[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3823-S3827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take time to share some
excerpts taken from the National Intelligence Estimate 99-17D of
January 2000, which frames infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, as a
national security threat to the United States.
This is, obviously, pursuant to the discussion we have been having
most of the day with regard to the inadequacy of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act with regard to the provisions concerning HIV/AIDS in
Africa and, in particular, the very serious error of the conference
committee in eliminating the Feinstein-Feingold amendment concerning
HIV/AIDS.
This report represents an important initiative on the part
of the Intelligence Community to consider the national
security dimension of a nontraditional threat. It responds to
a growing concern by senior US leaders about the
implications--in terms of health, economics, and national
security--of the growing global infectious disease threat.
The dramatic increase in drug-resistant microbes, combined
with the lag in development of new antibiotics, the rise of
megacities with severe health care deficiencies,
environmental degradation, and the growing ease and frequency
of cross-border movements of people and produce have greatly
facilitated the spread of infectious diseases.
As part of this new US Government effort, the National
Intelligence Council produced this national intelligence
estimate. It examines the most lethal diseases globally and
by region; develops alternative scenarios about their future
course; examines national and international capacities to
deal with them; and assesses their national global social,
economic, political, and security impact.
Of the seven biggest killers worldwide, TB, malaria,
hepatitis, and, in particular, HIV/AIDS continue to surge,
with HIV/AIDS and TB likely to account for the overwhelming
majority of deaths from infectious diseases in developing
countries by 2020.
Sub-Saharan Africa-accounting for nearly half of infectious
disease deaths globally--will remain the most vulnerable
region. The death rates for many diseases, including HIV/AIDS
and malaria, exceed those in all other regions. Sub-Saharan
Africa's health care capacity--the poorest in the world--will
continue to lag.
The most likely scenario, in our view, is one in which the
infectious disease threat--particularly from HIV/AIDS--
worsens during the first half of our time frame, but
decreases fitfully after that, owing to better prevention and
control efforts, new drugs and vaccines, and socioeconomics
improvements. In the next decade, under this scenario,
negative demographic and social conditions in developing
countries, such as continued urbanization and poor health
care capacity, remain conducive to the spread of infectious
diseases; persistent poverty sustains the least developed
countries as reservoirs of infection; and microbial
resistance continues to increase faster than the pace of new
drug and vaccine development. During the subsequent decade,
more positive demographic changes such as reduced fertility
and aging populations; gradual socioeconomic improvement in
most countries; medical advances against childhood and
vaccine-preventable killers such as diarrheal diseases,
neonatal tetanus, and measles; expanded international
surveillance and response systems; and improvements in
national health care capacities take hold in all but the
least developed countries.
Barring the appearance of a deadly and highly infectious
new disease, a catastrophic upward lurch by HIV/AIDS, or the
release of a highly contagious biological agent capable of
rapid and widescale secondary spread, these developments
produce at least limited gains against the overall infectious
disease threat. However, the remaining group of virulent
diseases, led by HIV/AIDS and TB, continue to take a
significant toll. The persistent infectious disease burden is
likely to aggravate and, in some cases, may even provoke
economic decay, social fragmentation, and political
destabilization in the hardest hit countries in the
developing and former communist worlds.
The economic costs of infectious disease--especially HIV/
AIDS and malria--are already significant, and their
increasingly heavy toll on productivity, profitability, and
foreign investment will be reflected in growing GDP losses,
as well, that could reduce GDP by as much as 20 percent or
more by 2010 in some Sub-Saharan African countries, according
to recent studies.
Some of the hardest hit countries in Sub-Saharan Africa--
and possibly later in South and Southeast Asia--will face a
demographic upheaval as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases
reduce human life expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill
as many as a quarter of their populations over a decade or
less, producing a huge orphan cohort. Nearly 42 million
children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to
AIDS by 2010; 19 of the hardest hit countries will be in
Sub--Sahran Africa.
