouting at each other. Downtown London is an amusement park.
  Are we going that way, too? They have gone out of business there.
  Here are some deficits in advanced technology products. Parts of the 
advanced machinery incorporated, $18.23 billion; hard disc drive units, 
$9.72 billion; parts of turbojet or turbo propeller engines, $4.28 
billion, Turbojet aircraft engines, $3.74 billion deficit, balance of 
trade; parts for printers, $3.52 billion; new turbo fan planes, non-
military, $3.23 billion; cellular radio telephones, $3 billion; video 
cassette and cartridge recorders, $3.32 billion, deficit; display 
units, $1.64 billion; optical disc players, $1.64 billion; camcorders, 
$1.09 billion; digital still-image video cameras, $1.07 billion.

  Mr. President, rather than taking further time, I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record at this point the U.S. Trade in 
Advanced Technology Products showing the exports and imports and the 
balance thereof.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S3812]]



                                U.S. TRADE IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS: 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Commodity code and description: Advanced
                technology product                       Exports              Imports              Balance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8473301000  PRTS OF ADP MCH, NOT INCRPRTNG CRT,                      0       18,227,808,970     (18,227,808,970)
 PRT CRCT ASSEM..................................
8471704065  HARD DISK DRIVE UNT, NESOI, W/OUT            2,048,470,249       11,769,756,784      (9,721,286,535)
 EXTNL POWR SUPLY................................
8473305000  PTS & ACCESSORIES OF MACH OF HEADING                     0        7,743,829,608      (7,743,829,608)
 OF 8471, NESOI..................................
8542138034  MONO IC, DIGITAL, MOS TRANS, DRAM,                       0        4,980,391,722      (4,980,391,722)
 >15000000 BITS..................................
8542138072  MONOLITHIC IC, DIGITAL, SILICON,             4,047,156,775        8,377,018,602      (4,329,861,827)
 (MOS), (ASIC), (PLA)............................
8411919080  PARTS OF TURBOJET OR TURBOPROPELLER A/                   0        4,277,502,862      (4,277,502,862)
 C ENGINES.......................................
8471300000  PORT DGTL ADP MACH, <10KG, AT LEAST          1,143,297,273        5,321,724,547      (4,178,427,274)
 CPU, KYBRD, DSPLY...............................
8803300030  OTH PRTS OF ARPLNS/HLCPTRS, NESOI, NT                    0        4,013,300,583      (4,013,300,583)
 FR DOT OR USCG..................................
8411124000  TURBOJET AIRCRAFT ENGINES, THRUST                        0        3,736,640,634      (3,736,640,634)
 EXCEEDING 25 KN.................................
8473303000  OTHER PARTS FOR PRINTERS, NO CATHODE                     0        3,523,211,984      (3,523,211,984)
 RAY TUBE........................................
8802300040  NEW TURBOFAN PLANES, NON-MILITARY,             646,938,093        3,879,125,608      (3,232,187,515)
 >4536 & 15000 KG................................
2934903000  OTHER HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS USED AS                     0        3,029,957,678      (3,029,957,678)
 DRUGS...........................................
8525209070  CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONES FOR PCRS, 1                     0        3,020,465,433      (3,020,465,433)
 KG AND UNDER....................................
3004909090  MEDICAMENTS NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED                      0        2,726,075,442      (2,726,075,442)
 OR INCLUDED.....................................
8471706000  STORAGE UNITS, NESOI, NOT ASSEMBLED            511,587,342        3,211,010,776      (2,699,423,434)
 IN CABINETS.....................................
8521106000  VIDEO CASSETTE & CARTRIDGE RECORDER/                     0        2,321,010,825      (2,321,010,825)
 PLAYERS, COLOR..................................
8517903800  PC ASSEMBLIES FOR TELEPHONIC                             0        1,728,565,731      (1,728,565,731)
 APPARATUS, NESOI................................
8471604580  DISPLAY UNITS, NESOI, WITHOUT CRT....                    0        1,637,784,048      (1,637,784,048)
8519990045  OPTICAL DISC (INCLUDING COMPACT DISC)                    0        1,637,445,266      (1,637,445,266)
 PLAYERS.........................................
8542138057  MONO IC, DIG, SIL, MOS, EXC VOL,                         0        1,591,589,716      (1,591,589,716)
 (EEPROM) >900,000 BITS..........................
8542138066  MONO IC, DIG, SIL, MOS (ASIC) & (PLA)          266,700,462        1,505,423,883      (1,238,723,421)
 MICROPROCES 8 BITS & <..........................
9018908000  INST & APPLIANCES FOR MEDICAL,                           0        1,215,184,803      (1,215,184,803)
 SURGICAL, ETC, NESOI............................
8525408050  CAMCORDERS (OTHER THAN 8 MM), NESOI..           11,389,219        1,098,783,272      (1,087,394,053)
8525404000  DIGITAL STILL IMAGE VIDEO CAMERAS....           21,952,736        1,089,597,336      (1,067,644,600)
8521900000  VIDEO RECORDING OR REPRODUCING                 135,001,223        1,087,156,818        (952,155,595)
 APPARATUS EXC TAPE..............................
8542138049  MONO, DIG, SIL, MOS, VOL, (SRAM)                         0          933,400,512        (933,400,512)
 >3,000,000 BITS.................................
8542300065  MONOLITHIC IC, OPERATING FREQUENCY           1,284,391,376        2,181,812,559        (897,421,183)
 <100 MHZ, ANALOG................................
8471603000  DISPLAY UNITS, W/O CRT, & DISPLAY              191,417,160        1,012,102,430        (820,685,270)
 DIAGNL 30.5 CM..................................
8525408020  CAMCORDERS, 8MM......................            1,892,960          819,236,164        (817,343,204)
8803300060  OTHER PARTS, NESOI, OF MILITARY                          0          774,171,267        (774,171,267)
 AIRPLANES/HELICOPTRS............................
8517903600  PC ASSEMB FOR TELEHONE SWIT, TERM                        0          751,187,201        (751,187,201)
 APPA O/T TEL SETS...............................
8541290095  TRANSISTORS EXC PHOTOSENSITIVE 1W &                      0          744,022,549        (744,022,549)
 >, FREQ. <30MHG.................................
2844200020  URANIUM FLUORIDE ENRICHED IN U235....          355,923,713        1,098,482,108        (742,558,395)
8471704035  FLOPPY DISK DRIVE UNT, NESOI, W/OUT             58,034,583          772,594,136        (714,559,553)
 EXTRNL POW SPY..................................
2933394100  DRUGS CONT AN UNFUSED PYRIDINE RING                      0          680,296,294        (680,296,294)
 ETC, NESOI......................................
8517210000  FACSIMILE MACHINES...................                    0          667,588,870        (667,588,870)
3818000090  OTHER CHEM ELEM DOPED, ELECTRON,                         0          619,290,862        (619,290,862)
 DISCS WAFERS ETC................................
3002100090  OTHER BLOOD FRACTIONS NESOI..........                    0          616,949,658        (616,949,658)
8542138067  MONO IC, DIG, SIL, MOS (ASIC) & (PLA)          181,422,015          798,242,504        (616,820,489)
 MICROPROCES 16 BITS.............................
8517903200  PTS OF ART OF 8517.20, 8517.30,                          0          602,626,375        (602,626,375)
 8517.40.50, 8517.81.............................
8471608000  OPTICAL SCANNERS & MAGNETIC INK                375,128,897          965,817,115        (590,688,218)
 RECOGNITION DEVICE..............................
8528124000  TV REC, COLOR, NON-HI DEF, PROJ TYP W/                   0          567,427,021        (567,427,021)
 CATH-RAY TUBE...................................
8542300090  MONOLITHIC IC, FREQ., <100 MHG               1,584,815,325        2,141,256,559        (556,441,234)
 (ANALOG/DIGITAL) NESOI..........................
9010420000  STEP & REPEAT ALIGNER, PROJECTION OF            49,534,168          594,935,912        (545,401,744)
 CIRCUIT PATRN...................................
8517505000  CARRIER-CURRENT LINE SYSTEM                    950,547,882        1,492,682,623        (542,134,741)
 APPARATUS, TELEPHONIC...........................
8517902400  PTS FR TELPHONE SWITCH, TERMINAL APP                     0          499,197,786        (499,197,786)
 INC PC ASSEMB...................................
8471605100  LSR PRNTR UNITS W/CNTRL & PRT                            0          482,262,408        (482,262,408)
 MCHNIMS, >20PGS/MIN.............................
8525203025  RADIO TRANSCIEVERS, HAND-HELD, FREQ                      0          466,870,671        (466,870,671)
 >400 MHZ........................................
8534000020  PRINTED CIRCUITS OF PLASTIC/GLASS = 3          586,324,029          980,378,544        (394,054,515)
 LAYERS, CNDT....................................
8542138041  MONO IC, DIG, SIL, MOS, VOL (SRAM)                       0          369,673,484        (369,673,484)
 300,000 <3,000,000 BITS.........................
8537109050  PANEL BOARDS & DISTRIBUTION BOARDS;                      0          367,840,258        (367,840,258)
 1,000 VOLTS.....................................
2933595300  OTHER AROM OR MOD-AROM DRUGS CONT A                      0          365,464,433        (365,464,433)
 PYRIMID ETC.....................................
9001100085  OPT FIBER BUNDLE & CABLE EXC OF 8544                     0          349,337,906        (349,337,906)
 NOT PLASTIC.....................................
8471605200  OTH LASER PRINTER UNITS W/CNTRL & PRT                    0          337,358,804        (337,358,804)
 MECHANISMS......................................
8525203080  RADIO TRANSCIEVERS, EXC HANDHELD, 400                    0          334,664,064        (334,664,064)
 MHZ.............................................
8542138051  MONO, IC, DIG, SIL, MOS, EXC VOL                         0          331,577,991        (331,577,991)
 (EEPROM) <80,000 BITS...........................
8473309000  OTH PRTS OF ADP MACH AND UNITS                           0          331,471,302        (331,471,302)
 INCORPORATING A CRT.............................
8411114000  TURBOJET AIRCRAFT ENGINES, THRUST NOT                    0          310,678,629        (310,678,629)
 EXCEED 25 KN....................................
2922191800  OTHER AROMATIC AMINO-ALCOHOLS, ETC                       0          309,072,789        (309,072,789)
 USED AS DRUGS, NE...............................
8525309005  TELEVISION CAMERAS, NESOI, COLOR.....                    0          302,374,597        (302,374,597)
2922502500  OTHER AROMATIC AMINO-ALCOHOL-PHENOL                      0          295,753,627        (295,753,627)
 DRUGS...........................................
8517906400  PARTS OF TELEPHONIC APPARATUS, NESOI.                    0          294,249,762        (294,249,762)
8528121201  TV REC, NON-HI DEF, COL, SNGL PICT                       0          286,928,704        (286,928,704)
 TUB N/O 34.29 CM................................
8542138060  MONO, IC, DIG, SIL, MOS, EX VOL,                         0          274,086,910        (274,086,910)
 (EPROM) >900,000 BITS...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are worried. We have anxiety. There 
is fear in the land, Mr. President. The foreign holdings as a percent 
of the total publicly held debt--as we pay down the public debt, the 
foreign holdings are still at 40.3 percent, according to the Treasury 
Department. When you get these deficits, billions and billions--$347 
billion in the balance of trade--so many dollars out in foreign 
holdings, the dollar falls, the interest rates go up, the stock market 
goes down, and recession sets in. Who is talking about it? Everybody 
but us in public service. We are running around, ``I've got class 
size,'' ``I've got a better class size.'' ``No, I've got charter 
schools.'' ``No, I got a better plan here on health care.'' ``No, your 
plan is no good.''
  They are not talking about paying the bill so that we can keep the 
country and the economy booming. They are talking about little 
peripheral things over here--campaign finance and otherwise--not paying 
the bill and reestablishing confidence in America.
  The number of workers, as I have said at the very beginning, quoting 
Morita, is down to 14 percent in manufacturing. I will read an excerpt 
from Mr. Eamon Fingleton, Mr. President, entitled ``The Unmaking of 
Americans.'' I want everyone to listen because we have books by 
professors at Harvard and out at Berkeley in California and Stephen 
Cohen and John Zysman who have written ``Manufacturing Matters.'' They 
are trying to wake up a dormant Finance Committee that seems not to 
understand anything about trade, who really think this is a good bill. 
I am embarrassed for them because this is not going to just put out 
some 74,700 apparel workers up in New York, but at least 18,500 that I 
have in South Carolina and, ultimately the textile industry--as soon as 
they can afford the machinery and get it in down in Mexico and these 
other places. I will never forget 10 years ago when we debated 
textiles. Macao had millions and millions of dozens of shirts and 
didn't have a shirt factory. China was transhipping them through Macao. 
So now China takes this sub-Sahara bill that will make a few people 
rich, but not the African countries or the African people, just as 
those shirts didn't make Macao any richer. China will transship right 
on through sub-Sahara Africa and, in the process, get rid of the 
American apparel workers and, before long, the textile workers.
  Let's quote Mr. Fingleton here as to the importance of manufacturing 
and you will get a better grasp of this:

