[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 58 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3862-S3880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 2521

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the military construction appropriations bill, S. 2521, 
immediately following the adoption of the African trade conference 
report; further, there be debate only relative to the bill, other than 
any amendments offered and cleared by the two managers, which would 
continue until 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2000.
  This has been cleared with the Democratic leadership. We are 
extending it until this time on Tuesday at the request of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I just want to make sure 
that those of us who want to speak about the Million Mom March that is 
coming this weekend, where we may see a quarter of a million or more 
moms here, and thousands more across the country, are not precluded 
under this UC from speaking on it in morning business. If it requires 
an amendment to the UC, I would hope we could work that out. Otherwise, 
I will object because we could talk about a lot of things, but there is 
no question the Million Mom March deserves to be discussed. Senator 
Lautenberg has a resolution praising the moms, and I think we should be 
able to discuss that.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I might say, this does not preclude that. 
But the rules of the Senate are that once you vote on cloture, and the 
fact that cloture was adopted, postcloture, the debate has to be on the 
cloture item.
  If the Senators want to talk on this subject, we will be glad to talk 
with them about the appropriate time to do it. But under the rules, the 
regular order will be that we have debate on this measure.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. After a vote on final passage, this would be entirely 
in order, and if a resolution is to be offered, then you could deal 
with the resolution; but you could not deal with it now, is that right? 
I ask that question of the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may, I inquire of the Senator, what was 
the question?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. After we have a vote on final passage, then these 
matters would be entirely in order, correct?
  Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, after the vote on the conference 
report, it would be debate relative to the pending bill only. But, 
again, we always work together to find time for Senators to have 
morning business and talk on subjects that they wish to talk about. But 
we are trying to set up a process to complete the African trade bill 
and then move to the military construction appropriations bill. We have 
it worked out. Again, we will be glad to talk to Senators who may be 
interested in a time when that could be done. But the rules do not 
allow that now.
  Mrs. BOXER. I understand. I am going to have to object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to see it. My understanding is we are going to 
MILCON and we will not necessarily have an opportunity to speak--maybe 
we can put in a quorum call until I see that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California to 
withhold her objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. She has already objected. The Senator from New 
Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope we can work this out in some amicable 
way. The regular order is that debate now is on the African trade and 
CBI conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I know the 
Senator from New Jersey has the floor. In an effort to resolve this, I 
wonder if the leader would consider, prior to going to the military 
construction bill, that there be a period of time for Senators to 
discuss this march.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, I think we can work out a time to do 
this. We have a problem in that the manager of the bill has a time 
problem--or one of the managers--and she has to leave later on this 
afternoon.
  Mr. REID. Also, there is nothing to prevent Senators from talking 
while the bill is pending.
  Mr. LOTT. The point is, it would take consent in order for that to 
happen. Generally speaking, as long as everybody is being considerate 
of each other--we haven't objected to Senator Lautenberg speaking. But 
he would not be able to speak on the subject if Senators objected. He 
actually has spoken on both. I think we are making a mountain out of a 
molehill here, and we ought to be able to work through this.
  Mr. REID. We will continue to work on this.
  Mr. LOTT. Should I renew the request at this time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say again, we worked very hard on 
both sides of the aisle to accommodate Senators on both sides of the 
aisle, including their desires to speak, but also the managers' desire 
to do some of their work and still be able to make other commitments. 
In this case, we are actually trying to protect the ranking member, 
Senator Murray, from Washington State. We ought to be able to work 
through that. I hope Senators will be understanding of the managers' 
desire to make some progress on the MILCON bill today. But at their 
request, which I think is reasonable, we will strike the ``relative to 
the bill'' part of the request and I will renew it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the military 
construction appropriations bill, S. 2521,

[[Page S3863]]

immediately following the adoption of the African trade conference 
report, and further, there be debate only, other than any amendments 
offered and cleared by the two managers, which would continue until 
2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and all Members. 
Further, I assure the minority leader that I don't intend to file a 
cloture motion on this bill this week. I think we can make progress on 
military construction. It has broad support because of what is in the 
base bill and also because it has the emergency funding for Kosovo and 
fuel for the military. I believe we can complete this bill this week.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the majority leader will yield, when would he 
expect that the MILCON bill will come up and be available for debate?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe we will be able to finish the debate remaining on 
the Africa trade bill, and sometime between 12 and 1 o'clock get a vote 
on that, and then we would go to MILCON. The managers would like to 
spend, obviously, some time on the substance of that, and then we will 
go forward from there.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would there be any likelihood of a vote tomorrow on 
that?
  Mr. LOTT. No. We will vote on the Africa trade bill today, but then 
we will go to debate only on MILCON, and that would go until 2:15 until 
Tuesday. There would be no votes on that until Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield? We have a couple more speakers on 
this side. Senator Harkin is one of them and he said he would be 
willing to speak after the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will speak after the vote.
  Mr. REID. One of our members is tied up in judiciary, or we could be 
finished by noon. We will try to get him back here and speed this thing 
up.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the teacher, Patty Nielson, from 
Columbine is right in her statement. It is shocking that anyone can get 
a gun so easily at a gun show. The American people understand this 
issue. In every poll, more than 80 percent of the American people 
support background checks at gun shows. In fact, two-thirds of the gun 
owners--66 percent--support background checks on all gun sales at gun 
shows. Some of the other loopholes in our gun laws are also shocking. 
There is no reason why we should allow large-capacity ammunition clips 
to be imported. We banned them from being manufactured in this country, 
but they can still be brought in, imported.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like the Senator to respond to these questions. I 
want to put the importance of this resolution in context.
  The Senator mentioned that it was April 10 of last year that we had 
the Columbine tragedy.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. April 20.
  Mr. DURBIN. April 20, 1999. And if I am not mistaken, 12 or 13 high 
school students were killed, and more were injured during the course of 
that time. America was fixed on this event as no other event, despite 
all the gun violence, when we consider it could happen at a high school 
such as Columbine.
  Is the Senator from New Jersey able to tell me what the response was 
of the Senate to that tragedy?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call the Senate to order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The debate must be germane to the African 
trade conference report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is regular order.
  Mr. President, I have the right to establish the connection between 
the trade industry, and that is how I started my remarks. The fact is 
that one of the purposes of getting this trade matter into law is to 
make sure the countries we deal with that are having severe economic 
problems, where we see starving populations, where we see human rights 
ignored, corruption rampant--that is the mission of what we are doing 
this day. Frankly, I am not doing it exclusively so we can do more 
business. We would like to do more business.
  The fact is that trade has another significant implication. It is a 
foreign policy implication. How do we deal with it? When we look 
through the television cameras today, we see people with malnutrition, 
disease, starving. We are hoping we can do something to try to 
alleviate those conditions.
  Why is it out of order? I ask the Parliamentarian, why is it out of 
order to talk about the subjects that relate at home to the same things 
we are trying to do to help overseas? I don't understand it. I must say 
that I have to pose that to the Parliamentarian.
  We are never so strict that you can't talk about matters that relate 
indirectly. Or are we going to measure it word by word what is being 
said here? I think it is an invasion, I must say, of the Senator's 
right to speak on an issue.
  I am not finished with remarks on the trade commentary. I intend to 
close with the trade commentary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All debate must be germane to the conference 
report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New 
York, everybody's good friend here, wishes to ask a question of the 
majority leader. I would like Senator Moynihan to ask him to respond 
with the assurance that I get the floor, if we abandon the debate now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished and 
forbearing majority leader, if we have a vote on the African trade 
bill, if the Senator from New Jersey could speak to the matter he is 
discussing?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent 
request we agreed to that he would be able to do that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That I be able to recapture--we are asking the 
majority leader. He speaks very clearly. I have the assurance that I 
will be recognized immediately after to finish the comments that I was 
making.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I inquire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask Senator Lautenberg if he can give us 
some idea about how long he thinks that might take. The reason I am 
inquiring again is that we do have managers of the bill who have a time 
problem. I would like to encourage the Senator to talk with them and 
get some time agreements so they can move forward with the military 
construction bill. I feel as if they will be able to work something out 
with you.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have two of our Senators who want to 
speak on the African free trade bill. One of the Senators wishes to 
speak after the vote. I placed a call and spoke to the other Senator. 
He is going to call me back in a few minutes as to whether he could do 
the same. If that is the case, the vote will take place as soon as the 
leader wants it on the Africa trade bill, and then they can speak after 
that.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am not managing the bill. I know there is 
at least one more Senator on the floor who wants to speak on the trade 
bill. I understand there may be one or two on this side. We have about 
four or five speakers.
  Mr. REID. We have three on our side.
  Mr. LOTT. And a couple on our side.
  Mr. REID. One of the Senators wants to speak for 45 minutes on our 
side. That is why I was trying to see if we could work it out so she 
could speak after the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. What is our status, Mr. President? I am going to ask 
for a vote on germaneness, if the interpretation stands.
  I thought we had an accommodation with the majority leader --I was 
trying to be helpful--to give us a chance to finish the debate on the 
subjects as I described, and to make way for the vote to take place in 
an expeditious fashion but guaranteeing me by unanimous consent now to 
be able to get the floor after the vote on the trade bill has taken 
place. If that is the case, I will yield the floor so we can get on to 
the business.

[[Page S3864]]

  I would like that representation to be made now and clearly 
understood.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I understand it, the debate now 
postcloture has to be on the African-CBI trade bill. After that vote 
occurs, which shouldn't be too long from now, we would go to the 
military construction appropriations bill. I assume that Senators who 
wish to speak on this subject will want to talk with the managers of 
that MILCON bill, including the Senator from Washington on the other 
side of the aisle, who has a time problem, and work something out. I 
assume you can get that worked out.