The relationship between disease and political instability
is indirect but real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of
state instability suggests that infant mortality--a good
indicator of the overall quality of life--correlates strongly
with political instability, particularly in countries that
already have achieved a measure of democracy. The severe
social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely
to intensify the struggle for political power to control
scarce state resources.
the deadly seven
The seven infectious diseases that caused the highest
number of deaths in 1998, according to WHO and DIA's Armed
Forces Medical Intelligence Center, AFMIC, will remain
threats well into the next century. HIV/AIDS, TB malaria, and
hepatitis B and C--are either spreading or becoming more
drug-
[[Page S3824]]
resistant, while lower respiratory infections, diarrheal
diseases, and measles, appear to have at least temporarily
peaked.
hiv/aids
Following its identification in 1983, the spread of HIV
intensified quickly. Despite progress in some regions, HIV/
AIDS shows no signs of abating globally. Approximately 2.3
million people died from AIDS worldwide in 1998, up
dramatically from 0.7 million in 1993, and there were 5.8
million new infections. According to WHO, some 33.4
million people were living with HIV by 1998, up from 10
million in 1990, and the number could approach 40 million
by the end of 2000. Although infection and death rates
have slowed considerably in developed countries owing to
the growing use of preventive measures and costly new
multidrug treatment therapies, the pandemic continues to
spread in much of the developing world, where 95 percent
of global infections and deaths have occurred. Sub-Saharan
Africa currently has the biggest regional burden, but the
disease is spreading quickly in India, Russia, China, and
much of the rest of Asia.
TB
WHO declared TB a global emergency in 1993 and the threat
continues to grow, especially from multidrug resistant TB.
The disease is especially prevalent in Russia, India,
Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Latin
America. More than 1.5 million people died of TB in 1998,
excluding those infected with HIV/AIDS, and there were up to
7.4 million new cases. Although the vast majority of TB
infections and deaths occur in developing regions, the
disease also is encroaching into developed regions due to
increased immigration and travel and less emphasis on
prevention. Drug resistance is a growing problem; the WHO has
reported that up to 50 percent of people with multidrug
resistant TB may die of their infection despite treatment,
which can be 10 to 50 times more expensive than that used for
drug-sensitive TB. HIV/AIDS also has contributed to the
resurgence of TB. One-quarter of the increase in TB incidence
involves co-infection with HIV. TB probably will rank second
only to HIV/AIDS as a cause of infectious disease deaths by
2020.
Malaria, a mainly tropical disease that seemed to be coming
under control in the 1960s and 1970s, is making a deadly
comeback-especially in Sub-Saharan Africa where infection
rates increased by 40 percent from 1970 to 1997. Drug
resistance, historically a problem only with the most severe
form of the disease, is now increasingly reported in the
milder variety, while the prospects for an effective vaccine
are poor. In 1998, an estimated 300 million people were
infected with malaria, and more than 1.1 million died from
the disease that year. Most of the deaths occurred in Sub-
Saharan Africa. According to the U.S. Agency for
International Development, USAID, Sub-Saharan Africa alone is
likely to experience a 7- to 20-percent annual increase in
malaria-related deaths and severe illnesses over the next
several years.
Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the region most affected by
the global infectious disease phenomenon--accounting for
nearly half of infectious disease-caused deaths worldwide.
Deaths from HIV/AIDS, malaria, cholera, and several lesser
known diseases exceed those in all other regions. Sixty-five
percent of all deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa are caused by
infectious diseases. Rudimentary health care delivery and
response systems, the unavailability or misuse of drugs, the
lack of funds, and the multiplicity of conflicts are
exacerbating the crisis. According to the AFMIC typology,
with the exception of southern Africa, most of Sub-Saharan
Africa falls in the lowest category. Investment in health
care in the region is minimal, less than 40 percent of the
people in countries such as Nigeria and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo DROC have access to basic medical care,
and even in relatively well off South Africa, only 50 to 70
percent have such access, with black populations at the low
end of the spectrum.