       In recent decades, it has become increasingly fashionable 
     for American opinion leaders to belittle the economic 
     importance of manufacturing. If we are to believe such 
     prophets of the New Economy as commentator Michael Rothschild 
     and Megatrends author, John Naisbitt, manufacturing is now a 
     distinctly second-rate activity that should take a backseat 
     to post-industrial businesses like software writing and 
     moviemaking. Their opinions are increasingly endorsed by 
     pundits in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Wired.
       It is time this view was challenged. The truth is, it is a 
     highly dangerous myth that is rapidly weakening the United 
     States' ability to lead the world economy. Not only do those 
     who advocate post-industrialism--let's call them post-
     industrialists--overestimate the prospects for information-
     based products and services, they greatly underestimate the 
     prospects for manufacturing.
       When the post-industrialists talk about manufacturing, it 
     is clear they are referring mainly to such unsophisticated 
     activities as the snap-together assembly work carried out

[[Page S3813]]

     in the television-set factories of the developing world. By 
     implicitly defining manufacturing in such disparaging terms, 
     they set up a straw man--for there is no question that, in an 
     increasingly integrated world economy, most types of assembly 
     work are so labor intensive that they can no longer be 
     conducted profitably in high-wage nations like the United 
     States. Overlooked by the post-industrialists, however, is 
     the fact that assembly is only the final stage in the 
     production of modern consumer goods. Earlier stages are 
     typically much more sophisticated--the making of advanced 
     components such as laser diodes, liquid crystal displays, 
     lithium-ion batteries and flash memories, for example. Then 
     there is the production of the high-tech materials that go 
     into such components. Semiconductor-grade silicon 
     manufacturing, for instance, is concentrated mainly in such 
     high-wage nations as Japan and Germany.

  We have a $74 billion deficit in the balance of trade with Japan, Mr. 
President. I think it is $28 billion deficit with Germany.

       And still more sophisticated than the fabrication of such 
     components and materials is the manufacture of the production 
     machinery used in the process. Perhaps the iconic example of 
     such machinery is the stepper--the highly precise 
     lithographic device that prints circuit lines on silicon 
     chips.
       Manufacturing components, materials and production 
     machinery is generally both know-how-intensive and capital 
     intensive. As such it can be conducted effectively only in 
     the world's richest and most advanced economies--and workers 
     engaged in such work are thereby shielded from low-wage 
     competition from developing nations. The United States once 
     dominated this type of production, but these days, as is 
     abundantly clear from the nation's mounting trade deficits 
     with Japan and Germany, it is at best an also ran. In 
     steppers, for instance, GCA, the once world-beating American 
     player, closed its doors in 1993, leaving the field almost 
     entirely to Japan's Nikon and Canon and Europe's ASM. In 
     high-tech materials, the United States is now similarly 
     dependent on imports. And in crucial new components such as 
     laser diodes and liquid crystal displays, the country was 
     never a contender in the first place.

  I remember the gulf war and the flat-panel displays we got from Japan 
for our defense work.
  It is really discouraging to this particular Senator when we mark up 
the defense appropriations bill. We have in there a Buy-America 
provision trying to maintain steel ball bearings for Ohio and South 
Carolina because Timken and others produce them. They do an outstanding 
job. But we have those who put in an amendment to strike that out--that 
it is un-American and all.
  I don't know where they got this idea about what America is--that we 
are supposed to meet a referee in bankruptcy, dissolve the assets, and 
send it around to the Caribbean, to sub-Sahara, and everything else on 
the premise that it is good policy for us to sometime come to the help 
of these particular countries. It would be good if it were not 
destroying us in the making.

       Manufacturing's most obvious advantage is that it creates 
     an excellent range of jobs. Whereas post-industrial 
     businesses like software and financial services tend to 
     recruit mainly from the cream of the intellectual crop, 
     manufacturing harnesses the skills of everyone from ordinary 
     factory hands to the most brilliant scientists and the most 
     capable managers. In fact, as the late Bennett Harrison of 
     New York's New School (a longtime TR columnist) pointed out 
     in his book Lean and Mean in 1997, unskilled workers ``barely 
     off the farm'' can readily be trained to operate computer-
     controlled presses and similarly sophisticated production 
     machinery. In Harrison's terms, today's high-tech production 
     machinery is not ``skill-demanding'' but ``skill-enabling.''

  Let's emphasize that. It is ``skill-enabling,'' because the Senator 
from South Carolina is a witness. We brought in BMW, the automobile 
manufacturer, from Munich, Germany. It is in Spartanburg. It has 2,000 
employees, and it will have this time next year hopefully 1,000 more. 
They were supposed to get another facility down in Mexico. They 
learned. They said: Wait a minute. The productivity of these people 
just off the farm, and otherwise skilled workers, can produce, and they 
have been producing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article in its 
entirety be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       The Unmaking of Americans

                          (By Eamon Fingleton)