  I didn't know there was a consent that had been asked for that would 
guarantee that or how long that would be. And I am not sure the Senator 
wants to do that until he talks to Senator Murray to see what her 
situation is.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as the majority leader knows very 
well, there is some dispute on this issue. And I have the floor. I have 
tried to conduct myself as the rules provide.
  What I am asking the majority leader now is, if I propound a 
unanimous consent request, I be recognized after the vote on the trade 
bill and that I be permitted to speak at that time, to regain the 
floor. I think it is a reasonable request based on the debate that is 
going on now. Otherwise, we are going to have more delays than we would 
like to see. I want to get the African trade bill out of the way.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't believe there has been a unanimous 
consent request propounded. If there is one propounded, will the 
Senator be willing to include in that a time period for how long it 
would take? If he takes a couple of hours, he has a major problem 
because of his own Member's schedule. If he needs 10 minutes, then I 
think we could do that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a couple of requests. I would try to do it in 
40 minutes, and work on even compressing that, I say to the leader--but 
40 minutes maximum.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, if there is such a thing 
going on right now, some of us want to speak. If I may say, I happen to 
be in favor of the African trade bill. I am willing to speak after the 
vote. I just want to make sure we are allowed to speak on the African 
trade bill.
  Mr. LOTT. The African trade bill? Why don't you speak now?
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to speak now. But I don't have the floor 
right now, and I can't get the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We can release the floor, if the leader will give me 
consent, and we can move on to the business.
  Mr. REID. As I understand what the Senator from New Jersey said, he 
and the other two speakers would be willing to agree to a 40-minute 
time agreement today. Is that the correct way I understood the Senator 
from New Jersey?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish the Senators would at least talk to 
the Senator on their side of the aisle as to the time problem and see 
what Senator Murray has to say because I feel a little funny here. I am 
protecting Senator Murray's desire to do her part early. I think we 
could, if the Senator would agree to do this after Senator Murray 
speaks, and opening statements are made--I wish the Senator would talk 
to her we could agree to that. I presume it would be about 3:30 this 
afternoon, or so.
  Mr. REID. I can't speak to this. Senator Boxer would be happy to talk 
to our friend. I think 40 minutes would probably do it.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to urge the Senator to talk to Senator Murray 
and see if that is agreeable with her, and to the managers of the bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We want to accommodate. I tell the leader that. 
Perhaps we can move it along by saying that after the opening 
statements by the managers--they introduce their managers' amendment--I 
then be able to regain the floor for the 40 minutes about which we are 
talking. I think that will allow us to move things along at a good 
pace.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Is that propounded as a unanimous-consent request or 
simply the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was. It was a unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. CRAIG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it was already agreed to. You already said 
it was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the Senator has the right to reserve the 
right to object.
  The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Lautenberg 
be given 30 minutes after the opening statements and the managers' 
amendments are offered on the military construction bill, so we can 
speak on the subject about which he has been speaking this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to, first of all, support 
enthusiastically the Trade and Development Act of 2000 known as the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  I thank Chairman Roth, Senator Moynihan, and the staffs for their 
hard work to retain the amendment I offered on child labor. This is an 
important piece of legislation not only for the trade benefits it 
promises to African and Caribbean countries, but for the benefits it 
promises to another important and often neglected group, the world's 
children.
  This bill includes a provision I introduced last year in the form of 
an amendment when we first considered this trade measure. As many of 
you will recall, my amendment, cosponsored by Senators Helms and 
Wellstone, sought to ensure that beneficiaries of U.S. trade 
preferences fulfill their commitments to eliminate the use of abusive 
and exploitative child labor.
  My amendment passed the Senate by a resounding vote of 96-0. The 
provision contained in this conference report is very simple and 
straightforward.
  It builds on the international consensus that came out of the ILO 
conference in Geneva last June in which the delegates unanimously 
adopted the Convention to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor.
  This provision simply states that in order to be eligible for the 
trade benefits in this bill, the Generalized System of Preferences, the 
Caribbean Basin Initiatives, the African Trade Preferences, a country 
must implement its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child 
labor as established by ILO Convention 182 for the Elimination of the 
Worst Forms of Child Labor--it is that simple.
  ILO Convention 182 defines the worst forms of child labor as all 
forms of slavery, debt bondage, forced or compulsory labor, the sale or 
trafficking of children, including forced or compulsory recruitment of 
children for use in armed conflict, child prostitution, children 
producing or trafficking in narcotic drugs, or any other work which, by 
its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely 
to harm the health, safety, or morals of the children.
  This chart illustrates the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child 
Labor, including child slavery, bondage, prostitution, use of children 
in pornography, trafficking in children, forced recruitment in armed 
conflict, recruiting children in the production or sale of narcotics, 
and hazardous work. These are all the items that are covered in the 
bill before us.
  For the first time in history, the world will speak with one voice in 
opposition to abusive and exploitative child labor. Countries from 
across the political, economic, and religious spectrum--from Jews to 
Muslims, from Buddhists to Christians--came together to proclaim 
unequivocally that

[[Page S3865]]

abusive and exploitative child labor is a practice that will not be 
tolerated and must be abolished. Those are the exact words from the 
convention.
  So after ILO Convention 182 was adopted unanimously, gone is the 
argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is an acceptable 
practice because of a country's economic circumstances; gone is the 
argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is acceptable 
because of cultural traditions; and gone is the argument that this form 
of child labor is a necessary evil on the road to economic development.
  When this convention was adopted and approved, the United States and 
the international community as a whole laid those arguments to rest and 
laid the groundwork to begin the process of ending the scourge of 
abusive and exploitative child labor.
  Additionally, for the first time in history, the U.S. tripartite 
group of the ILO, which consists of representatives from government, 
business, and labor, unanimously agreed on the final version of the 
convention. This is the first time in history this has happened.
  For the first time ever in our history, the legislation we have 
before us--the African trade bill--will codify in U.S. trade law a 
simple notion: If you want the trade benefits outlined in this bill, 
you must implement commitments on abusive and exploitative child labor 
into which your country has freely entered.
  Let me be clear. What I mean by abusive and exploitative child labor 
is not a kid helping on the family farm. It is not a kid doing work 
after school. There is nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth. I 
bet you probably did too, Mr. President, as all of us did. That is not 
what we are speaking about.
  The Convention the ILO adopted last year deals with children chained 
to looms, who handle dangerous chemicals, ingest metal dust, are forced 
to sell illegal drugs, are forced into child prostitution, are forced 
into armed conflict, are forced to work in factories where furnace 
temperatures exceed 1,500 degrees. It deals with children who are 
forced to work to pay off their parents' debts in a form of bondage 
that deserves to be called what it is, outright slavery.

  According to the ILO, Latin America and the Caribbean has about 17 
million children doing this type of work, Africa has about 80 million 
children, Asia has about 153 million, and there are about a half 
million in Oceania. That totals about 250 million children worldwide 
who are working--most full time. Millions of these kids are under 10 
years of age. Some are as young as 6 or 7.
  Can you imagine your first-grade son or daughter, or your first-grade 
grandson or granddaughter, working 12 to 14 hours a day in horrific 
conditions making just pennies a day, if anything? Can anyone say this 
is acceptable for any child anywhere in the world?
  These children are forced to work many times with no protective 
equipment. They endure long hours, as I said, for little or no pay. 
They simply work only for the economic gain of others. They are denied 
an education and the opportunity to grow and to develop.
  Again, this is in sharp contrast to any kind of a part-time job after 
school for spending money or to buy the latest CD. That is not what we 
are talking about. We are talking about kids working in the worst 
conditions you can imagine. I am not talking about teenagers, I am 
talking about kids under the age of 10.
  A lot of times, people will say: Well, that is just what you heard. 
But I have had firsthand experience and exposure to this.
  About 2 years ago, Rosemary Gutierrez, of my staff, and I traveled to 
Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh to investigate and look at the 
issue of abusive and exploitative child labor. We were in Katmandu, 
Nepal. We had previously been told of a young man who had worked as a 
child laborer for a number of years. He escaped, and through various 
and sundry means he became involved actively in working against child 
labor in his home country of Nepal.
  Through various contacts, we contacted this young man and asked him 
if there was any way possible we could get in to see a carpet weaving 
facility where kids are working.
  As others told us, the problem is, if you let a factory owner know 
you are coming to inspect, or to visit, they take all of the kids out 
the back door. They hide them. They disperse them around. When you get 
there, there are no kids. They do this all the time.
  So the only way we could ever get a feel for what was going on was to 
surreptitiously and under cover try to enter one of these places. That 
is what my staff person, Rosemary Gutierrez, and I did with this young 
man from Nepal.
  We got in an unmarked car. It was on a Sunday evening. He knew about 
this one plant on the outskirts of town where he knew one of the guards 
at the gate. He thought he had found out the owner of this factory was 
going to be gone. He knew the guard at the gate through I don't know 
what circumstances. He assured us, if he went out there, he would be 
able to sneak us in so we could see firsthand.
  Imagine, we are in this unmarked car. My staff person, Rosemary 
Gutierrez, and another person, about five of us, I think, were cramped 
in this small, unmarked car. We drive out to this place on the edge of 
town, darkness has fallen. We walk up to this gate with an armed guard.

  What is the first thing we see? A sign in both Nepalese and English. 
I took a picture of it. This is my picture. It says: Child labor under 
the age of 14 is strictly prohibited. Right there in front of the gate. 
It is in English and Nepalese.
  Had we notified this plant owner we were coming, there would not have 
been one kid in this place. However, we came, the guard spoke with this 
young Nepalese man and let us through the gate. We walked down a back 
alley for about 15 yards, took a turn, and there was a building. We 
went in the door of the building that was all closed up. It is Sunday 
night about 7 o'clock in the evening. It is dark and wintertime.
  We walk in the door and here is what we saw. This is only one 
picture, I have many others. This picture was taken by my staff person. 
That is me in the picture, I wanted to show proof positive of what was 
happening. Here are these kids. You cannot see them because the camera 
flash doesn't go back far. There are dozens of kids working at these 
looms. It is nighttime and kids are working the looms. Since I had this 
young Nepalese man with me who spoke Nepalese, they were talking. The 
kids were very nervous but I talked to this young child and the best we 
could determine he is 7 years old. We talked to this young girl shown 
in another picture and determined she was eight or nine years old. 
Remember, this is in the evening, they have been working all day in 
this closed building. I didn't know it at the time, but when you make 
these carpets, all the dust gets in the air; the place is dusty, anyone 
can see all the fine particles and the children have no protective gear 
whatever. We saw this firsthand.
  To finish my story, it turned out the owner was not gone. After we 
had been there for about 10 minutes, the owner shows up and, of course, 
he is beside himself. I told him who we were and he asked us--not 
politely--to get out. Of course, we left--but not until we had the 
documented proof with photos. As I said, this is only one of many that 
I have. My staff person and a couple of other people were there to 
witness the kids, kids taken away from their countryside families. 
There was a barracks nearby where they live. They eat their meals 
there, they sleep there, they work here. This is maybe 50 or 100 feet 
away from the barracks in a compound which they cannot leave.
  Tell me they are not slaves. They have no right to leave, they have 
no right to go home, they have no one protecting them. They are kept 
locked in a compound day and night, forced to work on these looms. 
Please, someone tell me that this ought to be tolerated in free trade.
  This legislation before the Senate, the African trade bill, contains 
this provision that says from now on, no trade preferences to any 
country that doesn't implement what is already agreed to, implement the 
provisions of ILO 182.
  Our goal is not to enact punitive sanctions on our trading partners. 
We are trying to use trade to help them emerge from poverty. Rather, it 
is to encourage and persuade them to build on the prosperity that comes 
with

[[Page S3866]]

trade and to lift their standards up. Exploitative child labor in other 
countries does a couple of things. First, it puts competing firms and 
workers at a disadvantage in the United States and other countries that 
do not allow child labor. This legislation before the Senate codifies 
for the first time ever in U.S. trade legislation the requirement that 
countries who wish to benefit from trade preferences must actually do 
what they have already committed to do, and that is to eliminate the 
worst forms of child labor.
  Additionally, the Department of Labor will produce an annual report 
on what countries are doing in order to live up to their commitments to 
eliminate child labor. Furthermore, there will be a public hearing 
annually so that nongovernmental organizations, trade unions, and 
businesses will have an opportunity to comment. No longer will it be 
sufficient for a country to be merely ``taking steps'' to address one 
or more of the internationally recognized core labor standards to be 
deemed eligible for preferences under GSP or under the African 
Caribbean Trade Act.