Four-fifths of all HIV-related deaths and 70 percent of new
infections worldwide in 1998 occurred in the region, totaling
1.8 to 2 million and 4 million, respectively. Although only a
tenth of the world's population lives in the region, 11.5
million to 13.9 million cumulative AIDS deaths have occurred
there. Eastern and southern African countries, including
South Africa, are the worst affected, with 10 to 26 percent
of adults infected with the disease. Sub-Saharan Africa has
high TB prevalence, as well as the highest HIV/TB co-
infection rate, with TB deaths totaling 0.55 million in 1998.
The hardest hit countries are in equatorial and especially
southern Africa. South Africa, in particular, is facing the
biggest increase in the region.
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for an estimated 90 percent of
the global malaria burden. Ten percent of the regional
disease burden is attributed to malaria, with roughly 1
million deaths in 1998. Cholera, dysentery, and other
diarrhea diseases also are major killers in the region,
particularly among children, refugees, and internationally
displaced populations. Forty percent of all childhood deaths
from diarrhea diseases occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. The
region also has a high rate of hepatitis B and C infections
and is the only region with a perennial meningococcal
meningitis problem in a ``meningitis belts'' stretching
from west to east.
middle east and north africa
The region's conservative social mores, climatic factors,
and high levels of health spending in oil-producing states
tend to limit some globally prevalent diseases, such as HIV/
AIDS and malaria, but others, such as TB and hepatitis B and
C, are more prevalent. The region's advantages are partially
offset by the impact of war-related uprooting of populations,
overcrowded cities with poor refrigeration and sanitation
systems, and a dearth of water, especially clean drinking
water.
The HIV/AIDS impact is far lower than in other regions,
with 210,000 cases, or 0.13 percent of the population,
including 19,000 new cases, in 1998. This owes in part to
above-average underreporting because of the stigma associated
with the disease in Muslim societies and the authoritarian
nature of most governments in the region.
international response capacity
International organizations such as WHO and the World Bank,
institutions is several developed countries such as the US
CDC, and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), will continue
to play an important role in strengthening both international
and national surveillance and response systems for infectious
diseases. Nonetheless, progress is likely to be slow, and
development of an integrated global surveillance and response
system probably is at least a decade or more away. This owes
to the magnitude of the challenge; inadequate coordination at
the international level; and lack of funds, capacity, and, in
some cases, cooperation and commitment at the national level.
Some counties hide or understate their infectious disease
problems for reasons of international prestige and fear of
economic losses. Total international health-related aid to
low- and middle-income countries--some $2-3 billion
annually--remains a fraction of the $250 billion health bill
of these countries.
macroeconomic impact
The macroeconomic costs of the infectious disease burden
are increasingly significant for the most seriously affected
countries despite the partially offsetting impact of declines
in population growth, and they will take an even greater toll
on productivity, profitability, and foreign investment in the
future. A senior World Bank official considers AIDS to be the
single biggest threat to economic development in sub-Saharan
Africa. A growing number of studies suggest that AIDS and
malaria alone will reduce GDP in several sub-Saharan African
countries by 20 percent or more by 2010.
The impact of infectious diseases on annual GDP growth in
heavily affected countries already amounts to as much as a 1-
percentage point reduction in the case of HIV/AIDS on average
and 1 to 2 percentage points for malaria, according to World
Bank studies. A recent Namibian study concluded that AIDS
cost the country nearly 8 percent of GDP in 1996, while a
study of Kenya projected that GDP will be 14.5 percent
smaller in 2005 than it otherwise would have been without the
cumulative impact of AIDS. The annual cost of malaria to
Kenya's GDP was estimated at 2 to 6 percent and at 1 to 5
percent for Nigeria.