       In recent decades it has become increasingly fashionable 
     for American opinion leaders to belittle the economic 
     importance of manufacturing. If we are to believe such 
     prophets of the New Economy as commentator Michael Rothschild 
     and Megatrends author John Naisbitt, manufacturing is now a 
     distinctly second-rate activity that should take a backseat 
     to post-industrial businesses like software writing and 
     moviemaking. Their opinions are increasingly endorsed by 
     pundits in everything from the Wall Street journal to Wired.
       It is time this view was challenged, The truth is, it is a 
     highly dangerous myth that is rapidly weakening the United 
     States' ability to lead the world economy. Not only do those 
     who advocate postindustrialism--let's call them 
     postindustrialists--overestimate the prospects for 
     information-based products and services, they greatly 
     underestimated the prospect for manufacturing.
       When the post-industrialists talk about manufacturing, it 
     is clear they are referring mainly to such unsophisticated 
     activities as the snap-together assembly work carried out in 
     the television-set factories of the developing world. By 
     implicitly defining manufacturing in such disparaging terms, 
     they set up a straw man-for there is no question that, in an 
     increasingly integrated world economy, most types of assembly 
     work are so laborintensive that they can no longer be 
     conducted profitably in high-wage nations like the United 
     States. Overlook by the post-industrialists, however, is the 
     fact that assembly is only the final stage in the production 
     of modern consumer goods. Earlier stages are typically much 
     more sophisticated--the making of advanced components such as 
     laser diodes, liquid crystal displays, lithium-ion batteries 
     and flash memories, for example. Then there is the production 
     of the high-tech materials that go into such components. 
     Semiconductor-grade silicon manufacturing, for instance, is 
     concentrated mainly in such high-wage nations as Japan and 
     Germany. And still more sophisticated than the fabrication of 
     such components and materials is the manufacture of the 
     production machinery used in the process. Perhaps the iconic 
     example of such machinery is the stepper--the highly precise 
     lithographic device that prints circuit lines on silicon 
     chips.
       Manufacturing components, materials and production 
     machinery is generally both know-how-intensive and capital-
     intensive. As such it can be conducted effectively only in 
     the world's richest and most advanced economies--and workers 
     engaged in such work are thereby shielded from low-wage 
     competition from developing nations. The United States once 
     dominated this type of production, but these days, as is 
     abundantly clear from the nation's mounting trade deficits 
     with Japan and Germany, it is at best an also ran. In 
     steppers, for instance, GCA, the once world-beating American 
     player, closed its doors in 1993, leaving the field almost 
     entirely to Japan's Nikon and Canon and Europe's ASM. In 
     high-tech materials, the United States is now similarly 
     dependent on imports. And in crucial new components such as 
     laser diodes and liquid crystal displays, the country was 
     never a contender in the first place.
       Why does all this matter? Because, conventional wisdom to 
     the contrary, advanced manufacturing offers fundamental 
     advantages over post-industrial services in building a rich 
     and powerful economy.
       Manufacturing's most obvious advantage is that it creates 
     an excellent range of jobs. Whereas post-industrial 
     businesses like software and financial services tend to 
     recruit mainly from the cream of the intellectual crop, 
     manufacturing harnesses the skills of everyone from ordinary 
     factory hands to the most brilliant scientists and the most 
     capable managers. In fact, as the late Bennett Harrison of 
     New York's New School (a longtime TR columnist) pointed out 
     in his book Lean and Mean in 1997, unskilled workers ``barely 
     off the farm'' can readily be trained to operate 
     computercontrolled presses and similarly sophisticated 
     production machinery. In Harrison's terms, today's high-tech 
     production machinery is not ``skill-demanding'' but ``skill-
     enabling.''
       Manufacturers also score over information businesses in 
     their export prowess. That's because, for one thing, 
     manufacturers usually avoid the piracy problems that so 
     drastically reduce American information businesses' receipts 
     from abroad. Moreover, manufactured goods are generally 
     universal in application and, as such, contrast sharply with 
     information-based products, which are in most cases quite 
     culture-specific. Whereas a typical information product may 
     have to be adapted for different languages and customs in 
     different markets around the world, a typical manufactured 
     product requires little if any adaptation. In many cases, 
     information businesses don't find it worthwhile to adapt 
     their products for foreign markets, and even where they do, 
     they tend to have the adaption done abroad, thus generating 
     costs that cut deeply into the net revenues remitted to the 
     United States.
       A third key advantage of advanced manufacturing--the most 
     important of all--is that it delivers higher incomes. Not 
     only does the large amount of capital required for the 
     enterprise offer workers protection against competition from 
     cheap labor, it can also powerfully boost worker 
     productivity. A good example is the contribution that 
     expensive robots make in enabling Japanese auto workers to 
     achieve the world's highest productivity levels. Higher 
     productivity in turn is, of course, the royal road to higher 
     wages.
       Indeed, nearly two decades after the United States began 
     its fateful drift into full-scale post-industrialism, 
     international

[[Page S3814]]

     economic comparisons consistently show that Americans have 
     lagged in income growth in the interim. The result is that, 
     as measured at recent market exchange rates, the United 
     States has now been overtaken in absolute wage levels by at 
     least four manufacturing-oriented nations--Denmark, Sweden, 
     Germany and, perhaps most surprisingly of all, Japan, the 
     supposed ``basket case'' economy of the 1990s.
       And if capital intensity is not enough to boost and protect 
     wages, advanced manufacturing's requirement for proprietary 
     production know-how given many industry incumbents a critical 
     advantage. Take a product like a notebook computer's flat-
     screen liquid crystal display. LCDs are basically an 
     adaptation of semiconductor technology, and are manufactured 
     using similar equipment. Thus in theory many computer 
     companies around the world could enter this fast-growing 
     business. But in practice few have done so, with the result 
     that the world market is utterly dominated by a handful of 
     Japanese manufacturers--Tokyo-based Sharp alone enjoys a 
     world market share of close to 50 percent. Why such market 
     concentration? The key is yield, the percentage of flaw-free 
     products in each production batch. Given that even a 
     microscopic speck of dust can render the tiny transistors 
     that control each dot on a screen dysfunctional, the quality-
     control challenge is enormous. A new entrant to the industry 
     would probably be lucky to get a 10 percent yield of good 
     Screens, whereas established Japanese firms are believed to 
     achieve yields of 90 percent or more.
       All in all, America's failure in the past two decades to 
     take full advantage of manufacturing's numerous rewards is 
     alarmingly apparent in the nation's deteriorating trade 
     figures. The U.S. trade deficit in 1999 is likely to exceed 
     $250 billion--an all-time record and an increase of about 50 
     percent on the startling $168.6 billion incurred in 1998. It 
     would be an exaggeration to say that the nation's 
     manufacturing decline is the sole cause of the worsening 
     trade trend, but it is clearly one of the most important 
     contributing factors.
       And what is really worrying about these deficits is that 
     they are to a large extent incurred with nations like Japan 
     and Germany, where wages run 20 percent to 40 percent higher 
     than American levels. Other things being equal, when a lower-
     wage country imports a product from a higher-wage one, we can 
     reasonably assume that the manufacturing technology concerned 
     is one in which the importing country is lacking. Much of 
     what American corporations import from higher-wage nations 
     consists of components ``outsourced'' from foreign rivals. 
     The U.S. firms got used to the practice in the 1970s and 
     early 1980s when Japanese and German wages were still low by 
     U.S. standards, and outsourcing components could be justified 
     on the theory that it freed American workers to specialize in 
     higher-level work. These days, however, American corporations 
     that outsource to Japan or Germany are effectively admitting 
     they lag in the technology race.
       So what should the United States do to regain dominance in 
     manufacturing? First, consider one of the key reasons for the 
     country's loss of its leadership position: other nations' 
     industrial policies, which almost always contain a strong 
     element of explicit or implicit protection for home 
     industries. The classic example is United States-Japan 
     competition in electronics. While U.S. electronics 
     manufacturers such as RCA and Zenith were largely barred from 
     selling in the Japanese market, their Japanese competitors 
     were welcomed with open arms in the American market--the 
     inevitable result was that the Americans found it 
     increasingly unprofitable to invest for the long term.
       Though the party line these days is that such protectionism 
     has largely been eliminated in key foreign markets, the 
     reality is that other nations maintain industrial policies 
     that put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. For American 
     decisionmakers this creates an acute dilemma and a 
     particularly distressing one for today's 50-something power 
     holders, who in their youth espoused the soaring hope that 
     the world could be taught to sing in perfect harmony. If they 
     cling to the idealistic One-Worldism of the Flower Power era, 
     they will continue to advocate free trade--and in the process 
     will condemn the American manufacturing sector to, at best, 
     permanent underdog status. The alternative is to slam the 
     brakes on globalism and go back to the sort of modest but 
     sufficient tariff levels that prevailed in the Eisenhower 
     years. Such a move would certainly raise screams from 
     devotees of that ultimate pseudo-science laissez-faire 
     economics. But in the absence of convincing alternatives (and 
     in particular of a real commitment to free trade on the part 
     of America's competitors), it must have a place on the 
     agenda.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we need to remember we are not only 
going to lose 74,700 apparel jobs in New York but in apparel 
manufacturing throughout the United States.
  I want to go to the morning paper because they had a big conclave 
over at the White House. It says, ``Political Heavyweights Pull for 
Agreement with China.'' They have Vice President Gore and former 
President Carter. But they also have the former Secretary of State, 
Henry Kissinger.
  Quoting from this morning's Los Angeles Times:

       Clinton asked rhetorically, ``Why are we having this 
     debate?'' His answer: Because people are anxiety ridden about 
     the forces of globalization, or they are frustrated over the 
     human rights record of China, or they don't like all the 
     procedures of the WTO. President Clinton's answer to ``Why 
     are we having this debate?''--``Because people are anxiety 
     ridden about the forces of globalization.''

  The legacy of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt--I will have to 
talk about a proud Democrat. I hope the distinguished Ranking Member 
doesn't mind me doing that. I think in time I might get him to join. I 
watched his votes, and he is very sensitive to the needs of little 
people. The great legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is: ``All we have 
to fear is fear itself.''
  I can hear him now. We had a little headset in 1933. That is before 
daddy went broke. He had a flourishing business. Amongst other things, 
he printed and delivered paper bags. But he printed the names of the 
German grocery stores all around Charleston: Hoffmeyer, Meyers, 
Hochwanger, Heiselmeier, Fahler, Reumeyers--I can see them all now. 
They called my father and said: Bubba, no use sending those bags to 
people who are not paying the grocery bill, and we can't pay you for 
the bags. He said: Well, got your name on them. I can't use them 
otherwise. Just do what you can. I am sending them around.
  But we had at that time in 1933 a headset. I can hear President 
Roosevelt.
  I had the pleasure of seeing him as a youngster in 1936 when he came 
through Charleston and boarded the ship. He came by train from 
Washington to Charleston, boarded the cruiser, and went on down to 
Buenos Aires, Argentina. I was looking up at President Roosevelt.
  Later, of course, when I was a senior cadet at the Citadel, ready to 
go off into the invasion of North Africa, I could hear him in 1941 
about the ``four freedoms.'' He said the four freedoms are the freedom 
of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom from want, and the 
freedom, Mr. President, from fear. That was the legacy. That was the 
legacy of the greatest President of our time.
  Now what is our legacy? I can tell you. You do not have to get 
politician Hollings or get the business leadership.
  What is the business leadership?
  ``Backlash: Behind the Anxiety Over Globalization.''
  The legacy of President Clinton is a legacy of fear. This crowd had 
better wake up and understand it because we are going out of business.
  The President just last week was down in Charlotte talking about the 
digital divide, the digital divide, middle America.
  How in the world can they buy a computer? Not the poor; middle 
America can't afford that. They are trying to hold onto a job. They are 
trying to pay for the house upkeep. They are trying to buy the clothes. 
And they are doing pretty good. But they look at those 37,000 from 
South Carolina who are gone, gone.
  Washington is telling all of middle America that they never had it so 
good. We got a boom. Let's get the boom going. They see these jobs 
going, and they see all of our good friends, the immigrants, with fine 
business earnings coming in and taking a lot of the jobs. They see 
plant closings in Columbia. That is the way it is factored in.
  I always loved to go to Ireland. But in Ireland, they have a booming 
business taking care of all the banking and insurance accounts and 
everything else.