  Once the President signs this bill into law, a country's efforts to 
eliminate the worse forms of child labor will be a mandatory 
consideration for determining eligibility for trade benefits. This is, 
indeed, an important development. In the past, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, in its implementation and enforcement of the 
generalized system of preferences, I believe, has abused the language 
in the statute calling for taking steps to afford worker rights, 
including child labor. The USTR has interpreted that as any one gesture 
made by a country would be enough to satisfy the requirements of the 
generalized system of preferences.
  In other words, there is a list of five internationally recognized 
workers' rights provisions: the right of association; the right to 
organize and bargain collectively; a prohibition on the use of any form 
of forced or compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of 
children; and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum 
wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
  If a country previously had taken a step in any one of those areas, 
they would get GSP. If they had the right of association but still had 
children working they could get GSP. This is wrong.
  Now, after 15 years, we have a universal standard. ILO Convention 182 
is a well-defined and internationally accepted standard that will be 
the criterion used in granting any country U.S. trade benefits. ILO 
Convention 182 will hold everyone to one real and enforceable standard 
already agreed to by 174 countries.
  I believe in free trade. But I also believe in a level playing field. 
U.S. workers, workers in other countries, cannot compete with slaves. 
Call it what you want, dress it up with all kinds of fancy words, but 
these kids are working under slave-like conditions, and they do not 
have a choice. That is the definition of slavery.
  When a child is exploited for the economic gain of others, that child 
loses, their family loses, their country loses, and the world loses. It 
is bad economics and bad development strategy. Nations that engage in 
abusive child labor make bad trading partners.
  A nation cannot achieve prosperity on the backs of its children. 
There is simply no place in the new global economy for the slave labor 
of children.
  Again, I point out, this is the kind of work we are talking about. 
This is 8-year-old Mohammad Ashraf Irfan, making surgical instruments 
in Sialkot, Pakistan. He is working with dangerous tools and he is 
making surgical equipment. If you are going to go into a hospital and 
have an operation, you are probably going to have one of these used on 
you, made by an 8-year-old kid with no hope for his future.
  Here is a young Indian girl carrying construction material. This is 
the kind of abusive and exploitative child labor we are talking about.
  Recently, I came across a startling statistic. According to the 
UNICEF report entitled ``The State of the World's Children, 1999,'' 
nearly 1 billion people will begin this 21st century unable to read a 
book or sign their name because they are illiterate. This is a formula 
for instability, violence, and conflict.
  Nearly one-sixth of all humanity, 3\1/2\ times the population of the 
United States, will be functionally illiterate on the eve of the new 
millennium. That is shocking. And the main reason for this appalling 
situation is that many of these people who are adults now were forced 
to work as children instead of attending school.
  The children making pennies a day and denied an education will never 
buy a computer or the software for it. They will never purchase a CD or 
a VCR to play American movies. By allowing abusive and exploitative 
labor to continue, we not only doom the child to a future of poverty 
and destitution, we doom future markets for American goods and 
services.
  The markets of tomorrow are taking shape today. If we want American 
goods to be purchased the world over, people not only have to be able 
to afford them, they have to be educated enough to be able to use them.
  Some have said labor issues should not be dealt with in trade 
measures. I think this is wrongheaded thinking. We should be addressing 
these issues on trade measures. After all, we are ultimately talking 
about our trade policy.
  Not long ago, agreements on intellectual property rights were not 
considered measures to be addressed by trade agreements. In the 
beginning, just a few years ago, only tariffs and quotas were addressed 
by GATT because they were the most visible trade-distorting practices. 
But over the years, GATT evolved to include intellectual property 
rights and services which have become integral parts of our trade 
agreements.
  Now I understand the WTO, the World Trade Organization, will consider 
rules dealing with foreign direct investment and competition policy to 
be part of trade agreements. If we can protect a song, if we can 
protect a CD, certainly we can protect children.
  We cannot, as a nation, ignore this. In 1993, the Senate put itself 
on record in opposition to the exploitation of children by passing a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I submitted. In 1994, as chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
I requested the Department of Labor to begin a series of reports on 
child labor. These reports now consist of five volumes with a sixth to 
be released in a few days. They represent the most comprehensive 
documentation ever assembled by the U.S. Government on this issue.
  Last year, President Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting 
the U.S. Government from procuring items made by forced or indentured 
child labor. I congratulate President Clinton for taking that step.

  I am also pleased to say that the United States was one of the very 
first countries to ratify ILO Convention 182. We did it in near record 
time, and President Clinton signed this. I was there in Seattle at the 
WTO conference last December. Again, I compliment and commend President 
Clinton for his bold action in signing this, the U.S. being one of the 
first countries to sign on to ILO Convention 182.
  I also compliment and commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Chairman Helms, for not only cosponsoring my amendment but 
also for his work in getting the ILO convention through his committee 
and through the Senate in record time last year. Chairman Helms did a 
great service to this effort to eliminate these worst forms of child 
labor around the world. I commend Chairman Helms for his leadership in 
this area.
  I am not just talking about the ratification. I am talking about the 
standards that were established by this convention that were 
unanimously accepted in Geneva. There was not one vote against it. As I 
said, the Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards 
says the United States already meets the standards set by this 
convention.
  Last, some say this is a restraint of trade. Nonsense. We already 
have laws on our books that prohibit the importation of ivory. We have 
laws on our books that prohibit the importation of goods made with 
prison labor. We have laws on our books that prohibit the importation 
of counterfeit goods that don't respect intellectual property rights 
such as pirated CDs. Again, if we can protect ivory and pirated CDs, we 
can protect. I am pleased the United States has taken a major step 
forward with this trade bill. We are sending a strong message to our 
trading partners. There is no place in the global

[[Page S3867]]

economy for countries engaging in abusive and exploitative child labor.
  I am hopeful my colleagues will support this conference report with 
an overwhelming vote. I believe this measure will give hundreds of 
thousands of children hope for a brighter future. As someone who has 
been working on this issue of abusive and exploitative child labor for 
over a decade, I cannot help but feel proud the United States has 
spoken in such a clear and unequivocal voice that engaging children in 
this type of slave labor will not be tolerated in our trade policy.
  I yield the floor.


                    textiles and apparel provisions

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, sections 112 and 211 of the act will 
create new import programs for apparel produced in the Sub-Saharan and 
CBI countries which have been carefully crafted to bring significant 
benefits both to those regions and to the U.S. textile and apparel 
industry if the new programs are administered as intended. These 
programs could, however, fail to provide the intended benefits if they 
are not administered as intended.
  Obviously, the intent of the Senate managers in crafting the textile 
and apparel provisions in sections 112 and 211 is very important, and 
is worth discussing in some detail as we consider the conference 
agreement today.
  I would now ask my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, if it is his understanding that the conference agreement 
adopted the operative provisions of the Senate bill commonly referred 
to as ``807A'' and ``809'' with respect to both Africa and the 
Caribbean Basin, provisions which afford duty-free and quota-free 
treatment to apparel articles made from American fabric.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. If the distinguished Senator from Iowa would indulge 
me further, with regard to the provisions popularly referred as 
``807A'' and ``809'' in both the Caribbean Basin and Africa trade 
measures, do I understand correctly that the conference agreement 
adopted the operative language of these provisions as reported out of 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Is my understanding correct that those provisions, as 
reported out by the Finance Committee and passed by the Senate, 
required that all textile components of such apparel articles be made 
from American fabric?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct. The Finance Committee reported 
out the Africa and Caribbean Basin measures separately. The committee 
reports on each of those measure addresses this issue explicitly. The 
reports make clear that those provisions commonly referred to as 
``807A'' and ``809'' are to be administered in a manner consistent with 
the then-current regulations regarding the ``Special Access Program'' 
for textile and apparel articles from the Caribbean and Andean Trade 
Preference Act countries. The report, in fact, expressly cites the 
Federal Register notice dated April 3, 1998, that sets out the rules 
that the Committee intended would apply. The language of the reports 
then restates the language of the Federal Register notice, concluding 
that the requirements that products must be assembled from fabric 
formed in the United States applies to all textile components of the 
assembled products, including linings and pocketing.
  Mr. COVERDELL. When the Act requires yarn to be ``wholly formed'' in 
the United States, am I correct that the intention of the managers is 
to require that all processes necessary to convert fibers into yarns--
i.e., spinning, extruding--be performed in the United States?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct. While the fibers need not be 
manufactured in the United States, let me be clear that it is the 
managers' intent that the man-made core of a wrapped yarn must 
originate in the United States and that all mechanical processes 
necessary to convey fibers into yarns must be performed in the United 
States.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I understand that it is the managers' intent that 
under the Caribbean Basin portion of the Act, an apparel article 
containing elastomeric yarns, including elestomeric filament yarns, 
shall be eligible for the de minimis rule set forth in section 211 only 
if such yarns, whether covered or uncovered, are wholly formed in the 
United States.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Now, with respect to the provisions of the Africa and 
Caribbean Basin programs that deal with fabric or yarn not widely 
available in commercial quantities, am I correct that it is the intent 
of the managers that these provisions should be administered in the 
same manner, as practicable, as the short supply procedures in the 
NAFTA?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is the case.
  Mr. COVERDELL. With respect to the so-called ``809'' benefits the 
Africa and CBI programs, is it the intent of managers that apparel 
articles remain eligible for duty-free and quota-free treatment when 
the fabric is cut both in the United States and the beneficiary 
countries?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct, provided that all the other 
requirements of both the 807A and 809 provisions are satisfied. This 
includes the requirement that U.S. thread be used in the assembly of 
the apparel article.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I have one final question regarding the so-called 809 
provisions of both the Africa and Caribbean Basin measures. Am I 
correct that it is the managers' intent that these provisions do not 
permit dying or finishing of the fabrics to be performed in countries 
other than the United States or the beneficiary countries?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to thank my colleague for his time and 
attention to these important questions.


              non-accrual experience method of accounting

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to join my distinguished 
colleague from Tennessee in a colloquy with the distinguished Managers 
of this legislation, the Trade and Development Act of 2000.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Virginia 
and I direct the distinguished Managers to a matter that relates to a 
revenue raising provision that was considered in the conference on the 
Trade and Development Act of 2000, but ultimately was not included in 
the final agreement. The revenue raising provision limited the non-
accrual experience method of accounting.
  The related matter is the application of the formula in the Treasury 
Regulations on the non-accrual experience method of accounting to 
qualified personal service providers.
  The formula contained in Temp. Reg. Section 1.448-2T does not clearly 
reflect the amount of income that, based on experience, will not be 
collected by many qualified personal service providers, especially for 
those where significant time elapses between the rendering of the 
service and a final determination that the account will not be 
collected. Providers of qualified personal services should not be 
subject to a formula that requires the payment of taxes on receivables 
that will not be collected.
  To this end, we believe the Treasury Secretary should amend the 
temporary regulations to provide a more accurate determination for such 
qualified personal service providers of the amount to be excluded from 
income that, based on the taxpayer's experience, will not be collected. 
In amending such regulations, the Secretary should consider providing 
flexibility with respect to the formula used to compute the amount of 
the exclusion to address the different factual situations of taxpayers.
  Do the distinguished Managers agree with our view of the temporary 
regulations and the action the Treasury Secretary should take?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with distinguished colleagues from Tennessee 
and Virginia that Temp. Reg. Section 1.448-2T presents problems for 
qualified service providers. Furthermore, the Treasury Secretary should 
consider amending these temporary regulations to provide a more 
accurate method.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I concur with my distinguished colleagues from Iowa.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, S. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 
2000 Conference Report breaks important new ground in trade 
legislation. For the first time, in exchange for granting unilateral 
trade benefits to a country,