Public health spending on AIDS and related diseases
threatens to crowd out other types of health care and social
spending. In Kenya, HIV/AIDS treatment costs are projected to
account for 50 percent of health spending by 2005. In South
Africa, such costs could account for 35 to 84 percent of
public health expenditures by 2005, according to one
projection.
disruptive social impact
At least some of the hardest-hit countries, initially in
Sub-Saharan Africa and later in other regions, will face a
demographic catastrophe as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases
reduce human life expectancy dramatically and kill up to a
quarter of their populations over the period of this
Estimate.
life expectancy and population growth
Until the early 1990's, economic development and improved
health care had raised the life expectancy in developing
countries to 64 years, with prospects that it would go higher
still. The growing number of deaths from new and reemergent
diseases such as AIDS, however, will slow or reverse this
trend toward longer life spans in heavily affected countries
by as much as 30 years or more by 2010, according to the US
Census Bureau. For example, life expectancy will be reduced
by 30 years in Botswana and Zimbabwe, by 20 years in Nigeria
and South Africa, by 13 years in Honduras, by eight years in
Brazil, by four years in Haiti, and by three years in
Thailand.
family structure
The degradation of nuclear and extended families across all
classes will produce severe social and economic dislocations
with political consequences, as well. Nearly 35 million
children in 27 countries will have lost one or both parents
to AIDS by 2000; by 2010, this number will increase to 41.6
million. Nineteen of the hardest hit countries are in Sub-
Saharan Africa, where HIV/AIDS has been prevalent across all
social sectors. With as much as a third of the children under
15 in hardest-hit countries expected to comprise a ``lost
orphaned generation'' by 2010 with little hope of educational
or employment opportunities, these countries will be at risk
of further economic decay, increased crime, and political
instability as such young people become radicalized or are
exploited by various political groups for their own ends; the
pervasive child soldier phenomenon may be one example.
[[Page S3825]]
destabilizing political and security impact
In our view, the infectious disease burden will add to
political instability and slow democratic development in Sub-
Saharan Africa, parts of Asia, and the former Soviet Union,
while also increasing political tensions in and among some
developed countries.
The severe social and economic impact of infectious
diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, and the infiltration of
these diseases into the ruling political and military elites
and middle class of developing countries are likely to
intensify the struggle for political power to control scarce
state resources. This will hamper the development of a civil
society and other underpinnings of democracy and will
increase pressure on democratic transitions in regions such
as the FSU and Sub-Saharan Africa where the infectious
disease burden will add to economic misery and political
polarization.
I see another colleague who wishes to speak. I will summarize why I
have chosen to read at length from this intelligence report. It is very
clear. The threat of these HIV/AIDS problems and other infectious
diseases is not something that is separate from or different from the
piece of legislation that we are looking at today. This is titled the
``African Growth and Opportunity Act.'' It is supposed to hold out the
promise not only of profit for Americans who want to trade with Africa
but also genuine hope in the future for the nations of Africa and the
people of the African countries.
Without a genuine attempt in this bill to begin to deal, in
particular, with the HIV/AIDS problem, as well as other issues, this is
a false promise, it is a hollow statement, and, I am afraid, one that
could lead to a cynical response from those in Africa who will see this
for what it really is: a one-sided piece of legislation that ignores
one of the greatest human tragedies in human history and certainly a
tragedy that completely undercuts the notion that we can have a good
trading relationship with a continent that is being destroyed by such a
vicious disease.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be
allowed to proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bennett pertaining to the introduction of S. 2539
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
Conference Report on the Trade and Development Act of 2000. It is
important to remind everyone this is the first substantive trade bill
we have passed since the Uruguay Round implementation bill in 1994. It
is about time. We Americans have, by far, the largest and most dynamic
economy in the world. We are the world's only superpower. We better act
like one. And that means taking leadership on global trade issues and
trade policy, not burying our heads in the sand. Completion of this
bill is a first step. Passage of PNTR for China is another.
I would like to make several general comments about this legislation.
Then I will highlight some of its major sections and explain why they
are in the best interest of the United States.
In two weeks, the House is scheduled to vote on whether to extend
permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China. The Senate vote will
follow. I am confident that it will pass in both houses. These two
pieces of legislation have a common underlying set of principles.