  What do we do? We got rid of what Henry Ford created, and that is the 
middle class. Ford said, in the early days, I want to make sure that 
the individual producing this automobile is making enough money to buy 
it. That, along with the labor movement in America, got health care, 
retirement benefits, and everything elsewhere which they could pay 
for--not only pay for their home but send their kid to college, maybe 
get a little home at the beach or in the mountains, buy a boat to put 
out in the lake and go fishing, something for retirement.
  They talk about Social Security. I see that fellow, Morris, is 
telling Bush: Don't try to talk about. Don't touch Social Security. 
Why? Because it is supersensitive because of fear--the legacy of the 
Clinton administration. He

[[Page S3815]]

has no idea about the digital divide and no idea about trade. That boy 
from Arkansas has gone up there and seen the bright lights in New York. 
He has left us. I can tell you right now, he is not looking out for 
middle America.
  ``The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle 
class,'' said Aristotle in 315 B.C.
  It is to the middle class we must look for the safety of England, 
says Thackeray.
  In England, what we call the middle class is in America virtually the 
Nation.
  In the 1880s, Matthew Arnold: ``The upper class is our nation's past, 
the middle class is its future.''
  I don't know about a future. That is what is worrying the Senator 
from South Carolina--not the textile jobs. They are gone. They are 
leaving them fast, including one closed just last week. The best of 
operators are closing.

  I can see it, and I know what is going to happen to the textile 
manufacturer. It will be totally gone. As soon as they can afford the 
machinery in Mexico and the Caribbean, they will print the cloth and 
these fellows will take their money and run. That is what you have in 
ATMI. That is why I warn everyone, we are not just getting rid of the 
textile jobs.
  I said at the beginning we learned in the artillery, no matter how 
well the aim, if the recoil is going to kill the gun crew, don't fire.
  You got a good aim, no question. Let's do something for the 
Caribbean. Let's do something for Africa. But on this score, where two-
thirds of the clothing is already imported, let's not kill off the 
apparel industry. There are 74,700 jobs in New York, 18,500 in South 
Carolina, 146,900 in California. We will have a candidate saying: Boom, 
boom, boom, wonderful economy.
  This is what he ought to be talking about. We have to rebuild the 
economic strength of this Nation. That is not going to happen at the 
present rate. This conference report ought to be sent back to the 
conferees and we ought to put in a competitive trade policy.
  I had a bill with the Finance Committee 15 years ago. I have talked 
to the distinguished chairman not only about a value-added tax to pay 
the bill but I have talked about a correlation and coordination. There 
are 28 Departments and Agencies in trade. When we think that Commerce 
has it, they say no; in Agriculture, that is a farm product, and they 
say, no, the final say is over at Treasury Department. Why? Because 
40.3 percent is foreign owned, foreign holdings, a percent of total of 
the privately-held public debt. Talk about paying down the public debt; 
foreign holdings as a percent is already up to 40.3 percent. When we 
are ready to enforce a dumping provision against Japan, they say: We 
are not going to buy your T-bills. And Treasury calls up and says that 
hearing was good. The tail is wagging the dog and corporations.
  Senator Moynihan, as a freshman at City College of New York, said 
that they taught him corporations run America. They have preempted 
trade policy. We representatives, Senators and Congressmen, don't have 
any say. It is fixed with the White House. The corporations come around 
and fix the vote. By the time they call, nobody is on the floor and 
they couldn't care less. Let them puff and blow, the middle class be 
gone, the textile industry be gone, they are all Republican anyway. Now 
the apparel workers, the owners--the apparel workers are Democrat, 
anyway, so they would just as soon get rid of them. We will lose 26,000 
apparel workers in Alabama, 19,700 in Florida, 26,100 in Georgia, 
18,900 in Kentucky, 2,600 in Maine, 10,400 in Massachusetts, 
Mississippi loses 16,600, New York loses 74,700, North Carolina loses 
38,300.
  Imagine the President in Charlotte, NC, last week talking about the 
digital divide, and middle America is about to lose another 38,000 jobs 
in and about Charlotte--can't even buy a computer, and he doesn't 
understand it. He doesn't understand his legacy of fear. Roosevelt has 
freedom from fear as his legacy. What we have is a legacy of fear. It 
not that we are not sophisticated and understand globalization. We 
understand making a living and paying our bills and working hard to do 
it. Even though you work hard, they tell you: Globalization. Be gone. 
You, the most productive textile worker in the world, be gone, because 
you don't understand globalization, competition, competition, 
productivity.
  The most productive industrial worker in the world is in the United 
States. Right now, the record shows Japan to be No. 8; Netherlands is 
No. 2; Germany is No. 3.
  The Japanese pay way more in wages. It isn't low wages. They have a 
specific policy. That Lexus automobile you buy for $30,000 in 
Washington, DC, is sold for $40,000 in downtown Tokyo. They make up the 
$10,000 on their own domestic economy and got it through the financing, 
and the people accept that. They are taking over more and more and 
more. The distinguished Senator is a foreign policy and an expert, and 
he knows better than any that money talks. Forget about the Sixth 
Fleet, forget about the hydrogen bomb. Money talks now.

  We have been on a binge in the 1990s, but financially we are going 
out of business. The market is showing it right this afternoon while I 
am talking. You can talk to anybody in the trucking business. It is 
closing in, and people are beginning to hunker down.
  When I started my remarks, I related when the distinguished Senator 
was in the Kennedy administration, we put in a 7-point textile program 
because 10 percent of America's consumption of textiles and clothing 
was going to be represented in imports. Now we have two-thirds. We are 
ready to get rid of the other third overnight, and we think we are 
proud of it; we are doing a good job.
  It is a well considered thing with respect to Africa, the Caribbean, 
to help them find business. We believe in it. However, we have given at 
the store. Now is the time to save the home. Now is the time to save 
middle America. Now is the time to eliminate the fear by instituting a 
competitive trade policy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. 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. DODD. Mr. President, at the outset of these remarks let me 
commend the distinguished Senator from New York, my good friend and 
colleague, along with the chairman of the trade subcommittee and others 
who make up the membership of the Finance Committee, for their 
leadership on this issue. It has been a long time since this body has 
dealt with a trade issue as significant, in my view, as the matter 
before us. That is not because of the volume of trade or the size or 
magnitude of the financial transactions which will ensue as a result of 
our adoption of this agreement, but because, in my view, it sends a far 
more important signal to some of the very poor, if not the poorest, 
areas of this globe, that the wealthiest nation of the world at the 
beginning of the 21st century recognizes that we bear some 
responsibility for trying to alleviate some of the devastating hardship 
that afflicts too many millions of people around this Earth.
  This agreement that deals with the sub-Saharan African nations and 
the Caribbean Basin is an important first step in this century to take 
meaningful steps to alleviate some of the devastating human hardships 
that affect too many innocent people.
  I am proud to associate myself with this proposal. I urge the 
adoption of it by what I hope will be an overwhelming vote of this body 
so, as we begin this new century, we say to future generations who will 
sit in the chairs we now hold in this body that the 21st century is a 
century where the free flow of goods and services across the Earth is 
something that ought to be a central ingredient for economic success in 
improving the human condition.
  Passage of this legislation, in my view, comes at a very critical 
time for the future economic success of the regions that are covered by 
this legislation, the sub-Saharan African region and the Caribbean 
nations.
  One has only to pick up the paper to read of the crippling effects of 
poverty, famine, and illness that have taken

[[Page S3816]]

hold in Africa and the devastating impact natural disasters, such as 
Hurricanes Georges and Mitch, have had on the economies of Caribbean 
nations. This legislation will give these nations the opportunity--just 
the opportunity--to begin recovering and to help them establish a 
foothold in our increasingly interconnected global marketplace.
  At the same time, this bill equally recognizes the importance of 
protecting American interests and American jobs by including a number 
of very specific safeguards aimed at ensuring the viability and success 
of our domestic producers. Overall, I believe the committee has 
presented the Senate with a very balanced trade package.
  The central focus of this legislation is the provisions relating to 
the 48 desperately poor countries of the sub-Sarahan African region. 
This region of the world has continuously been disregarded as a serious 
trading partner. While we have granted trade benefits to other areas of 
the world, including Mexico and Canada, Africa has never been afforded 
a similar opportunity--never. I believe the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act will significantly alter our trade relationship with 
Africa, while also providing these countries with the beginnings of the 
means for positive and substantial economic reform.
  I will take this opportunity to address some of the highlights of 
this legislation.
  First, the legislation provides duty and quota-free access to U.S. 
markets for certain textiles and apparel. This provision should not 
adversely affect the domestic apparel industry since African exports of 
these products--and listen to this carefully --account for less than 1 
percent of our total imports.
  We are opening our door to 48 nations in the poorest region of the 
world for something that amounts to less than 1 percent coming into our 
Nation. That is why I said at the outset of these remarks that it is 
not the magnitude of the trading relationship that will happen or the 
dollar amount that will exchange hands, but for the first time we will 
recognize this part of the world as an important part of the world, and 
one that needs our help.
  There is not enough money in the appropriations bucket to draw upon 
to provide the kind of relief these people need in these 48 nations. We 
cannot do that, but we can begin to give them the opportunity of access 
to a tiny percentage of our market, and offer some hope and relief to 
millions of people.
  We should not do it without regard to the interests of our own 
people. I listened carefully to the remarks of my good friend and 
colleague from South Carolina. He speaks with great passion about the 
people he represents in his State. There are thousands of others across 
this country who earn a living every day in the apparel and textile 
industry. None of us ought to disregard their interests. Our 
responsibility, first and foremost, must be to our own people.
  In this piece of legislation, we protect American workers. In a few 
short years, if we fail to adopt the measure before us, the quotas that 
are presently allowed in trade bills with the Pacific Rim countries 
will come to an end. Once that has come to an end, the markets will 
open up and a domestic content requirement will not be necessary. 
Literally thousands of jobs that today find a home in the textile and 
apparel industry in this country could be lost forever.
  One of the things I admire about the authors of this bill is--and 
they truly deserve our commendation--the fact that not only have they 
found a way to provide some meaningful economic opportunity for 
millions of people in some of the poorest parts of the world, if not 
the poorest, but they have also done so in a way that takes into 
consideration the needs of our own people. It is a well-balanced piece 
of legislation. I strongly support their efforts.
  To address the serious problem of transshipment of apparel products, 
this legislation also establishes strict provisions to curb the 
practice of transshipment of products from one place to another. 
Beneficiary countries must adopt a visa system to guard against illegal 
transshipment and the use of counterfeit documents.
  In addition, countries are also required to enact regulations that 
would allow the U.S. Customs Service to investigate alleged cases of 
transshipment. To that end, almost $6 million has been authorized to 
assist the Customs Service in these efforts and to provide technical 
assistance to African nations which will help them combat 
transshipment. Furthermore, if a country is found to be engaging in 
illegal transshipping activities, it may be denied benefits for up to 5 
years, a significant penalty. I again commend the authors for the 
inclusion of that provision.
  In the event the U.S. apparel industry suffers economic injury or a 
threat of economic injury due to a surge in imports, a so-called 
``snap-back'' provision has been included in this bill that would set 
duties back to their non-preferential levels. The President of the 
United States has been granted authority to monitor African imports, 
and he has the right to initiate investigations to determine whether 
imports are harmful to domestic producers.
  Second, the bill enhances the 1984 Caribbean Basin Initiative by 
promoting economic growth in this region. Like the benefits accorded 
the sub-Saharan African nations, the enhanced Caribbean Basin 
Initiative will grant duty and quota-free treatment to apparel and 
textiles made from U.S. yarn and fabric. Benefits have also been 
extended to products not currently included under the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, including footwear, tuna, and watches.