[[Page S3868]]

the President must give equal consideration to whether a country has 
met both trade criteria and labor standards.
  For example, before the favorable trade benefits available in this 
legislation can be granted, the President must determine not only that 
a country has demonstrated a commitment to undertaking its WTO 
obligations on or ahead of schedule, and the extent to which a country 
provides protection of intellectual property rights, but also the 
extent to which the country provides internationally recognized worker 
rights.
  Mr. President, I am pleased the Conference Report retained the Levin-
Moynihan amendment requiring the President to take into consideration 
the extent to which a country provides internationally recognized 
worker rights, including child labor, collective bargaining, the use of 
forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and labor 
standards before the trade benefit can be granted to a Caribbean Basin 
beneficiary country.
  The Levin-Moynihan provision sets an important precedent of promoting 
standards on such things as child labor, collective bargaining, use of 
forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other 
worker rights as part of our trade relationships by considering 
progress toward those goals when unilaterally granting a trade benefit.
  Most CBI countries are signatories of the International Labor 
Organization conventions. Considering the extent to which these 
countries abide by their own international obligations is the least we 
can do when considering whether they deserve to receive unilateral 
trade preferences from us.
  The bill is further strengthened by another important precedent 
setting provision. The Conference Report also retained the Harkin 
amendment on Child Labor. As a result, this legislation, for first 
time, codifies in U.S. trade law ILO convention language on Child Labor 
by amending the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that the ban on articles 
made with forced and/or indentured labor includes those articles made 
with forced and/or indentured child labor. It also, for the first time, 
conditions U.S. trade benefits on meeting child labor standards by 
adding a new eligibility criterion to the Generalized System of 
Preferences, which also apply to the eligibility criteria under the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act, to provide that the President shall 
not designate a country for benefits if it has not implemented its 
obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.
  I hope this legislation will help to bring about greater economic 
development and democracy to the important regions of Sub-Saharan 
Africa and the Caribbean. Because of this hope, and because of the 
provisions I have mentioned above, I will vote for this bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
conference report to H.R. 434, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I 
believe passage of this legislation is important to cement what has 
become the broad, bi-partisan consensus of this body: trade is a key 
factor in raising living standards in developing countries, and is of 
primary importance in exporting to those countries key American values 
of human rights, democratization, peace and stability.
  Mr. President, in supporting this legislation I do not suggest that 
trade alone is a panacea for the many difficulties in developing 
countries. Simply opening the door to trade with African countries will 
not enable many of these countries to enter the international community 
of developed nations. Many countries in Africa simply lack the basic 
health, education and economic infrastructures to take advantage of the 
benefits this legislation provides.
  Trade and investment initiatives for Africa will not succeed without 
substantial investments in developing Africa's human resources.
  For those sub-Saharan African countries who labor under a crippling 
debt burden, some measure must be taken to assist them to break free 
from reliance on debt provided by donor countries. Debt relief should 
be the highest priority of donor countries, including the United 
States, seeking to promote African economic development.
  This legislation should therefore be hailed not as an end in itself, 
but as a good beginning to a longer-term policy which, under U.S. 
leadership, begins to draw Africa more closely into the global 
community. We need to begin now to ensure that U.S. policy will do more 
to promote regional economic cooperation and integration in Africa; 
U.S. Policymakers, including those in this body, should undertake 
broader and more regular consultation with Africa's governmental, non-
governmental and private sector leadership, and we should ensure that 
the eligibility standards contained in this legislation carefully 
account for differing levels of development. To that end, we should be 
careful not to rely too closely on conditions such as those employed by 
the International Monetary Fund in applying eligibility standards under 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, the importance of this legislation is both its 
historic significance as the first major piece of trade legislation in 
twelve years and its precedential significance in marking the 
importance of trade benefits as a ``carrot'' and not a ``stick'' to 
bring international social and living standards in developing standards 
more close to international norms.
  Rather than holding this legislation hostage to concerns which can 
and must be addressed in the longer-term. I would urge my colleagues to 
take this first step on the road of a broader, more sensible policy 
toward the developing world, and pass this legislation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is with mixed feelings that I will vote 
for passage of the Trade and Development Act of 2000.
  No one can look upon the scenes of human suffering in Africa today 
without recognizing the need for action. Whether it is the AIDS 
epidemic or the violence in Sierra Leone, the floods in Mozambique or 
the unacceptably slow progress toward democratization, Africa 
challenges the conscience--and threatens the health and security--of 
the rest of the world.
  We must respond.
  The bill before us today offers an initial response to the many 
interconnected problems on the African continent. I agree with the 
basic premise of the bill, that promoting sustainable economic growth, 
led by more open access to American markets, must be a key element in 
any strategy for Africa.
  And I must add here, Mr. President, that it is time for us to provide 
similar market openings to the nations of the Caribbean, who have faced 
a real disadvantage since the passage of NAFTA.
  But I will focus my brief remarks today on Africa, because when the 
legislation before us today was initially proposed, it offered us the 
opportunity to formulate a comprehensive policy for Africa. At the end 
of the day, I am afraid that what remains is only a first step.
  Mr. President, compared to the crushing problems facing the peoples 
of Africa, this bill is really very modest in terms of what it offers 
African countries in terms of duty free exports to the United States.
  While opening our markets must be part of any program of economic 
assistance for Africa, we should not mistake this bill for a complete 
policy.
  It may be that this bill has more symbolic value, as evidence of 
renewed interest in Africa, than any material impact on the many 
difficult and interconnected problems facing economic development 
there. Certainly, we should not let this bill become an excuse for 
self-congratulation or complacency.
  Some provisions, however, I hope will enable the United States 
government to enhance its trade and investment relationship with 
countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The conference report directs the 
Administration to convene an annual trade and economic forum with the 
trade ministers of African countries. The key here is that in order to 
expand trade and investment, there must be a climate within African 
countries which create investor confidence.
  I believe that open, face to face dialogue with African Trade 
Ministers is vital if the United States is going to get its message 
across about issues such as the importance of transparency, and the 
guarantee of timely remedy to disputes through a judicial process that 
is open and fair.
  In addition, the report increases the number of foreign commercial 
service officers. Currently, we have fewer than 10 such officers for 
the more than forty countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Clearly this is 
inadequate. These officers are

[[Page S3869]]

responsible for identifying opportunities for small to medium U.S. 
businesses to export their goods and services to African countries, as 
well as providing information on economic conditions and investment 
climate factors which enable them to make better decisions on where and 
when to invest.

  One of the most glaring weaknesses of this legislation, Mr. 
President, is that it does not adequately address the HIV/AIDS crisis 
in Sub-Saharan Africa, so eloquently described by Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Feingold yesterday in their moving statements.
  Some of my colleagues do not believe that a trade bill should attempt 
to speak to the issue of HIV/AIDS. I believe that we are talking about 
a disease that is so virulent, so deadly and so pernicious that any 
plan for economic development in Africa will inevitably fail if this 
epidemic is not contained.
  If only because of the very real threat that this epidemic carries 
for our own health and security, Congress must take any and all 
opportunity we have to provide help to this region in fighting this 
dreaded disease.
  That is why, Mr. President, I was extremely disappointed that the 
Feinstein-Feingold amendment to the Senate bill was dropped without any 
provision put in its place which would offer effective assistance to 
Africans as they fight this deadly disease.
  In March, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed an 
authorization bill which provided $300 million dollars for a program--
based on work by Senators Frist and Kerry--of vaccines to fight the 
spread of HIV/AIDS.
  Although the conference on the bill before us today was conducted 
under the jurisdiction of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees, it 
declined to take action on the tax credits for vaccine research, 
production, and distribution that would have complemented those steps 
we took in the Foreign Relations Committee.
  That was another opportunity lost, Mr. President, and another reason 
why the celebration over passage of this bill should be muted, at best.
  I see some hope in today's Wall Street Journal, which reports that 
several major drug companies have announced plans to cut the cost of 
AIDS drugs in the developing world. I hope we will see some real 
results following from this announcement. Voluntary action of this sort 
can and should be part of any comprehensive plan to address this crisis 
of historic proportions.
  This conference report also states that it is the sense of the 
Congress that the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa should receive 
substantial debt relief.
  I must point out that the Foreign Relations Committee has passed 
authorizations for the use of the proceeds of gold revaluations at the 
IMF as well as the U.S. share of the trust fund that will be set up for 
the new, enhanced debt relief program for the poorest nations of the 
world. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa will be among the chief 
beneficiaries of that program.
  I am glad to see that, with passage of this legislation, that 
Congress stands behind this debt relief program. I hope that the 
Appropriations Committee will soon provide the funds for us to put some 
money behind those sentiments, and that the Banking Committee will 
quickly conclude its work on the remaining authorization needed to put 
the debt relief program into motion.
  In the end, while I understand and sympathize with some of the 
complaints raised by those who will vote against the bill, I prefer to 
see this glass as half full. But this is still a pretty small glass, 
Mr. President.
 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in my absence I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record. As you know, I make every effort 
not to miss votes in the Senate, and would not do so but for the fact 
that there is currently a massive wildfire that is raging out of 
control in my state. At this time a substantial number of homes have 
been destroyed or damaged, with more surely to follow. And there is no 
end in sight. Thousands of New Mexicans have had to leave their homes 
in Los Alamos and White Rock, and if the conditions stay the same 
there, many more will be leaving in other communities. This is a 
uniquely catastrophic situation, and I apologize for not being able to 
cast my vote.
  But since I cannot be here today, I want to submit for the record 
that if I was here I would have voted in the affirmative for the 
Africa/Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Bill. There has been 
considerable debate over this bill, and I have carefully considered the 
issues involved. I agree with my colleagues that this is not a perfect 
bill--questions concerning labor rights, human rights, corporate 
investment, the environment, transshipments, and so on linger, and they 
will do so until the provisions of the bill are implemented over time. 
But I am convinced that over the long run it begins a process that 
offers real hope for Africa, the Caribbean Basin, and the people who 
live in those regions. So while I am not present today, I state for the 
Record that I feel this is the right step to take. An initial step to 
be sure, but definitely the right one.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, more than 6 months ago I signified my 
support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative when it came to the Senate floor for a vote. Today, I 
stand again with a bipartisan collection of my colleagues, a broad base 
of industry, faith-based and religious groups, a variety of free trade 
advocates, and supporters from the sub-Saharan African nations and the 
Caribbean to advocate for swift passage of this legislation.
  To begin, Senators Roth and Moynihan should be applauded for 
producing and delivering this legislation after more than three years 
of deliberation and negotiation. The long and arduous task of attaining 
agreements between U.S. industry and their counterparts in Africa and 
the Caribbean, as well as assuring that the various trade interests 
from all sides were accommodated, is a task that should be commended.
  As we continue to prosper and advance in this expanding and ever 
changing world economy, it is essential that the United States reach 
out to all regions of the globe. By unilaterally expanding access to 
U.S. markets, sub-Saharan nations and the Caribbean will be afforded 
new trade and investment policies that will propel these regions into 
21st Century trade practices.
  Trade with the United States does imply that certain practices be 
instituted and embraced by participating nations. This bill promotes 
the establishment and development of free-market economies, insists on 
human rights standards, and champions democratic and economic 
principles, the U.S. expects from our trading partners.
  From textiles and apparel, to agriculture and specialty goods, not 
only does the United States stand to prosper from this trade agreement, 
but, so too do the sub-Saharan and Caribbean nations. While some have 
argued that U.S. companies could be harmed by expanded trade with these 
regions, stringent requirements regarding the transshipment of goods 
have been incorporated into the legislation. In addition, the bill 
includes a provision that enables the U.S. Customs Service to assist 
these countries with illegal transshipments.
  While I am somewhat disappointed that the bill no longer includes the 
reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Generalized 
System of Preferences, the crux of the bill, its intent, and its long-
term impact on trade with sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean make it 
well worthy of passage. In addition, my home State of Washington, the 
most trade dependent state in the nation, naturally stands to gain from 
increased trade.
  Again, I reiterate my support for the legislation and its far-
reaching intent. With such a broad base of advocates vying for its 
passage, not to mention the partnerships in trade this legislation 
creates for the United States, this measure deserves our support and 
swift approval.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns with the 
legislation before us.
  While I support the intent of this legislation, increasing trade 
between Africa and the U.S., I will not be able to lend it my support.
  This is in no way a comment on either Chairman Roth or Senator 
Moynihan. They have done yeoman's work on this legislation, which has 
been a longtime priority for them both.
  Mr. President, my objection to this legislation is what it includes, 
and what it excludes.