First, a market-based economy, the rule of law, and the reduction and
elimination of barriers to foreign trade. These all lead to greater
growth, both for our trade partners domestically, as well as and for
the global economy.
Second, greater interchange of goods, services, investment, and
people between the United States and developing countries. This leads,
over the long-run, to domestic stability in those nations, and greater
global stability.
Third, if the United States were to turn inward today, we would be
turning our back on a global trade and economic system that has brought
us to the greatest height of prosperity in the history of the world.
Although the disparities in income around the world are greater than
in the past, hundreds of millions of people have been raised out of
poverty over the last two decades. We need to do a lot more to ensure
that people in America and people overseas are not passed over by this
growth. But raising trade barriers, reversing trade liberalization, and
halting our efforts to open markets around the world is not the answer.
That would only worsen income disparities and increase the number of
people living in poverty.
The outcome of our conference is not perfect. It never is. But the
result is absolutely in our national interest.
The two major sections of the bill are the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act, and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade
Partnership Act. The Africa portion is but one step in bringing Africa
into the global economic system. And in promoting development on this
terribly poor continent.
Many of the problems of Africa are home grown. Many of the problems
are the vestige of totally inept and irresponsible colonial rule. We
can provide ways, in this case through economic development, industrial
growth, and debt relief, for Africa to begin to emerge from its cycle
of poverty.
The Caribbean Basin was put at a competitive disadvantage once NAFTA
came into effect. This bill brings the CBI nations up to parity with
Mexico. At the same time, it requires important commitments from those
nations on intellectual property rights, on WTO obligations, on
participation in negotiations in the free trade area of America, on
fighting the war against corruption, on respecting internationally
recognized worker rights, and on protecting against the worst forms of
child labor.
Under this bill, a country in Africa or the Caribbean must commit to
protect internationally recognized worker rights in order to receive
benefits. Congress has debated the issue of the relationship between
trade and labor for years. I am very pleased we have acted in support
of one of the most basic sets of human rights. I hope this is an
indication that we will start making real progress in reconciling trade
and labor in future trade legislation.
Let me mention several other provisions of the bill that are of
particular import. I deeply regret the provision passed by this Senate
to provide trade adjustment assistance for farmers was not included in
the conference report. Our farmers have suffered as much as any sector
of our economy. Yet they fall between the cracks in our TAA policy, and
that was not the intention when trade adjustment assistance was
originally conceived.
As a compromise, the Secretary of Labor must submit a report
examining the applicability to farmers of trade adjustment assistance
programs. Further, the Secretary must make recommendations, either to
approve the operation of those programs as they apply to farmers, or to
establish a new program for farmers. These provisions are utterly
inadequate. I guarantee we will revisit this issue. Farmers suffering
adversely from the impact of trade should be provided with the means to
adjust, just as factory workers do today.
I strongly support the provision establishing a chief agricultural
negotiator at USTR, with the rank of ambassador. Agriculture is at the
core of our economy and our society, and our agricultural trade
negotiators need this high visibility to represent American interests
properly.
I might add that agriculture disparities around the world are the
only major remaining trade distortion not yet addressed either in GATT
or WTO. It is agriculture trade distortions which are the major
remaining significant barrier to trade with which we have not yet
dealt.
I am very pleased this effort includes provisions dealing with the
ways we deal with products made with forced or indentured child labor.
Every time I hear that phrase ``forced or indentured child labor,'' I
get chills down my spine. It bothers all of us when we hear that. This
conference report also includes provisions to deal with that and it
includes new eligibility criteria in the GSP, Generalized System of
Preferences, regarding the elimination of the worst forms of child
labor.
I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, for his
tireless efforts on behalf of the rights of children
[[Page S3826]]
globally. Everyone who is concerned--and we are all--with this problem
should remember the name Tom Harkin.