  Strict transshipment provisions also apply to these CBI nations. The 
legislation similarly calls on these nations to institute effective 
Customs programs to prevent illegal transshipment. Moreover, it 
establishes a ``one strike and you're out'' provision. Should an 
exporter be found to have illegally transshipped apparel or textiles 
from a Caribbean Basin Initiative nation into the United States, the 
President has the authority to deny benefits to that exporter for up to 
2 years and who may be required to remit payment totaling three times 
the existing textile and apparel quotas.
  I cite the details of this because it is important our colleagues 
understand that the authors have been very careful to write into this 
legislation provisions that will guard against the very things of which 
the bill is being accused.
  Is it perfect? Will there be those who may try to take advantage of 
this? I am certain there will be, but the overall benefits of this 
legislation with the provisions to guard against illegal activities 
certainly warrant support of this bill, given the good and beneficial 
provisions included in it that should provide the relief I mentioned 
earlier.
  I am pleased the conference report includes language that links trade 
benefits to countries' commitment to eliminating one of the worst forms 
of child labor. We can thank our colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, 
who cares deeply about this issue and helped write, I gather, some of 
the provisions dealing with it. The bill also bans imports of products 
made with forced or indentured child labor.
  This morning, President Clinton issued an Executive order that adds a 
provision that was dropped in conference making AIDS and HIV drugs more 
readily available to African nations whose people have been so ravaged 
by this deadly disease.
  I note the presence of our colleague from the State of Wisconsin who 
has spoken eloquently about the issue of AIDS and the importance of 
trying to do more to alleviate the overwhelming problems that have 
crippled literally millions of people in many of these nations.
  This is not to say this is a perfect conference report, as I said 
earlier, and I am disappointed the conferees did not include funding 
for similar trade preferences to the nation of Colombia. My good friend 
and colleague from New York heard me talk about this. I believe I 
overextended my friendship with him by calling on numerous occasions to 
see whether or not we could include Colombia as part of this package.
  I note my colleague from Florida, as well, who spent countless hours 
to find ways to provide some meaningful alternative economic 
opportunities for the people of Colombia who today are presently 
engaged, in far too many cases, in the growth and production of 
narcotics products. Unfortunately, they end up, too often, in the 
cities of our Nation, where drugs and narcotic trafficking is a huge 
problem. My hope

[[Page S3817]]

was, by including Colombia, in addition to the other provisions that 
will soon be debated in the Senate, we would have been able to provide 
a meaningful economic alternative for these people who today engage in 
the drug production and trafficking in that country. My hope is, in the 
near future, we will move to the Andean agreements which are up for 
reauthorization and that Colombia can be included, along with her 
neighboring countries.
  This legislation is about helping countries help themselves by 
strengthening their economies. It is increasingly difficult to find 
funds even for the most worthy of aid initiatives. Trade, not aid, has 
been the answer to a country's well-being.
  While industrialized nations of the world have benefited from U.S. 
trading policies, it is time we offer less fortunate nations of the 
Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa comparable opportunities.
  In the year 2005, pursuant to the GATT rule, all WTO member countries 
will gain quota-free access to our markets--quota-free access in 5 
years. CBI enhancement and the African Growth and Opportunity Act, if 
enacted, will allow countries in those regions to better prepare for 
that day and to equip them to become full trading partners in the 
global economy during the next decade.
  If we do not do it and we have the quota-free access to our markets, 
then I do not think anything we can do 5 years from now will provide 
any relief economically whatsoever for the 48 nations of the sub-
Saharan region and the more than two dozen nations in the Caribbean 
Basin that will benefit as a result of this legislation.
  So, again, I commend Senator Roth, who is not here with us today--but 
we certainly think of him and recognize his leadership on this issue--
and, as I said, Senator Moynihan, who will more than likely be dealing 
with one or two of the last trade bills of his tenure in the Senate. 
But it is worthy of him, in the waning days of his career here, that he 
would fight as hard as he has to see to it this legislation would have 
a full hearing, debate, and an opportunity for passage in the Senate.
  Lastly, may I say, again, we are a great and wonderful nation. We 
like to think of ourselves as a generous and good people. While I said 
a moment ago that it is far more important that we consider the impact 
of anything we do on our own people, it is, I think, in the hearts and 
spirits of all Americans that we try to reach out and help others.
  I had the wonderful privilege of serving as a Peace Corps volunteer 
back in the 1960s when I graduated from college. It was a seminal event 
in my life--a life-changing experience, to learn from a distance, in a 
way, how our country was thought of. Despite the difficulties of the 
day that raged in Southeast Asia, and our own difficulties here at 
home, we were thought of, in the nation that I served in, as a good 
people, a giving people.
  As we begin this century, as I mentioned earlier--the 21st century--
we have an opportunity, with this bill, to say to millions of people, 
the most desperately poor people in the world, that this, the greatest 
nation of all, is willing to extend a hand, a helping hand. We must 
help them to get on their feet, to provide the kinds of tools that will 
make it possible for them to achieve economic opportunity, to enhance 
the cause of democracy in these nations, which can never survive in the 
absence of some economic growth and opportunity. With this legislation 
we are doing ourselves and future generations, in this Nation and 
around the world, a great favor, indeed.
  I commend the authors of the bill. I strongly support its adoption 
and hope this small but meaningful effort will begin to make a 
difference in the lives of millions of people in Africa and in the 
Caribbean Basin.
  I yield the floor.
 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support 
for the conference agreement on H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act 
of 2000. Senate passage of the conference agreement would mark the 
first significant trade legislation to pass both Houses of Congress in 
close to a decade, other than the implementation of trade agreements 
under special fast track procedures. As such, the bill represents a 
powerful statement regarding America's leadership on trade.
  The conference agreement--and the House's 309-110 vote--vindicates 
the approach that we took in the Finance Committee and here in the 
Senate this past November. Our goal was to create a ``win-win'' 
approach to the Africa and Caribbean trade preference programs that 
would ensure benefits to American firms and workers as well as to our 
trading partners in those two regions. The conference report does just 
that.
  The conference report retains those provisions of the bill that the 
textile industry's own analysis suggested would produce an additional 
$8 billion in sales of American fiber and fabric and create an 
additional 120,000 jobs. Those provisions--commonly known as ``807A'' 
and ``809''--were adopted without revision by the conferees. Those 
provisions require that all textile components assembled into apparel 
articles benefiting from those provisions must be made from U.S. 
fabric, unless subject to certain de minimis exceptions specified in 
the conference agreement.
  Where the conference agreement broadens the benefits available to our 
trading partners beyond those included in the Senate-passed 
legislation, the provisions create discrete categories of apparel that 
may benefit from the use of regionally-produced fabric, and in certain 
limited instances, fabric from third countries used by the least 
developed countries in Africa. That said, where the conference 
agreement does expand those benefits for Africa and the Caribbean, it 
also creates new opportunities for U.S. interests as well. For example, 
the conference agreement's rules of origin expressly provide for the 
use of American yarn, which relies on American cotton, for regionally-
made knit fabric that can be used in apparel articles destined for the 
U.S. markets under the benefits provided by the conference agreement.
  The conference agreement deserves the Senate's support. The 
conference agreement represents an attempt to reach out and provide not 
just a helping hand, but an opportunity--an opportunity for millions 
around the world to seize their own economic destiny.
  Africa has for too long suffered from our neglect. The continent 
faces daunting political, economic and social challenges. Yet, African 
leaders are seizing the opportunity to press for political and economic 
change. The same holds true in the Caribbean and Central America. The 
changes in the region since the original CBI legislation passed in 1983 
have been dramatic. Our goal must be to support those changes.
  The goal of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 is to meet Africa's 
leaders and those in the Caribbean and Central America half way. It is 
not a panacea for problems they face; rather, it is a small 
downpayment--an investment--in a partnership that I hope we can foster 
through our actions here.
  This is a measure that is supported by every African and Caribbean 
government. It represents a commitment by leaders in both regions to a 
stronger economic relationship with the United States, and that street 
runs both ways. Our exports to the Sub-Saharan region of Africa, for 
example, already exceed by 20 percent our exports to all the states of 
the former Soviet Union combined. We furthermore run a regular surplus 
in our trade with the Caribbean and Central America. In other words, in 
helping Africa and the Caribbean, we are also helping ourselves.