[[Page S3870]]

  The legislation includes provisions which are a less than 
comprehensive approach to establishing mutually beneficial trade 
relations with Africa. In addition, I have heard from Rhode Island 
textile manufacturers who remain concerned with the textile provisions 
in this legislation, specifically the less than perfect transhipment 
elements. Lastly, the legislation only includes a study of the 
effectiveness of Trade Adjustment Assistance, even though the Senate 
bill reauthorized and strengthened TAA for workers and businesses 
adversely affected by international trade.
  On the other hand, the conference report excludes an amendment which 
is important to our country's jewelry manufacturers as well as Senator 
Feingold's and Senator Feinstein's amendment on HIV/AIDS treatment in 
African nations.
  Last year, with the support of Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan, 
the Senate adopted a common sense amendment to the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act to improve country of origin marking requirements for 
certain types of imported jewelry.
  Now, improving the country of origin marking requirements for jewelry 
may seem like a modest proposal, but it took many years to develop a 
compromise on this issue that would pass the Senate.
  To give a sense of how long it took, I first introduced this 
legislation in 1996 as a member of the other chamber, when members of 
our struggling domestic jewelry manufacturing industry came to me with 
a desire to see permanent country of origin markings on imports.

  These small businesses told me that all too often the stickers or 
tags meant to inform consumers where a product was made, fell off, were 
obscured by price tags, or in some cases were simply removed. Customs 
officials in Rhode Island also acknowledged that there was a problem 
with the marking regime on imported jewelry.
  Most importantly, I found that the same concern on the part of 
domestic makers of Native American style jewelry had been addressed as 
part of the 1988 trade bill. It is upon this common sense law that I 
based my legislation.
  Mr. President, as a general rule, the United States requires all 
imported products to display in the most permanent manner possible the 
nation where they were made. One only has to look at a watch, clothing, 
computers, televisions, scissors, books, toys, and almost every other 
product to see that its country of origin is conspicuously and 
permanently marked so consumers know where a product was manufactured.
  The existence of these marking requirements is not due to some 
nefarious protectionist urge, rather it is simply a tool to provide 
consumers with information and help Customs officials easily recognize 
imports for the purposes of tariff classification. I would add that 
most of our trading partners have similar standards.
  It was with the above in mind that I was pleased to work with the 
Chairman and Senator Moynihan to develop a sensible amendment to 
increase the amount of imported jewelry that had to be permanently 
marked. However, I would point out that this language was also 
consistent with all trade laws and created no bar to the flow of 
imported jewelry. Moreover, the amendment did no more than establish 
marking requirement parity between non-precious jewelry and Native 
American style jewelry. And, lastly I am hard pressed to see how 
changing the method by which a product is marked leads to any increased 
costs for foreign manufacturers, since under the current country of 
origin system all products are legally required to be marked in some 
fashion.
  Unfortunately, the House cavalierly dismissed the concerns of Rhode 
Island, Massachusetts, New York, and California jewelry makers for 
reasons of either ignorance or animosity to change.
  I want to stress that I appreciate and recognize the time that the 
Chairman, Senator Moynihan and their staffs put into this seemingly 
non-controversial provision.
  While the legislation before us does not contain this common-sense 
amendment, I want to assure my colleagues here and in the other body, 
as well as the thousands of hard-working men and women of the domestic 
jewelry industry, that I will continue to pursue this issue and utilize 
all of the Senate's prerogatives to enact this legislation. Thank you.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. This legislation 
contains important measures that not only will help spur the economies 
of developing nations in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean Basin, 
but also will strengthen our ability to retaliate against countries who 
refuse to comply with WTO trade decisions won by the United States.
  Sub-Saharan Africa is enmeshed in great economic, human, and 
political turmoil. The countries of this region are among the poorest 
in the world. The per capita income averages less than $500 annually, 
and the average life expectancy is the world's shortest. We have all 
seen pictures of the desperate conditions--images of starving babies, 
homeless families, and needless bloodshed seem to be everywhere. And, 
just today, news stories about the situation in Sierra Leone and 
Zimbabwe remind us of how truly bleak life in Africa can be.
  But, Mr. President, despite the killings, despite the political 
unrest, despite the poverty--the future offers the people of Africa 
great opportunities for increased trade and investment--opportunities 
that can restore hope and bring about positive change on the Continent.
  With a population of more than 700 million, Sub-Saharan Africa 
represents one of the largest economic markets in the world. According 
to the U.S. Department of Commerce, my own home state of Ohio was the 
tenth largest exporting state to the region, with $148 million in 
exports in 1998. Although U.S. exports to Africa are more than 45 
percent greater than U.S. exports to all the countries of the former 
Soviet Union, this export market still represents only about one 
percent of our nation's total trade.
  It is time that we establish a new economic framework on which we can 
build increased trade with Africa. The Africa Growth and Opportunity 
Act establishes just such a framework by encouraging increased trade 
and investment by reducing trade barriers.
  Mr. President, as I said earlier, the legislation before us today, 
not only affects African nations, but also those within our own 
hemisphere through the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
  Over the last decade, the United States has played a vital role in 
the spread of democracy and the growth of free enterprise throughout 
the Western Hemisphere. Today, every nation in our hemisphere--except 
Cuba--has moved toward establishing a democratic government and is 
opening their economies to free trade. Democratic elections have become 
the norm--not the exception--and hemispheric trade integration is a 
common goal.
  To further consolidate democracies and economic gains in the region, 
we must move forward to integrate economically with our neighboring 
countries. The Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act is part of our 
effort to consolidate democracy and economic stability in our 
hemisphere. This Act would bring tremendous benefits to the United 
States and to the Caribbean Basin. It would enhance our economic 
security, both by opening new markets for American products and by 
strengthening the economies of our closest neighbors. And, it would 
create new hope for those left jobless by Hurricanes Mitch and George.
  The CBI enhancement legislation would extend duty-free treatment to 
apparel assembled in the Carribean Basin (or assembled and cut in the 
region) using U.S. fabric made from U.S. yarn. This would help 
strengthen existing U.S.-CBI partnerships in the apparel industry, 
because the duty-free treatment will help U.S. apparel manufacturers 
maintain their competitiveness with the Asian market.
  The CBI enhancement also would take steps toward creating a Free 
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), by promoting the anti-corruption and 
protection of intellectual property, as well as other forms of 
cooperation with matters such as counter-narcotics programs. 
Specifically, the legislation would link CBI benefits more explicitly 
to the fulfillment of specific obligations in beneficiary countries in 
such areas as WTO compliance, intellectual property rights, investment 
protection,

[[Page S3871]]

market access, worker rights, narcotics enforcement, corruption, 
government procurement, customs valuation and comparable tariff 
treatment.
  Mr. President, trade integration will occur in this hemisphere, 
whether or not we are a part of it. So, it is in our national interest 
to shape that integration process by bringing more countries into 
bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with the United States. If 
we fail to seize trade opportunities in Africa and within our own 
hemisphere, others will take our place of leadership. No country is 
waiting for us to act first. In the end, the longer we wait, the more 
we stand to lose.

  And speaking of losing, currently, our nation continues to be injured 
by the refusal of the European Union (EU) to comply with WTO rulings in 
the beef and banana trade disputes. In addition to denying American 
farmers access to the European market, the EU's actions are undermining 
the entire WTO Dispute Settlement process. If they are successful in 
ignoring such decisions, how can we expect other countries to follow 
trade dispute settlement rulings? How can we expect anyone in the 
United States to have faith in the WTO?
  Repeatedly, I have come to the floor to raise my concerns about the 
EU's flagrant disregard for dispute settlement rulings in the beef and 
banana cases, which have clearly shown the ``Fortress Europe'' 
mentality against free and fair trade. Last Fall, during the Senate 
floor debate on the Africa trade bill, I successfully amended the 
legislation to create a powerful mechanism--tariff retaliation--to 
fight ``fortress'' mentalities and to protect our nation from illegal 
foreign trade practices. Today, I am pleased to say that the conference 
report before us now still contains my provision to strengthen the one 
and only weapon in our arsenal to fight WTO noncompliance.
  The purpose of the provision is simple--to make our retaliation more 
effective and to compel compliance with the WTO rulings. The measure 
would specifically require the U.S. Trade Representative to 
periodically ``carousel''--or rotate--the list of goods subject to 
retaliation when a foreign country or countries have failed to comply 
with a WTO ruling. The retaliation list would be carouseled to affect 
other goods 120 days from the date the list is made and every 180 days, 
thereafter. The U.S. Trade Representative would retain ample discretion 
and authority to ensure that retaliation implemented by the United 
States remains within the levels authorized by the WTO. Also, the 
provision makes it clear that our Trade Representative is to structure 
the retaliation lists to maximize the likelihood of compliance by the 
losing side in trade disputes.
  Mr. President, the WTO is one of the most important means for 
American businesses and producers to open foreign markets, liberalize 
commerce, resolve disputes, and ensure more open and fair trade. 
American farmers and agribusiness, for example, are major net 
exporters, posting exports of more than $57 billion in 1997. Of the 
nearly 50 complaints filed by the United States in the WTO, almost 30 
percent involved agriculture. If a country or countries fail to comply 
with WTO rulings, American agriculture and other U.S. sectors in need 
of trade relief will suffer greatly.
  It's time to fight back. While carousel retaliation is tough, it is 
the right response to chronic non-compliance with WTO rulings. It is 
the kind of response that will do more to encourage compliance with WTO 
rules, giving Ohio's farmers and businesses the level-playing field 
they deserve.
  Overall, Mr. President, the trade bill before us is a good bill--it 
is good for Sub-Saharan Africa; it is good for the Caribbean Basin; and 
it is good for agriculture and business right here at home in the 
United States. In the end, this bill just makes good sense.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support passage of H.R. 434, the Trade 
and Development Act of 2000. This legislation includes the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act, legislation to grant Caribbean countries 
tariff parity with the North American Free Trade Agreement, and other 
legislation that will use trade incentives to promote U.S. global 
economic interests.
  I have been a longtime supporter of many components of this 
legislation, especially the African Growth and Opportunity Act and 
legislation giving NAFTA parity to our Caribbean allies. This 
legislation sets an important precedent for future U.S. foreign policy 
by emphasizing trade incentives over foreign aid. It makes clear that a 
developing African or Caribbean country must pursue democratic and 
market-oriented reforms in order to receive benefits. This incentive-
based approach will promote democratic government and economic reforms 
among nations home to more than one billion people. Recent developments 
in both Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone show that there is much work that 
still has to be done in Africa to establish stable and effective 
political and economic institutions. My hope is that this legislation 
will encourage these developing countries to continue to make progress 
toward this important goal.
  This legislation has been improved since it passed the Senate last 
year. The conference report gives greater incentive to the development 
of local African and Caribbean industry by allowing conditional duty-
free treatment of apparel made from regional fabrics. While I hope that 
a future Congress will remove the restrictive conditions on this tariff 
treatment in order to more fully assist the development of regional 
industry, I believe that this liberalized tariff-rate quota will 
promote economic growth and stability in the affected regions. This 
legislation urges the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) 
and Export-Import Bank to promote investment in Africa. Greater 
American investment in Africa creates greater exposure to American 
political, economic, labor and environmental principles. Provisions of 
this legislation also welcome the people of Albania and Kyrgyzstan into 
the international economy, which I believe is beneficial to American 
interests. Finally, I am glad that this legislation includes a 
provision to prohibit the importation of products made from child labor 
into the United States. This barbaric practice is a relic of earlier, 
less enlightened times that should be extinguished.
  It is unconscionable that the conference dropped a provision that 
would have made HIV/AIDS medicine more available to the African people. 
The AIDS epidemic throughout Africa is a crisis, which impedes 
political reform and economic development in that region. We have a 
moral obligation to help relieve this health epidemic. I am a strong 
advocate of free trade and private enterprise. However, as a practical 
matter, there is little profit to be made or lost in assisting with a 
health crisis in poor undeveloped countries. Therefore, I believe that 
we should have included the Senate provision in order to ensure greater 
distribution of HIV/AIDS drugs to Africa. Since it is no longer 
included in this legislation, I urge the Congress to enact legislation 
that will establish a comprehensive solution to the HIV/AIDS problem in 
Africa that includes the greater distribution of American drugs and 
medical practices to combat HIV/AIDS. The AIDS crisis in Africa must be 
solved if we are to achieve any lasting development in the region.