As has Senator Harkin, I have traveled to some of the most
inhospitable places in the world, and I have seen children working and
living in conditions that would not be shown in a R-rated movie. I am
proud to join him in supporting these measures.
Finally, wool tariffs. For years, there have been efforts to reduce
the tariffs on the finest worsted wool. This is a complex issue
affecting the manufacturers of wool suits, the manufacturers of wool
fabric, the yarn spinning industry, wool growers, and retailers. The
conference report provides for the temporary reduction of tariffs on a
limited quantity of certain wool fabrics. It temporarily suspends the
duty on certain wool yarns, fibers, and tops. And it establishes a $9
million wool research development promotion trust fund. This fund will
assist wool producers in improving the quality of wool produced in the
United States and help develop and promote the wool market. I welcome
this thoughtful compromise that serves all concerned groups.
In sum, I am pleased the House has passed this comprehensive and
historic trade package. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of it. America is the world leader in promoting a market
economy and knocking down trade barriers in order to improve the
quality of life, both in our country and abroad. We need to continue
this, first, by approving this conference report, and then, shortly, by
approving PNTR for China.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the distinguished Majority Leader knows,
I have made no secret of my opposition to the conference report to
accompany H.R. 434, the so-called African Growth and Opportunity Act.
And though there's no doubt that the conference report will be adopted
by the Senate, I am obliged to point out that Congress is on the brink
of passing legislation that accelerates the loss of a significant part
of America's manufacturing base and costs numerous jobs in the
beleaguered textile and apparel industry.
Let me say at the outset that I certainly am not against ``African
growth'' or ``African opportunity'' or economic growth in the Caribbean
Basin. But I do not believe--and will not be convinced--that U.S. trade
policy should aid emerging economies at the expense of an entire
domestic industry and thousands of American workers.
But make no mistake, Mr. President, that is precisely what is
occurring this week in the United States Senate. Consider the evidence:
The textile industry is already operating under an enormous trade
deficit. For every $6 million in apparel and fabric the industry
exports, $21 million is imported, the vast majority of which streams in
from third-world countries with cheap production costs. I don't suspect
any Senator will seriously argue that H.R. 434 will do anything but
dramatically increase this trade deficit.
Why is this so? Because American textile companies simply cannot
compete on a playing field that isn't a level playing field. As cheap
imports continue to flood the domestic market, job loss will not only
continue, but increase. The media report news of our booming economy,
but this so-called ``boom'' has left the textile and apparel industry
out in the cold. As the Clinton administration crows about low
unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also announced that just
last month, 3,000 textile jobs were lost. Since 1994, when Congress
passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, this industry alone has
lost 453,000 jobs.
That's not just a statistic, Mr. President. That's 453,000 families
forced to contend with the stress and displacement that accompany job
loss. That's 453,000 workers forced to find new means to make their
livelihood, often at lower-paying, entry level jobs for which they have
little or no training.
453,000 Americans lost their job Mr. President, 70,000 of whom are
North Carolinians. Let's try to put that job loss statistic into
perspective. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Roth, knows that there are only 412,000 jobs in the entire
state of Delaware. A senior member of his committee, Senator Baucus,
who was a conferee on this legislation, surely is aware that there are
only 389,000 total jobs in Montana. Alaska has 289,000 jobs, Wyoming
has 235,000 jobs, Vermont 296,000, South Dakota 381,000 and North
Dakota 325,000 jobs.
Perhaps Senators would feel differently about U.S. trade policy if
all of the workers instead of their entire states lost their jobs in
the last decade. Yet that's the precarious state of textile and apparel
in America, Mr. President, and Congress continues to promote policies
that will further erode the industry.
In the textile communities of North Carolina, where 18 plants shut
down in 1999 alone, you can bet they don't talk much about the booming
economy. They're talking about something else.
Last April, I held a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on
the effects of NAFTA five years after it took effect. Among those who
provided testimony was a wonderfully unassuming women named Vontella
Dabbs. Ms. Dabbs works at Delta Mills in Maiden, North Carolina, and
although she was seated at the same table with Ambassador Richard
Fischer and Pat Buchanan, she stole the show.