  The conference agreement will also serve as an agent of positive 
change.. The eligibility criteria in both the Africa and CBI provisions 
are expressly designed to foster economic opportunity and political 
freedom. That includes the criterion added here in the Senate by a vote 
of 96-0 obliging beneficiaries of these two programs, as well as the 
Generalized System of Preferences, to implement their international 
obligations with respect to the elimination of the worst forms of child 
labor, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and prostitution.
  For those who would argue that the bill creates incentives to 
transship third country fabric through either Africa or the Caribbean, 
the conference agreement has a response that was worked out in close 
consultation with the Customs Service and all other interested parties. 
To protect against customs fraud designed to gain access

[[Page S3818]]

to the program illegally (commonly referred to as ``transshipment''), 
the conference agreement contains unprecedented protections. They 
include requirements that the beneficiary countries, with U.S. 
technical assistance, develop their own effective enforcement 
infrastructure to combat transshipment and cooperate fully with the 
U.S. Customs Service in its investigation of alleged customs fraud. In 
addition, with respect to any individual exporter found fraudulently to 
have claimed the trade benefits extended under the conference 
agreement, the conference agreement would expel the exporter from 
eligibility for the program's benefits. The conference agreement would 
also authorize the appropriation of funds necessary to improve the U.S. 
Customs Service's investigation of transshipment generally, in order to 
contribute to the success of the program's benefits.
  For those who have expressed their concern that the new programs will 
lead to a flood of new imports at a time when the U.S. industry is 
already under economic pressure to adjust due to agreements reached in 
the Uruguay Round, the conference agreement has a response as well. 
First, the rules of origin under the conference agreement largely 
reflect the approach we adopted in the Senate, one that favors the use 
of American fabric. That means that any increase in imports will 
necessarily imply an increase in sales of American textiles. Second, 
the conference agreement also provides a mechanism by which domestic 
producers of apparel articles competing with those imported under these 
program can obtain temporary relief from unexpected surges in 
particular categories that threaten serious injury to the competing 
domestic industry.
  The conference agreement would add certain other provisions that I 
believe will strengthen the prospects for success. For example, with 
respect to Africa, the conference agreement encourages the negotiation 
of new trade-liberalizing agreements with interested Sub-Saharan Africa 
trading partners that would build on the foundation that the conference 
agreement establishes, and toward that end the conference agreement 
makes permanent the position of Assistant United States Trade 
Representative for African Affairs.
  The conference agreement also includes a variety of other measures 
that address other aspects of the challenges facing Africa and other 
aspects of our economic relationship with the continent. Those include 
a sense of the Congress resolution regarding the need for comprehensive 
debt relief for the world's poorest countries (most of which are in 
Sub-Saharan Africa); the targeting of U.S. technical assistance to 
foster the goals of the conference agreement with respect to Sub-
Saharan Africa; encouraging the development of a special equity fund 
for fostering investment in Africa at the U.S. Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation; directing the expansion of U.S. Commerce 
Department initiatives designed to foster the development of African 
markets for U.S. exports; the donation of air traffic control equipment 
no longer in use in the United States to eligible Sub-Saharan Africa 
countries; a sense of the Congress relating to efforts to combat 
desertification; and authorization of a study regarding potential 
improvements in Sub-Saharan agricultural practices.
  With respect to the Caribbean and Central America, the conference 
agreement adds provisions designed to foster the success of the 
initiative as well. Those include encouragement to enter into 
negotiations with interested trading partners on trade agreements that 
would liberalize two-way trade further and directions to the President 
to organize regular meetings of the U.S. Trade Representative with 
trade ministers from the region to eliminate obstacles to a stronger 
economic relationship between the United States and our trading 
partners in the region.
  The conference agreement contains a number of other trade-related 
provisions that are worth noting. Those includes the permanent 
establishment of a special representative on agricultural trade at USTR 
and a statement of agricultural trade negotiating objectives that we 
hope will shape the agenda for the ongoing trade talks in the World 
Trade Organization on agriculture.

  The conference agreement also provides a boost to our review of trade 
adjustment assistance programs to ensure that they are operating 
effectively. While the conference agreement does not include the Senate 
amendment expanding our farmers' access to TAA programs, it does 
highlight the need to review our current TAA programs with a view 
toward to ensuring that those programs do provide benefits to farmers 
as those programs were originally intended to do when established in 
1962. That review is already under way within the Finance Committee.
  The conference agreement would also extend permanent normal trade 
relations to Kyrgyzstan and Albania. Kyrgyzstan deserves special 
mention because it is the first of the former Soviet republics, apart 
from two Baltic countries, to join the World Trade Organization. It has 
also made considerable progress toward a market economy and political 
pluralism. Establishing stronger trade links with the Kyrgyz republic 
is designed to foster a stronger relationship on a broader front, both 
economically and politically.
  I would also like to express my support for those provisions of the 
conference report designed to address the tariff inversion affecting 
the suit-making and fabric industries in this country. I have worked 
with a number of Senators for the past six months to forge this 
compromise that would address the concerns of both the domestic suit-
makers, fabric-makers, and wool growers. I am particularly proud that 
the compromise was reached on the basis of tariff cuts that benefit all 
of the parties. The conference agreement resolves a difficult problem 
that has undermined the competitiveness of all sides of the U.S. 
industry and I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement 
that should foster both stronger suit-makers and stronger fabric-
makers, as well as assist our sheep industry in developing new markets 
for its wool fiber.
  I would also like to note my disappointment that we were unable to 
agree on a way to make further progress in addressing the scourge of 
AIDS affecting so many African countries. I worked for several months 
to reach a compromise with both sides of the debate regarding the 
supply of patented drugs to combat AIDS-related disease, but that 
effort went unrewarded. I would have hoped that the conference report 
would have gone further, particularly where we had worked on what I 
thought were constructive potential compromises, but I am certain that 
there will be other opportunities in this Congress to rejoin those 
discussions.
  Any conference agreement is, by its nature a compromise. In this 
instance, I am convinced that the conference agreement is the stronger 
for it. While we did not accomplish all that I hoped, this conference 
agreement represents an incredible accomplishment.
  For that, I particularly want to thank the majority leader for his 
commitment to this process. I want to convey my special thanks to my 
esteemed colleague, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Moynihan, for his leadership throughout this process, to 
Senator Grassley, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, 
for his sustained contribution, and to the other Senate conferees.
  I also want to applaud the efforts of our counterparts on the House 
side, from the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Congressmen Archer and Rangel, to the chair and ranking 
member of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, Congressmen Crane and 
Levin, and to the Speaker of the House, Congressman Hastert. They made 
this conference agreement a reality.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I see my friend from Florida is here, so 
I am happy to yield to him.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I need only a few minutes to respond to 
a couple previous remarks. I will not take very long, I say to the 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. President, I want to, first of all, follow up on a comment that 
Senator Dodd and Senator Moynihan made about Colombia and including it 
in the Caribbean Basin Initiative. I was hopeful we could do that. I 
sent several

[[Page S3819]]

communiques to the leaders about doing that. I am sorry it could not be 
done in this conference agreement. I hope we get an opportunity this 
year to include Colombia as a beneficiary country in the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative program because I think it will help the economy of 
Colombia, help them overcome the civil distress they have there, even 
more than the aid that we currently give to Colombia, although that aid 
is very necessary.
  I also want to make a short comment on the effort put forth by the 
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to explain the situation 
with AIDS in Africa, and her attempt to help relieve that terrible 
situation through the AIDS provision she included in the Africa trade 
bill. I applaud my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from 
California, for her great concern for the victims of the AIDS disaster 
in Africa. We all could not help but be deeply moved by her 
presentation and the compassion that she expressed this morning.
  I supported Senator Roth's efforts to seek a compromise on her 
provisions that would have been acceptable to the House. The Senator 
from California, as well as Senator Roth, have performed a great 
service in bringing this issue to our attention and in trying to do 
something about it.
  Then lastly, I will say a few words on the comments made by Senator 
Hollings, in his long and very thorough presentation of his point of 
view--which I disagree with, or at least his conclusions.
  He is a distinguished Senator with great knowledge on this particular 
issue. I think he is wrong in opposing the bill because he says that 
this conference report will devastate the U.S. apparel industry.
  Sub-Saharan Africa currently supplies less than 1 percent of the 
total value of apparel imports to the United States. Under the most 
optimistic circumstances, the recent analysis by the nonpartisan 
International Trade Commission shows that passage of this legislation 
would increase apparel imports to this country from sub-Saharan Africa 
by about 3 percent. Most, if not all, of this increase would come at 
the expense of Far Eastern suppliers, not the U.S. manufacturers.
  Again, let me emphasize, that is from the nonpartisan--at least 
bipartisan--International Trade Commission. The legislation in the 
conference report establishes a mechanism under which domestic 
producers can petition for relief from import surges that threaten 
serious injury.
  Under these provisions, tariffs could be reimposed in limited 
instances in which a domestic producer could establish a meritorious 
case. So we have that option just in case the analysis made by the 
International Trade Commission might be wrong. I do not think it is 
going to be wrong. In fact, I have great confidence their predictions 
will not be wrong. But just in case there are some unexpected import 
surges, our legislation provides for a petition for relief in those 
instances.
  Furthermore, we have the industry's own analysis. It suggests that 
this legislation will create an additional 120,000 jobs, largely due to 
provisions requiring that all apparel items benefiting from provisions 
contained in the Caribbean Basin Initiative portion of this legislation 
must be assembled by textile components using U.S. fabrics.
  More generally, I want to say a word about the idea that free trade 
has not provided economic benefits to the average American. I want to 
quote from the economic report of the President, who is, of course, a 
member of the same party as the Senator from South Carolina.
  The President's own economic report for fiscal year 2000 shows that, 
because of trade agreements that have liberalized trade and opened new 
markets, the average American has realized an annual economic benefit 
of $1,000 every year since 1963. Since we traditionally measure 
economic benefits by how they affect families, with a family of four, 
that is an annual benefit of $4,000 per family.
  Think in terms of what we have tried to do for families through 
proposals for tax cuts. That amount of $4,000 is far more than any tax 
cut that we have debated in the Congress. The idea that the average 
American does not benefit from free trade is simply not true. My source 
of that information--I tell the Senator from South Carolina--is the 
leader of his party, President Clinton, making those statements in his 
own budget document.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since the early 1980s, the United States 
has implemented a logical series of policy initiatives with respect to 
the nations of the Caribbean Basin.
  First, in 1983, we enacted the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, to 
stabilize the region by building stronger, more diverse economies. This 
initiative had the added goals of enhancing national security, and 
reducing the flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the 
United States.
  Second, after the enactment of NAFTA in 1993, we moved to ``level the 
playing field,'' for the CBI region by further enhancing our trade 
relationship with the CBI nations. Today, after 7 years of debate, we 
will vote on the final passage of this measure.
  Third, we have responded quickly and compassionately to a number of 
humanitarian crises in the CBI region; most recently to Hurricanes 
Mitch and Georges, which caused unprecedented damage and misery in many 
Latin American nations.
  And finally, we now look towards 2005, a year that will bring the 
expiration of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the 
implementation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, both of which 
will significantly affect trade relations throughout the Western 
Hemisphere. Today, I will discuss the importance of the legislation 
before us, as well as the future of our relationship with some of our 
most important neighbors.
  I am very pleased that the full Senate is now considering the 
conference report on H.R. 434, which includes a number of trade 
enhancement measures, including the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act 
and Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement. Although I fully support all the 
measures in this package, I have a particular interest in the United 
States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. Since the passage of 
NAFTA put our Caribbean neighbors at a competitive disadvantage, I have 
worked to enhance the Caribbean Basin Initiative that was originally 
passed in 1983. I thank Senators Roth, Moynihan, and Lott for their 
support in bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor, 
in addition to their tireless work with the Senate and House conferees 
to reach agreement on a number of provisions included in this bill.
  Over the past 7 years, I have worked to enhance and build upon our 
existing trade relationship with our neighbors in the Caribbean Basin 
region. Three times, in 1993, 1995, and 1997, I introduced CBI 
enhancement legislation to achieve this important goal. On February 3, 
1999, in response to the overwhelming devastation and destruction 
caused by Hurricane Georges and Hurricane Mitch, I introduced the 
Central American and Caribbean Relief Act. This bill represented a 
broad and comprehensive strategy to provide immediate disaster relief, 
economic and infrastructure recovery and development, and long-term 
trade enhancements that would benefit both the United States and the 
countries in the region well into the new millennium.
  Although we passed legislation in March 1999 that provided immediate 
disaster relief to the countries in the region that were impacted by 
Hurricanes Georges and Mitch, I am pleased that we are now considering 
final passage of a bill that includes many of the long term trade 
enhancement provisions I introduced in the Central American and 
Caribbean Relief Act. Trade is the best form of aid. Enacting this 
legislation is critical to the continued economic health of our nation 
and the economic health of our closest neighbors in the Caribbean and 
Latin America. It is also in our national security interests.
  There are many compelling reasons to pass this legislation. The first 
is humanitarian. I have made three trips to the region in the year 
following the devastation of Hurricane Georges and Hurricane Mitch. I 
know that many of my colleagues have also seen the destruction caused 
by these hurricanes. These two destructive storms caused a level of 
death and devastation not seen in this hemisphere in over 200 years.