  I also have concerns that this legislation will establish some poor 
precedents. It is my understanding that there is not yet a formal 
estimate by the Congressional Budget Office for this legislation, so we 
do not know its cost. I am very disturbed that whatever the costs of 
the legislation, it will be paid for out of the federal budget surplus. 
This is not wise policy. The Constitution clearly gives the Congress 
the ``power of the purse'' and we must use this power judiciously. I 
remain dedicated to the principle that the Senate should only consider 
legislation that has both a known cost and specific provisions paying 
for it. The version of this legislation that we considered in the 
Senate in November included provisions to pay for it. The Congress 
should close tax shelters and loopholes and cut wasteful government 
spending in order to pay for new programs. As fiscal conservatives, we 
know that this surplus exists only because we have made careful 
choices. We must now use this surplus to shore up Social Security and 
Medicare, pay down the national debt, and cut taxes--not spend it on 
more government programs.
  I am also concerned by some of the provisions in this legislation. 
While I understand that the current tariff

[[Page S3872]]

structure puts American suit manufacturers at an unfair advantage, 
remedying this inequity deserves more study by the Senate. I do not 
favor the tariff rebate provisions. No compelling argument has been 
made to support a Wool Research, Development and Promotion Trust Fund 
that costs $2.25 million each year. I am also concerned by provisions 
included in the conference report that allow Oregon nuclear power plant 
workers to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits after their 
eligibility has expired, and allow a company with operations in 
Connecticut and Missouri to obtain a refund on duties it paid on 
imports of nuclear fuel assemblies. In addition, I have reservations 
about using ``budgetary gimmicks'' to change the schedule of payments 
of rum excise taxes to Puerto Rico. These revisions are unrelated to 
trade opportunities for Africa and the Caribbean. All of these measures 
should be examined in the usual authorization process to ensure that 
they are considered on merit, and not foisted on the taxpayers by 
special interests.
  In conclusion, although I disagree with some of the inadvisable 
provisions in this bill, I support this legislation. I believe that, on 
balance, it is an important milestone in American policy with the 
developing world, which I hope will encourage the spread of American 
political and economic values. I will not allow the perfect to be the 
enemy of the good. However, Congress should ensure that we are more 
fiscally responsible in funding legislation. It is important that we 
write responsible legislation that will help promote the American 
principles of democracy, the rule of law, and a market-oriented 
economic system.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is an exceptionally difficult 
decision.
  But after weighing the pros and cons of this legislation, I rise to 
support the Trade and Development Act.
  It is high time that we address economic growth in Africa and the 
Caribbean. Africa, in particular, has been ignored for far too long. I 
would like to support this effort to encourage economic growth, 
investment and trade in the region while recognizing that this effort 
alone is not enough. It should only be a small piece of our policy in 
Africa. Much more must be done.
  I have considered the impact this measure will have on American 
workers. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with blue-
collar America. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar neighborhood. 
My career in public service is one of deep commitment to working-class 
people. I have fought and continue to fight for economic growth, jobs 
and opportunities in America--in particular--in my own State of 
Maryland. And in the last decade, working people have faced the loss of 
jobs, lower wages and a reduced standard of living, and a shrinking 
manufacturing base--everything that the critics say. But voting against 
the Trade and Development Act will not save those jobs or bring those 
jobs back.
  I also care about working-class people all over the world. I applaud 
my colleagues for uniting to pass Senator Harkin's amendment to meet 
and enforce internationally recognized standards that eliminate the 
worst forms of child labor. Countries can only enjoy the benefits 
granted under this Act if they take action to eliminate work that harms 
the health, safety or morals of children. Benefits will not be given to 
sub-Saharan or Caribbean countries that carry out hazardous child labor 
practices, such as slavery, debt bondage, forced or compulsory labor, 
child prostitution or drug trafficking. This effort is especially 
relevant to this trade legislation because out of the 250 million 
children between the ages of 5 and 14 who are working in the developing 
world--one-third are in Africa.
  This Act could have been further strengthened. I supported other 
amendments toward that aim, which were not incorporated into this 
legislation. I see several yellow flashing lights that we cannot ignore 
and we must address with our trading partners in sub-Saharan Africa and 
the Caribbean.
  Even though the worst forms of child labor were addressed in this 
legislation, additional efforts still need to be undertaken to protect 
the rights, welfare, health and safety of all workers. I supported 
amendments offered by my colleagues to ensure the enforcement of 
internationally recognized core labor standards and to establish a 
labor side agreement before this legislation could go into effect. 
Neither amendment was adopted.
  Furthermore, much more needs to be done to protect our environment. 
Dangerous or haphazard practices that damage the environment in sub-
Saharan African or the Caribbean not only harm territory within these 
regions--it affects all of us. We cannot continue to ignore the 
environment in trade agreements. We must find a way to ensure that 
economic growth does not come at the expense of the environment.
  In addition, much more must be done to provide debt relief to Africa 
and to prevent and address the HIV/AIDS crisis plaguing the region.
  Taking into account these considerations, I still believe that we 
have a unique opportunity to support legislation that works toward free 
trade and fair trade. This Act strives to create economic growth, jobs 
and opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. It 
encourages African nations to compete and to institute market-oriented 
economic reforms. It also works to strengthen America's economy and to 
create American jobs by increasing US exports and investment to these 
regions.
  I agree that the Trade and Development Act as it stands does not 
encompass numerous other measures that America needs to undertake with 
respect to Africa and the Caribbean. But it is a courageous first-step 
and it merits our support.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Conference 
Report on H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 2000. I oppose 
this bill because, as a result of this legislation, many Americans will 
lose their jobs, a significant number of whom will be South 
Carolinians. Our domestic textile industry will be particularly 
damaged. I remind my colleagues that in the past five years over 
454,000 American textile industry workers already have lost their jobs.
  At best, this bill further erodes the system of protective quotas 
that the Administration promised the U.S. textile industry as a 
condition of U.S. entry into the World Trade Organization. This quota 
system was to remain in effect for ten years from 1995 until 2005, to 
provide the U.S. textile industry with time to adjust to competition 
from foreign government-subsidized and sweat-shop made textile imports.
  The textile industry has been strong in the United States because it 
encompasses fiber, fabric, and apparel production. The textile 
industry, in the aggregate, forms the second largest industrial sector 
of the U.S. economy. Certain segments of the industry, such as yarn and 
fabric production, have benefitted from technology and increased 
capital investment while apparel production has tended to opt for 
cheaper labor rather than invest in modern production facilities.
  I fear this bill will further encourage U.S. textile firms to move 
their production off-shore. It signals capital markets that the U.S. 
textile industry is at risk, thus reducing its ability to borrow the 
capital to make those improvements necessary for domestic production. 
With the denial of capital to automate and modernize, the rush toward 
cheaper and cheaper labor will lead to a continuing exodus of U.S.-
based manufacturing. This will result in a further loss of employment 
in the domestic textile industry and its supporting industries.
  A decline in the domestic textile industry will also impact American 
farmers. Cotton producers in the United States have profited from a 
strong and vibrant domestic textile industry. However, as the textile 
industry becomes locked in a downward spiral of chasing ever lower 
costs, it will look for other ways to reduce expenditures. A likely 
result will be to encourage cotton production closer to its foreign 
manufacturing facilities. While U.S. cotton exports may initially 
increase under this legislation, the long-term impact will not be so 
favorable to domestic cotton producers.
  The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean do need to 
develop economically. There can be no doubt that these countries 
require help. However, providing assistance by decimating the U.S. 
textile industry is not the answer. Furthermore, there is no

[[Page S3873]]

assurance that this bill will improve the textile industry of these 
Nations or provide jobs to their citizens. It is clear that government-
subsidized Asian textile interests are positioning themselves to 
dominate the world textile trade. One only has to look at the situation 
in the Northern Mariana Islands to see the model for the future. 
Moreover, transshipment to evade the quota arrangements of this bill 
and other existing quotas will likely continue until the quotas finally 
end in 2005.
  Mr. President, H.R. 434 is a bad bill that critically injures the 
U.S. textile industry, puts Americans out of work, and, in the end, 
benefits only Asian textile interests. Therefore, I oppose this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, due to a scheduling conflict I was 
unable to cast my vote today on the cloture motion for the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 2000. 
For the record, I would have voted ``aye'' in favor of cloture on the 
bill.
  I am very supportive of expanding our trading opportunities with the 
Caribbean countries and Africa and I am delighted that all parties 
involved have come to agreement and we have passed this vital 
legislation. Our distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Moynihan, focused our attention on the significance of the 
passage of this bill earlier today when he highlighted the fact that 
this is the first trade bill to pass Congress in six years. In my view, 
that is simply too long.
  I'm not here to focus on missed opportunities today, however. I'm 
here to praise the members of both the House and Senate who were on the 
conference committee for their tireless efforts on this bill's behalf. 
To all involved in the passage of this legislation I say ``thank you.''
  This legislation means a great deal to the Caribbean and Africa, but 
it means a lot to Arkansas, too. This bill will generate an increase in 
demand for cotton, which is sorely needed. Our cotton farmers at home 
have experienced several years of bad weather and prices, and I know 
they are pleased to have access to new markets. It's planting season in 
Arkansas but that hasn't stopped my constituents from staying in touch. 
I've heard from many of them this week who took time from their busy 
schedules to voice their support for this bill. They realize, as I do, 
that the world is increasingly becoming a ``global marketplace'' and we 
must do all we can to expand our trading opportunities. I applaud the 
Senate's vote on the ``Trade and Opportunity Act'' today and hope that 
it will not be another six years before the next trade bill comes to 
the Senate floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the trade bill before us represents a 
milestone in U.S. trade policy. This bill, and especially the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act found at Title I, acknowledges the social, 
health, and political problems as well as the economic challenges 
facing a group of states, most of which are developing nations.
  It is not that our trade policies have not concerned themselves with 
developing countries before--that commitment is evident in the 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, and many other trade initiatives. However, this bill is 
unique in many ways.
  First, we are acknowledging that the mere existence of a trade 
agreement does not produce immediate results. The strength of a society 
and its polity profoundly affect the development of the capabilities 
that allow for globalization. Developing countries, for example, need 
investment, but prudent companies do not commit their resources unless 
some very fundamental conditions exist, conditions that exceed those 
addressed in the Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) Agreement of 
the World Trade Organization.
  The bill before us does that. We underscore the importance of 
political stability; we provide opportunities for technical assistance 
that can create a banking and legal structure to repatriate profits and 
to protect the sanctity of the contract.
  Second, we acknowledge that there are regionally specific social and 
health issues that are preconditions to real economic development--what 
I refer to as ``trade enablement.'' Most Sub-Sahara African (SSA) 
states have been left behind. Their colonial and post-colonial 
societies have not, for the most part, melded into a modern, unified 
state. Nor have these societies produced the type of workforce that 
trade demands--educated, technically skilled, and healthy workers.
  The bill before us deals this reality, too, and in several ways.
  Like many of my colleagues, I believe we should do what we can to 
help restore our African partners to the world baseline standard of 
good health. With 20-30 percent HIV/AIDS infection among the adult 
populations in some states, few firms will risk hiring a workforce in 
which one-in-three to one-in-five workers may not be alive, let alone 
working in five years. I agree with President Clinton's comments that 
Africa, too, needs to do more to control this problem. But this bill 
provides incentives.
  Not only are these efforts to improve health in this region good 
economics and good politics, but they are also simply the right thing 
to do. We are the richest nation in the world. It has always been a 
part of the American character to help those who are suffering and to 
improve conditions where we can.
  Worker education also faces immense challenges. Literacy rates have 
risen to 59 percent, but that level lags comparable literacy rates in 
East Asia (84 percent), Latin America (83 percent) and the Caribbean 
(83 percent). Once more, the incentives provided by this bill to create 
an investment climate, will awaken African governments to the need for 
programed improvements in literacy and technical training. And, through 
the newly created economic forum under this bill, conditions can be put 
in place for technical assistance.
  Mr. President, it is undeniable that this bill is a hybrid. It is not 
a conventional trade bill, because Africa, with the exception of a few 
states like South Africa, Gabon, and Mauritius, is not positioned to 
gain immediate or even mid-term benefits unless, and I repeat, unless, 
trade is coupled with the forms of assistance and incentives that this 
bill provides.
  But it is no less deniable that great benefits will be potentially 
available to both the U.S. and Sub-Saharan Africa if the underlying 
concept in this bill materializes.
  For the United States, Africa is a warehouse of badly needed 
strategic materials which will open new sources of supply for U.S. 
producers. Moreover, if properly developed, this market will benefit 
the entire population of an African state, rather than a few, often 
corrupt elites.
  It is a fundamental axiom of every trade theory that the economic 
evolution of trading partners produces rolling prosperity--which is 
another way of saying that prosperity raises all boats. Not only does 
this phenomenon promise future markets for U.S. goods, services, and 
agricultural products, but also a more prosperous, politically stable 
African continent, which, in turn, produces other foreign policy and 
national security benefits for the U.S. It creates international 
partners in this region that have a stake in world peace, disease 
controls, as well as other initiatives to combat terrorism, 
international crime, labor force abuses, and environmental degradation.
  I believe that this Africa Trade bill will have a broad range of 
benefits for America, and I will support this legislation. I want to 
compliment Senator Roth, Senator Grassley, and other Senators who 
worked so diligently on this legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year I reluctantly cast my vote 
against the Trade and Development Act of 1999, a modest package of 
trade bills which included the African Growth and Opportunity Act and 
the Carribean Basin Trade Enhancement Act.
  I have long supported expanding trade opportunities for Vermonters 
and all Americans, as well as for people in developing countries. And I 
have felt for some time that our relationship with Africa cannot 
continue to be based almost exclusively on aid, when the real engine of 
development, as we have seen both at home and abroad, is investment and 
trade.
  However, I voted against that bill because I felt that in developing 
a trade policy toward Africa--where poverty is deeply rooted and 
protections for the environment and the rights of workers