I am going to quote extensively from her testimony because it's
important and it bears repeating again and again. She said the
following:
I come to you not as an expert in any field, not as a
politically motivated person, but simply as an American that
is deeply concerned for both my future and the future of my
family and friends. I cannot quote you statistics or give you
fancy computer-generated data to support some theory about
foreign trade. What I can give you are honest and heartfelt
feelings about what's going on in our community, as related
to the foreign trade agreements and the people who work in
textile plants . . .
Today . . . modern textile companies and plants are
threatened by one thing that I feel can put an end to our
entire industry. This threat is that we are not being given a
fair opportunity to compete with foreign business on a level
playing field. Many of the well-intentioned laws, treaties,
and trade agreements enacted during the past few years have
made the competition between domestic and foreign textile
business unfair, in favor of the foreign producers. These
treaties and laws and trade agreements have not really opened
up the world to American textiles, as was intended, but
instead have opened our borders for foreign manufacturers to
flood our country with goods produced with near slave labor
in deplorable conditions for workers. These agreements have
also created an incentive for American manufacturers to close
the door on American manufacturing and go south to Mexico and
the Caribbean to invest millions in foreign countries. And by
doing this, they are putting thousands of hard-working
Americans out of a job.
It's hard to argue with that, Mr. President, though I have no doubt
that many of my colleagues will try to do so. I can hear them now,
saying that may comparable new jobs have been created through the
growth of the retail industry. To which the textile communities of
North Carolina say, ``Thanks for nothing.'' Textile jobs pay 63 percent
more than retail jobs. While the average mill worker earns wages of
$440.59 a week, retail workers make only $270.90.
Worse, the loss of textile jobs means money is drained from the
economies of the hardest-hit communities, making it impossible for
these towns to support this highly touted new retail employment. When
the mills close, workers can't simply consult the local newspapers to
get another job. Instead, they are forced to relocate, looking for
those elusive retail jobs that pay barely more than half than the job
they just lost, and are growing most rapidly in larger cities with a
higher cost of living.
With this in mind, the last thing Congress needs to do is increase
the amount of cheap imports coming into our markets. Yet this is
exactly what H.R. 434 will do. Even worse, however, the bill provides
the perfect loophole for Asian countries to circumvent U.S. import
restrictions. No wonder many people around town are starting to refer
to this legislation as the ``Chinese Transshipment Bill.''
Here's how Asian companies can easily conduct illegal transshipments
from both African and Caribbean nations, Mr. President. Asian
companies, which currently must comply with U.S. quota and duty
requirements, will simply set up shop in the nations that benefit from
this legislation. Once they are in operation, it's impossible to know
whether garments are actually
[[Page S3827]]
assembled in Africa or the Caribbean or being shipped to these
countries from elsewhere. Then, under the bill, they can add another $3
billion to their current agreements with the United States.
Mr. President, these illegalities certainly won't benefit American
textile companies--and it's hard to see how it does much for the
African and Caribbean nations that this bill is ostensibly designed to
help. Instead, it merely allows already-established Asian companies to
use these nations as simple fronts for their own business. I certainly
hope that's not what the Senate has in mind.
Mr. President, in my view, the decimation of one of America's most
important industries is absolutely unacceptable. I do not quarrel with
the contention that economic development in Africa and the Caribbean is
an important objective and ultimately in America's best interest. Yet I
fail to see why we must sacrifice an entire domestic industry to this
international goal.
Sadly enough, the Senate is now poised to do just that. I am
realistic enough to know the ultimate outcome of this debate. But I
would be remiss in my duty as a Senator from North Carolina--and as an
American--if I did not take a stand on behalf of the many thousands of
workers who have paid--and will continue to pay--the price for a U.S.
trade policy willing to countenance the destruction of the textile
industry and the communities it supports.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S.
2540 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________