[[Page S3820]]

  We have all heard of the tremendous loss of life, economic 
disruption, and human suffering caused by these hurricanes. As a 
neighbor, a friend, and a great nation, we have an obligation to 
respond with assistance that will help the region recover as rapidly as 
possible.
  A second reason to pass this legislation is economic: CBI 
enhancements are in the best economic interest of the United States. 
Experience shows us that providing trade benefits to the Caribbean 
basin in good for the United States. Following enactment of the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative in 1983, our trade position with the region 
improved from a deficit of $3 billion in 1983 to a surplus of nearly 
$3.5 billion in 1998. Between 1983 and 1998, U.S. exports to the region 
increased fourfold, while total imports into the U.S. from the region 
grew by less than 20 per cent. On a per capita basis, our trade surplus 
with the CBI region has consistently out-paced our trade surplus with 
any other region of the world. In fact, since 1995, U.S. exports to the 
CBI countries have increased by approximately 32 percent. Over 58 
million consumers in the 24 countries in the CBI region purchase 70 
percent of their non-oil imports from the United States.
  Yet another reason to strengthen the Caribbean economy is the 
stability of our closest neighbors. In 1983 the Caribbean Basin, which 
includes Central America, was a region inflamed with violent conflicts 
and rampant drug trafficking. The primary goal of the initial CBI 
legislation was to stabilize the region by building stronger, more 
diverse economies, and to enhance our national security by reducing the 
flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States.
  While everyone can agree that the region's worst days are behind it, 
we have a continued national security interest in the Caribbean Basin--
such as stemming the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. 
Without assistance to restart the regional economy and make it possible 
for people to provide for their families, the nations in the region 
will be even more susceptible to the scourge of drug trafficking. The 
people of the region must have opportunities in the legal economy so 
that they may feed their families and resist the financial temptations 
associated with drug trafficking.
  In addition, failing to enact CBI enhancements will increase the 
pressure for migration to the United States. The people of the region 
must have real opportunity at home so that they are not forced to flee 
in order to find employment and feed their families.
  Passage of this legislation is not only critical to ensure that the 
Caribbean Basin is no longer negatively affected by NAFTA, but it will 
also boost the region's long-term competitiveness with Asian nations, 
particularly in the textile industry.
  Although current CBI textile production costs are somewhat higher 
than costs in Asia, the textile products of most Asian nations are 
currently subject to quotas imposed by the Multi-Fiber Agreement, now 
known as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This restriction on 
Asian textiles has enabled the CBI region to remain competitive, and 
further, the CBI region has become a significant market for fabric 
woven in U.S. mills from yarn spun in the U.S. originating from U.S. 
cotton growers.
  However, in 2005, the Asian import quotas will be phased out. At that 
time, textile production in the Caribbean basin will be placed at a 
distinct and growing disadvantage. Disinvestment in the region will 
occur, reducing the incentive to use any material from U.S. textile 
mills or cotton grown in the United States.
  That is why passing CBI enhancement legislation now is critical to 
the U.S. textile and yarn industries, as well as to the U.S. cotton 
growers. Sixty-four thousand U.S. textile workers depend on our 
partnership with the Caribbean. Overall, four hundred thousand U.S. 
jobs are dependent upon textile exports to the CBI region. Only by 
providing incentives for the development of strong relationships with 
apparel manufacturers in our hemisphere will we have any chance to 
maintain a market for U.S. cotton and textiles after the Asian quotas 
are eliminated in 2005.
  Inherent in our CBI enhancement efforts are public and private 
investment incentives that will increase productivity and the quality 
of life within the region. We anticipate the textile industry will 
provide investment capital targeted for the construction and 
maintenance of schools, health and child care facilities, and 
technology enhancements to increase the productivity of both workers 
and existing manufacturing facilities. A well trained and healthy 
workforce will be more productive and efficient as Caribbean basin 
producers compete for shares of the international textile market.
  Mr. President, we are about to make a fundamental decision that will 
impact twenty-seven of our closest neighbors. The choice is clear, 
stark and beyond reasonable debate. Will we engage or will we retreat? 
I urge my colleagues to extend this assistance to our neighbors in 
order to expand commerce and promote economic and political stability 
in the region.
  With the final passage of this legislation, we have an unprecedented 
opportunity to strengthen our economic and national security through 
the enhancement of our trade relationship with our neighbors in the 
region. We must act prior to 2005 to build a dynamic, formidable 
Western Hempishere trade alliance that encourages U.S. industry to 
invest in the region and to make commitments to rebuilding the 
industrial infrastructure in the region.
  There are a number of additional initiatives, both at home and 
abroad, that we should aggressively pursue in order to build a true 
``partnership for success'' with both the Caribbean and the other 
nations of the Western Hemisphere. Mr. President, as we take the first 
step in this process today in passing CBI enhancement legislation, let 
me outline and advocate a comprehensive strategy for economic growth 
and development throughout our hemisphere.
  First, here in the U.S., we should move quickly to modernize and 
improve both the facilities and organizations that manage our 
international trade.
  For example, in recent years, the variety of trade and commerce that 
are carried out at seaports has greatly expanded. This continuing 
growth of activity at seaports has increased the opportunities for a 
variety of illegal activities, including drug trafficking, cargo theft, 
auto theft, illegal immigration, and the diversion of cargo, such as 
food products, to avoid safety inspections.
  In 1998, I asked the President to establish a federal commission to 
evaluate the nature and extent of crime and the overall state of 
security in seaports, and to develop recommendations for improving the 
response of federal, state and local agencies to all types of seaport 
crime. In response to my request, President Clinton established the 
Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports on April 
27, 1999.
  Although the Commission will soon release its final report, it has 
already identified at least four preliminary recommendations for 
improving seaport security:
  First, we should establish minimum security guidelines for all U.S. 
seaports. These would include uniform practices for physical security, 
certification for private security officers at seaports, guidelines for 
restricting vehicle access to seaports, and other, similar measures.
  Second, local ports should establish and maintain local port security 
committees, made up of federal, state, and local agencies with trade 
and law enforcement responsibilities at seaports. These committees 
would discuss and develop solutions for issues related to port 
security. For example, a joint initiative among state and local police 
departments in South Florida, the FBI, and the Customs Service, known 
as the Miami-Dade County Auto Theft Task Force, has been very 
successful. In the last 3 years, this task force has recovered 851 
stolen vehicles valued at $19 million.
  Third, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies should 
conduct cooperative, interagency threat assessments for seaports within 
their jurisdictions, with an eye towards coordinating their efforts to 
combat criminal activity.
  And finally, we should encourage the development and deployment of 
new technologies that would further assist law enforcement and trade 
officials in