[[Page S3874]]

are non-existent--precautions must be taken to ensure that it is a 
sound policy that responds to Africa's unique and urgent needs. I was 
disappointed that given the rare opportunity to examine and redefine 
our relationship with Africa, the approach was so limited and flawed.
  There are many aspects of this conference report which I strongly 
support. Provisions which open new markets for American exports, while 
providing trade benefits that will help a number of countries compete 
more effectively in the global economy. Provisions which encourage 
countries to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, and raise the 
profile of U.S. agricultural interests in trade negotiations.
  I remain disappointed, however, by the act's approach toward Africa.
  It is astonishing that aside from Sense of Congress language about 
the need to strengthen efforts to combat desertification, the act in no 
way addresses environmental concerns. This is an unfortunate step 
backward from NAFTA, which--while they did not go far enough--contained 
side agreements on both environmental and labor issues.
  Multinational corporations, especially mining and timber companies, 
have a long history of exploiting Africa's weak environmental laws and 
causing pollution, deforestation and the uprooting of people. There is 
a direct link between environmental degradation and civil unrest. If 
barriers to foreign investment are lowered or eliminated--as the act 
calls for--and meaningful, enforceable environmental protections are 
not put in place, these problems will only get worse.
  The act's provision on workers' rights, most of which have been 
included in other trade legislation, have routinely allowed countries 
notorious for abuses to escape without penalty. Unions have rightly 
criticized them for being vague and unenforceable.
  As the wealthiest nation, we have a responsibility to do what we can 
to ensure that the benefits of the global economy are enjoyed by people 
from all walks of life, here and abroad. However, the workers' rights 
provision in this act are an invitation for the continued exploitation 
of cheap African labor.
  Mr. President, some have claimed that this legislation is an historic 
first step toward integrating Africa into the global economy. Others 
have called it a devastating blow that will force African countries to 
cut spending on education and health care, and to submit to strict 
International Monetary Fund conditions. It is neither.
  The Trade and Development Act of 2000 is not going to cause the great 
economic boon some have predicted, and it may cause harm. But it is the 
wrong approach if we truly want to redefine our relationship with the 
region from one of dependency to one of actively promoting economic 
growth and self-reliance.
  Like last year, I reluctantly cast my vote against the bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have now reached the final stage of 
the legislative process with regard to the Trade and Development Act of 
2000. The moment has come to vote on final passage. Once again, I urge 
my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for 
opportunity, to vote to reaffirm America's historic leadership in 
international trade. What we do here, what we say here, reverberates 
all around the world. So I say to my distinguished colleagues, let's 
send a resounding message, a clear message, a strong message, that 
America is engaged with the world. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Trade and Development Act of 2000.
  I hope we will have speakers now on the African trade bill so we can 
move ahead to get a vote on that. I think I have not had any requests 
for speakers in support of the legislation because those of us who 
support the legislation would like to move it to immediate passage. I 
hope those who would still like to speak in opposition to it and 
express those points of view will please do that at this particular 
time.
  In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are going to go to 
a vote immediately. All speakers on this side have evaporated. They 
will present statements.
  We do have one speaker, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, who wants to 
speak for 45 minutes. I ask unanimous consent he be allowed to speak on 
this bill on which we are going to be voting following the vote, and 
prior to military construction, for up to 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) 
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bryan) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Boxer
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Helms
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Reed
     Reid
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bingaman
     Bryan
     Domenici
     Roth
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this was a momentous moment for the 
Senate, for the Nation, and for the world. We have passed the first 
trade bill in 6 years, having rejected others and having come about in 
the aftermath of very dim expectations. From no chance whatever, we 
have come to the point where this bill passed by 77 votes. It could not 
have happened without the majority leader, who personally convened 
meetings in his office day after day. There were mind-numbing details 
about thread, yarn, square meter equivalents, hundreds, millions--but 
it came about.
  Senator Roth, our chairman, who could not be here today, will be back 
next week. He put this matter through the Finance Committee nearly 
unanimously. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the staff 
who not only did this, but did it until dawn, day after day--or should 
I say night after night. They are, on the majority staff: Frank Polk, 
Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Tim Keeler, and Carrie Clark. On the 
majority leader's staff: Dave Hoppe and Jim Hecht. On our minority 
staff: David Podoff, Debbie Lamb, Linda Menghetti, and Timothy Hogan. 
Plus majority and minority tax staffs because tariffs are taxes, we 
had: Mark Prater, Ed McClellan, Russ Sullivan,

[[Page S3875]]

Cary Pugh, Anita Horn, and Mitchell Kent. And a very special word of 
thanks to Polly Craighill, Senate Legislative Counsel, who labored with 
the committee staff long into the night.
  Once again, I say to my dear colleague, Senator Grassley, who carried 
the matter so brilliantly on the other side, not every day do we pass a 
trade bill 4-1. Thank you. And I again thank the majority leader. The 
Nation is in his debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, following up on what Senator Moynihan 
just said, and associating myself with those remarks, as important as 
the bill we passed is for the continent of Africa and the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative, and as important as it is for the consumers of 
America and the 120,000 new jobs it is going to create for American 
working men and women, this bill is far more significant, from my point 
of view, because it is the first major piece of trade legislation 
passing the Congress in years, as Senator Moynihan said.
  In the meantime, I think the United States has been seen by other 
nations as giving up some of our traditional leadership around the 
world in negotiations and tearing down trade barriers, which has been 
our role as a world leader since 1947. I hope that this legislation is 
the start of America, once again, leading the world in reducing 
barriers to trade, the promotion of international trade, and seeing 
trade as more important than aid as an instrument to helping depressed 
economies around the world.
  I look forward to the continuation of our leadership in setting the 
agenda for the World Trade Organization agenda and regional trade 
agreements, as well.
  Besides all the staff members Senator Moynihan mentioned, I also 
compliment my international trade counsel, Richard Chriss, on his 
outstanding contribution to the passage of the Africa Trade and CBI 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I also thank the majority leader. I am not a member of the 
committee, but I wanted to commend the Senator from New York once again 
for his tremendous leadership on this issue, and Senator Grassley who 
is filling in for Senator Roth, who will be back next week. I commend 
the majority leader and minority leader. This is an example of what 
this body can do on issues that usually provoke the most bitter 
debates. Trade policy and some other issues can be tremendously 
acrimonious. The fact that the leadership on both sides of the aisle 
worked as diligently and as hard as they did to try to come up with 
some understandings as to how to recognize legitimate interests speaks 
volumes about what this body can do on something as significant and as 
important as this bill.
  I didn't want the moment to pass without commending, obviously, the 
floor managers and the Finance Committee for their work, but also the 
leadership for their support of this measure. The administration, as 
well, should be mentioned in this context. While it has been 6 years, 
we are going to be dealing with a couple of these issues now in 
sequence that will be very important and, obviously, their backing and 
support is worthwhile.
  Regarding the last point our colleague from Iowa made, my hope is 
that passage will also serve as a springboard for us to deal with other 
foreign policy matters that serve the interests of our country. We have 
entered a global economy. We all know the lingo about the kind of world 
of which we are now a part. It is going to be critically important that 
the Senate of the United States is fulfilling its historic role--the 
unique aspect of the legislative part of Government--to be engaged in 
the foreign policy interests of our Nation.
  This agreement certainly serves the interests of Africa and the 
Caribbean Basin very well. But more importantly, it serves the 
interests of our Nation very well. So I commend the staff and others 
who were involved. This is a great start. The leadership deserves 
commendation for their support and their willingness to put a shoulder 
behind this effort. I also thank the minority leader, Tom Daschle, for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Moynihan, Senator Dodd, and 
Senator Grassley, for their comments. They are absolutely right. This 
is the way we can do things when we make up our minds that we are going 
to. Keep in mind that just a year ago, most people thought this had no 
chance. The House passed a bill that was only applicable to Africa. But 
then Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan said we should go forward on 
this. They made the point that we had not had a major trade bill in--I 
thought 5 years, but in fact it was 6 years. I yielded to the 
distinguished Senator from New York because he pays such close 
attention to this. The chairman and ranking member said we should go 
forward with this and we should add the CBI region and Central America 
to the package. We did that.
  We worked together across the aisle between the two parties. The 
administration did express its interest in this legislation. The 
President personally called at least twice--maybe three times--and 
talked about his hope that we could get this done. But I remember a 
critical moment a month or so ago, late at night, and we were trying to 
make the last decision that would close the package up. Dave Hoppe, my 
chief of staff, was there, and Jim Hecht on my staff, who worked so 
hard on this legislation, who knew the substance better than I would 
ever know it. It is mind-boggling in its detail and all the pieces that 
were in this package. But when I had to basically help make the final 
decision, as a matter of fact, I was looking at Senator Moynihan's 
staff and said, ``What do you think? Can we make this work?'' They 
said, ``Yes.''
  That is the way it was. It wasn't partisan at all. To reach this 
point now and have a vote in the House last week of 309-110, and then 
77-19 in the Senate, in an area where we have acrimony, regional 
division, and one sector of the economy pulling against the other, I 
think this is something we should take a moment and relish and take 
credit for and be proud of. It represents a significant step forward in 
our trade policy and a victory for the cause of free trade. Like 
Senator Dodd, I have been to Central America and met with the 
Presidents and Ambassadors from Central America and the Caribbean. They 
pleaded for this and said, ``Give us an opportunity.'' This is the way 
to help. This is the way to help their people and give them an 
opportunity to get jobs. It will help you, and it will help us.