[[Page S3821]]

carrying out their missions at the ports. Currently, few ports employ 
measures such as security cameras, carbon dioxide detectors, vessel 
tracking devices, or enhanced x-ray equipment, all of which could 
assist law enforcement personnel in accomplishing their mission. 
Enhanced technology will not only facilitate the movement of legitimate 
trade, but will also assist in the rapid detection of criminal and 
terrorist activities.
  The second critical domestic initiative is the modernization of the 
U.S. Customs Service. On a typical day, dedicated Customs officers in 
over 900 U.S. field locations and 34 foreign offices perform multiple 
tasks associated with the successful performance of the agency's 
mission. This includes the examination of 550 vessels, 45,000 trucks, 
344,000 vehicles, and 1.3 million passengers.
  Perhaps even more important, Customs officers seize over 4000 pounds 
of narcotics and $1.2 million in drug money in a day, and they make 67 
criminal arrests of those involved in a various illegal activities, 
including drug running and money laundering. And finally, in their role 
as facilitator of U.S. trade, Customs processes over 58,600 import 
shipments worth $2.6 billion, monitors 27,000 export shipments, and 
collects over $60 million of revenue per day.
  It is vital that the automation systems upon which Customs relies to 
perform its mission-critical functions be up-to-date and capable of 
handling the ever-increasing pressure on the Service. And this is the 
problem.
  Currently, the Customs Service relies on severely aging automation 
systems. In particular, Customs Automated Commercial System (known as 
ACS), which is at the core of their trade enforcement and compliance 
functions, and is over sixteen (16) years old, is increasingly 
susceptible to short-term ``brown-outs'' and long-term failure. With an 
ACS system failure, even for a few hours, the Customs Service's 
responsibility for protecting American borders becomes significantly 
more difficult.
  Commissioner Kelly and the Customs Service are ready to move forward 
with the modernization of their information technology systems. They 
have determined the funding requirements to accomplish their 
modernization goals in the most cost-effective fashion. Customs will 
require $12 million for the remainder of fiscal year 2000, and they 
have requested $338.4 million for fiscal year 2001 in order to complete 
this project.
  The importance of Customs modernization cannot be overstated; it is a 
fundamental component of moving U.S. trade policy into the 21st 
century. I urge my colleagues to support Commissioner Kelly in his 
effort to streamline and modernize the Customs Service, and to fully 
fund this critically important initiative.
  Third, we must pass legislation that recognizes the comprehensive 
role of the Customs service in both trade facilitation and law 
enforcement. Both the Senate and the House have passed bills to 
reauthorize the U.S. Customs Service. Both bills would provide Customs 
with the necessary funding it requires to perform its multi-faceted 
functions of drug interdiction, passenger and cargo inspection, and 
trade facilitation.
  Both bills enhance drug interdiction and investigative efforts, the 
facilitation of international trade, the targeted use of sophisticated 
technology, the efficient allocation of assets and resources, and the 
enhancement of Customs internal affairs functions. In addition, the 
Senate bill directs the Customs Service to establish performance goals 
and indicators, as well as priorities and objectives by which we may 
evaluate the effectiveness of Customs operations.
  I urge both chambers of Congress to resolve quickly the differences 
between the two bills, and to pass a comprehensive Customs 
Reauthorization Act as a demonstration of our commitment to support the 
first line of defense against the flow of drugs and drug money across 
our borders, and boost the first line of offense in promoting trade.
  In the interest of expanding trade and economic development 
throughout the Western Hemisphere, there are a number of legislative 
initiatives already under consideration by the Senate that should be 
finalized and passed before we complete our business this year.
  As I have already stated, the primary goal of the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative (CBI) was to stabilize the region by building stronger and 
more diverse economies, encouraging growth in international trade, 
developing a strong economic relationship between the U.S. and the 
region, and creating employment opportunities in the legitimate economy 
as an alternative to drug trafficking.
  In 1991, after 8 years of resounding success in the CBI region, 
Congress passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA), providing CBI-
like trade benefits to the countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and 
Peru. In the nine years following enactment of ATPA, U.S. exports to 
the Andean region have more than doubled, from $3.9 billion in 1991 to 
nearly $9 billion in 1998. U.S. exports to Colombia account for over 
half of this increase, growing from $2 billion in 1991 to $4.8 billion 
in 1998. During the same time period, Andean exports to the U.S. 
increased by almost 80 percent.
  In the wake of the Asian financial crisis, Colombia and its Andean 
neighbors are struggling with issues similar to the challenges of the 
CBI region--only much worse. After more than 60 years of sustained 
growth, Colombia is experiencing its worst economic recession since the 
1930s. Unemployment in Colombia is at an historic high of 21 percent; 
the Colombian economy is suffering from three consecutive quarters of 
negative growth. The economic downturn in Colombia has harmed both 
foreign and domestic investor confidence in the Andean region.
  Drug trafficking is undermining the democratic foundations of the 
Andean region. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 
recently released information indicating Colombian coca cultivation has 
increased 140 percent over the past five years. More than 300,000 acres 
of coca are currently under cultivation in the jungles and mountains of 
Colombia. Actual cocaine production in Colombia has risen from 230 
metric tons to 520 metric tons, a 126 percent increase in the same five 
year period. ONDCP estimates that 80 percent of the cocaine available 
on our nation's streets was cultivated on Colombian farm land, 
processed in Colombian drug labs, or smuggled into the U.S. through 
Colombia's roads, rivers, and air space.
  The people of the Andean region are also suffering from the rampant 
guerilla violence that plagues Colombia and threatens the stability of 
the entire Andean region. In 1998, there were over 21,000 murders and 
1,100 kidnapings in Colombia. Ninety percent of these murders and 
kidnapings were related to the armed conflict between the Government of 
Colombia and the anti-government insurgent groups who control almost 40 
percent of the country, are heavily involved in cocaine and heroin 
trafficking, and who regularly violate the national sovereignty of 
their Andean neighbors.
  Colombia's best and brightest citizens are leaving their homes in 
record numbers. Since 1995, over 1 million Colombians have fled their 
country to escape the drug and guerilla related violence that threatens 
the entire region. In the last year alone, more than 100,000 Colombians 
have moved to South Florida. Seventy percent of the Colombians 
displaced by the violence and terror in their country will never return 
to Colombia.
  In response to this crisis, the government of Colombia has formulated 
Plan Colombia. The administration, in turn, has responded generously to 
Colombia's needs by considering a supplemental appropriations package 
of more than $1.6 billion to help the country in this time of crisis. 
This will supplement over $4.0 billion being spent by Colombia itself.
  Fundamental to Plan Colombia, and to the government's ability to 
succeed in its efforts to safeguard the country, will be efforts to 
encourage economic growth and provide jobs to the Colombian people. 
Without new economic opportunities, more and more Colombians will turn 
to illicit activities to support their families or seek to join the 
growing numbers of people who are leaving the country to find a better, 
safer future for their families.
  As part of its Colombian assistance package, the administration has 
proposed $145 million over the next 2 years for alternative economic 
development

[[Page S3822]]

targeted toward Colombian coca and poppy growers. Although agricultural 
reform is an important component of the administration's plan, 
agricultural programs alone are insufficient in addressing the 
alternative development needs in the Andean region. Again Mr. 
President, trade is the best form of aid.
  The United States is at a critical juncture with its neighbors in the 
CBI and Andean regions. As we enhance our trading relationship with our 
partners in the Caribbean by passing the legislation under 
consideration today, we must also work to expand and enhance our 
trading relationships with the countries of the Andean region. 
Currently, under ATPA, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru enjoy the 
same trade benefits that we currently extend to the CBI region. 
However, upon final passage and enactment of CBI enhancements, our 
Andean trading partners will be at a competitive disadvantage.
  To promote economic growth and regional stability, the Congress must 
consider additional trade measures that benefit the Andean region. 
First, the Congress should grant early renewal of ATPA. Early renewal 
of this important trade agreement will signal the United States' 
support of Colombia's economic reform efforts, and will boost the 
confidence of both domestic and international investors in pursuing 
business opportunities that create jobs and enhance international trade 
in Colombia and the Andean region.
  Second, the Congress should consider granting CBI parity to the ATPA 
beneficiaries. During 1999, Colombia and its Andean neighbors exported 
approximately $562 million in textiles and apparel to the United 
States. While insignificant in comparison to the $8.4 billion in 
textile and apparel exports originating in the CBI region, Andean 
textile and apparel production sustains more than 200,000 jobs in 
Colombia alone--valuable jobs in the legitimate economy. Absent CBI 
parity, the Andean region will find itself at a significant competitive 
disadvantage with the 27 countries of the CBI region.
  Third, the Senate should approve passage of the administration's 
supplemental assistance package for Colombia. The proposal responds to 
an emergency situation, expresses a strong U.S. commitment to Colombia, 
and complements other key elements of Plan Colombia. I believe that it 
will help mobilize higher levels of commitment from the Colombian 
government and the private sector, and will catalyze and sustain 
multilateral efforts of support for Colombia.
  As we consider the final passage of CBI enhancements, as well as the 
President's Colombian aid package, the United States has an 
unprecedented opportunity to make significant accomplishments in 
regions ravaged by natural disasters, economic contraction, and the 
scourge of drug trafficking. However, as we make the fateful decisions, 
we must recognize that the dollars we spend on eradication and 
interdiction will be wasted unless the expansion and enhancement of 
international trade is included as a critical component of an effective 
economic assistance and counter drug strategy.
  We must also aggressively pursue the Fee Trade Area of the Americas, 
which will put in place the future framework for trade in our 
hemisphere. We cannot afford to fail in this task, and I am encouraged 
by the progress that has been made up to this point.
  Last year, Congress passed my resolution stating that Miami should 
host the permanent Secretariat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. 
Coupled with the passage of the trade legislation under consideration 
today, these actions indicate that the United States Congress still 
believes that opening markets and expanding economic links abroad are 
in our national interests. We must continue to demonstrate our 
leadership in this movement.
  There is also much that can and should be accomplished by our 
Caribbean partners to ensure that their end of the international 
trading system is as efficient as it can be. They must work to ensure 
the efficiency of their seaports, airports, and transportation systems. 
We can help with technical assistance. International institutions such 
as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank can use their 
assistance programs to promote efficiency and increase investment in 
the textile and apparel sector of the Caribbean economy. We can also 
work with these institutions and industries to ensure that 
internationally recognized labor rights are respected. Such initiatives 
will continue to build a consensus in the U.S. and aboard on the 
benefits of expanded trade.
  Upon final passage of CBI enhancement legislation, we will begin the 
important process of establishing a true ``partnership for success'' 
with some of our important neighbors. Mr. President, the action of the 
Senate today is a good start, but is only the beginning. I urge my 
colleagues to look towards the future, and to take advantage of the 
real economic benefits that can be achieved by further enhancing our 
relationship with the nations of the Western Hemisphere.

                          ____________________