  I suspect there will be a celebration today and tonight in Central 
America, in the Caribbean, and in Africa.
  I want to make this point. While that is important, we want free 
trade and this is good for America. I worked a great deal with Charlie 
Rangel, the Congressman from New York, who really wanted this. I 
remember a fateful meeting we had outside an elevator in the Cannon 
Office Building at which I said, basically, if you do Africa, we will 
do CBI, and we will get together. And we did. He said in some of our 
meetings: I don't want a bill that is going to cost America jobs. I 
believe we can have a bill that helps America, creates more American 
jobs and more opportunity for Americans, and that will be good for the 
sub-Sahara region and for Central America. I believe we achieved that.
  This bill retains the basic structure and approach of the original 
Senate bill. I want to emphasize that because we made a commitment to 
Senators who had reservations about this bill that we would do 
everything possible to retain the basic structure of the Senate bill. 
We fought for it, and I think we were successful in that area.
  The approach makes economic sense, allowing workers and businesses in 
this country and in our trading partners' to specialize in the 
activities to which they are most suited. The vast majority of the 
trade benefits under this bill will involve the use of U.S.-made 
components. They need it in those other regions. They need our yarn. 
They need our cotton. So we will benefit, and they will benefit.
  I am acutely aware of the concerns and challenges facing our domestic 
textile industry. Faced with vast amounts of unfair trade and blatant 
cheating in past textile agreements, our industry has seen a flood of 
foreign imports that have caused job losses.
  The U.S. textile industry will within a few years face the removal of 
quotas under WTO. At a time of such uncertainty, it is imperative that 
our trade

[[Page S3876]]

measures be carefully geared to sustain and enhance the economic 
opportunities available to our textile industry and workers. I believe 
this measure before us today does that. It has some of the most 
stringent transshipment measures ever enacted, increasing resources for 
the Customs Service and ensuring that countries receiving benefits 
under the bill provide full cooperation with our authorities.
  That was one of the concerns--that other countries would use Africa, 
or the CBI, the back door, to transship, to violate the agreements and 
get in our country in an unfair way.
  Will this be perfect? Nothing in this area is perfect. But it will do 
the best job I believe we have ever done. We are going to watch it to 
make sure it is effective in that regard.
  I was pleased to see comments from members of the domestic textile 
industry as a result of this conference agreement. The president of the 
American Textile Manufacturers Institute has noted projections that the 
demand for U.S. fabric will double over the next 8 years under this 
bill. It is estimated that this will translate into more than 60,000 
new U.S. textile jobs in America. This legislation will have real 
benefits, immediate benefits--for American consumers, for the retail 
industry, for the yarn industry, for cotton, and for textiles. All the 
other components in this area of job creation in America will benefit. 
So will Africa. So will the CBI.
  I am pleased we have come to this agreement. Actually, it is a little 
anticlimactic. In the end, the vote was so overwhelming that you wonder 
why all the huffing and puffing. But I believe it is because of the 
good work done by our staffs and by the leadership in the House and in 
the Senate. It would have not been achievable if Chairman Archer and 
subcommittee chairman Crane had not been willing to be flexible and 
agree to some of the things that were important to the Senate.
  I want to say a special word about our staffs that worked so hard, 
and through so many nights, to secure the successful conclusion we have 
seen today. I want to recognize in particular Senator Roth's staff, 
including Frank Polk, J.T. Young, Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Tim 
Keeler, and Carrie Clark; and from Senator Moynihan's staff, David 
Podoff, Debbie Lamb, Linda Menghetti, and Tim Hogan; from Senator 
Grassley's staff, Richard Chriss; and from the Congressional Budget 
Office, Hester Grippando. And finally, with a bill of this detail and 
technicality, the diligent work of legislative counsel is especially 
critical. I would like to thank Polly Craighill, Sandy Strokoff and 
Mark Synnes for their extraordinary efforts.
  So, Mr. President, I do not want us to complete this effort without 
saying I am proud of it. I believe it will be positive for all 
concerned. I began the debate that way, and I end it that way.
  I extend my congratulations to all involved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the majority leader for his 
statement and for the effort he has put forward in bringing us to this 
point.
  I agree with virtually every word he has just spoken about the 
importance of this matter and about the extraordinary influence it will 
have on trade policy to important parts of the world today. This is not 
only good trade policy, it is good economic policy, and it is good 
diplomatic policy. It is extremely important that people realize the 
diplomatic, economic, and trade ramifications of this legislation.
  I have watched with great admiration as this legislation has been 
produced. I must say it is one of the many reasons I have come to 
admire our ranking member on the Finance Committee and his 
extraordinary effort in getting us to this point. I don't know that I 
have talked to him about any matter as often as I have talked to him 
about this in recent months. This is one he has lived and breathed. We 
are very grateful to him for his leadership and for all of the work he 
did to get us to this point.
  I have already expressed myself in regard to the importance of the 
legislation and the extraordinary amount of effort that has gone into 
the work today. This would not have happened were it not for the 
involvement of a number of our colleagues. Its importance cannot be 
overemphasized. This is good for this country, and as I noted, it is 
important we recognize the new opportunities that it presents, not only 
for the Caribbean countries and Africa but for this country especially.
  I would be remiss if I were not to mention the tremendous leadership 
demonstrated by the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Dodd. On every issue involving Central and Latin America, our caucus 
depends upon him to a remarkable degree. He is, without a doubt, our 
expert on South America, on Central America, and on international 
issues. I personally find myself required, in many cases, to turn to 
him as the person in whom I have the greatest trust and for whom I have 
the greatest admiration when it comes to his knowledge of these issues. 
I thank Senator Dodd for all of his efforts in getting us to this 
point.
  I also thank Senator Graham from Florida who has put a great deal of 
effort into the vote we were able to get this morning, and I am 
grateful to him.
  Finally, Senator Baucus also has worked diligently with all of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and is also extraordinarily 
knowledgeable on trade matters.
  We have a number of our colleagues who, because they worked as hard 
as they did, because they showed the leadership they did, because they 
were as committed as they were to resolving outstanding differences and 
working through these many issues in a way that allowed us this 
success, we ought to pause and thank today. It is not often we see 
legislation, and trade legislation in particular, of this import with 
the kind of vote we just cast. It is a great day for this country. I 
again publicly express my appreciation for their diligence and for 
their work in getting us to this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Feingold is recognized for up to 45 
minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We just completed our work on the African Growth and Opportunity Act. 
I had the opportunity on a number of occasions during the debate to 
express my concerns about the bill and, in particular, the way in which 
it did not address one of the greatest crises in Africa--the HIV/AIDS 
problem. But I have asked for this opportunity to speak about another 
enormous problem in Africa that I think needs to be closely associated 
with the debate we just had and our thinking with regard to Africa; 
that is, the problems with armed conflicts in Africa.
  Anyone who has been reading the newspapers or watching television in 
the last few days--whatever the medium--could not help but have a 
natural reaction to the news from Africa that would suggest an 
impression of chaos, and even feelings of hopelessness. I am sure this 
is especially true in the last few days when it comes to the events 
that are transpiring in Sierra Leone with some United Nations troops 
being killed, others apparently captured, some missing, protesters 
being killed, and the absurdity of the United Nations troops protecting 
Foday Sankoh, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front, the group 
that has been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against 
people we have seen in many years--a group that has been responsible 
for repeated acts of murder, maiming, and rape. People see this on the 
television, read about it in the newspaper, and they wonder if there is 
anything that can be done to help make things different in Africa.
  Then they read about Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 
they have this sense, understandably, that is a place of endless 
conflict. They read about Ethiopia and the starvation and famine in a 
border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea that seems to be, at least 
to many of us, unnecessary and terribly harmful to the people of both 
countries. They turn on the television, and they see Zimbabwe and what 
must appear to be a form of chaos with people occupying the land of 
other people and farmers and farm workers being murdered in a place 
that a lot of people thought was a success and that now begins to look 
awfully tense, violent, and undemocratic.
  Add to that what we have been talking about in the last few days with 
this enormous AIDS crisis. Then, if you

[[Page S3877]]

mention the AIDS crisis to somebody from Africa, they say: By the way, 
do you know there is a terrible new strain of malaria that has become 
extremely problematic and dangerous for people in many parts of Africa? 
So it is easy for anyone to react with resignation.
  I think this is a compassionate country. I think our elected 
representatives wish to help. When all of this is viewed, I fear that 
people believe it is hopeless. I think that is understandable. But it 
is too easy to give up or to use well-worn phrases to dismiss the 
situation in the African countries as hopeless.
  We hear that a lot of records are thrown away. We hear people say, 
for example, that is just ``tribalism'' and that is what happens when 
these tribes strike out at one another.
  Another word used is, well, it is just ``barbarism.'' That is what 
goes on in Africa, people seem to say, and there is nothing you can do 
about it.
  Others point out quite clearly that there are problems with 
corruption in many of these countries. One very thoughtful Senator 
actually said to me the other day as we talked about what might be done 
to try to resolve the problem in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: 
Well, I am afraid we are just going to throw away money to make 
ourselves feel better.
  That is what some people fear we do when we try to solve or help 
solve the problem in Africa.
  I don't think anyone can entirely dismiss any of this. As one who has 
on occasion shared at least the emotional reaction to these phrases and 
terms, I am afraid these terms and attitudes reflect a generalization 
about all of Africa, about the entire continent, that does not hold 
true. In fact, they are generalizations that even with regard to some 
of the specific examples do not have a connection to reality. I think 
these generalizations sometimes suggest, and these phrases sometimes 
suggest, an unwillingness to explore and understand the differences 
that actually exist as between these African countries and situations, 
and in fact the differences between easy assumptions and the facts on 
the ground in any one of these individual places.

  I understand how easy it is for someone to slip into a feeling of 
hopelessness about Africa. I fight it myself in my own experience. 
Having been in Africa in December for 2 weeks and having traveled to 10 
different countries, I have had some moments such as this. Since I have 
been there, in the countries I actually had a chance to visit, the 
situation certainly has not vastly improved, as in the Congo--although 
I will be talking about that shortly.
  In Rwanda, there has been some political instability, a change of 
power in the Presidency, and other disturbing events. Namibia, just 
below Angola, has been drawn, to a greater extent than they had been in 
the past, into the Angolan conflict that has been going on for about 25 
years. This has been only since last December, with refugees crossing 
border lines in significant numbers. In Angola itself, this brutal 
civil war continues. You may have seen tragedy in some of these other 
countries on the television. One of the most horrifying things you 
could ever see is the incredible tragedy of war and the refugee 
children in Angola.
  Then, of course, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe certainly seemed tense in 
December. I was concerned. President Mugabe seemed quite tense to me at 
the time, but I had no idea there would be this collapse of a 
commitment to democracy on the part of the President of Zimbabwe, and 
all the violence and fear that has resulted.
  Add to that places I did not go this time. There was a coup d'etat in 
Cote d'Ivoire. Some say it was for the better in the long run, but a 
coup d'etat it was. And we have also seen the terrifying and tragic 
consequences of flooding in Mozambique.
  Even in Nigeria, which I would cite as a place where we have some 
greater hope than we used to have, even there where a fledgling 
democracy is trying to take root, there are repeated examples of 
religious and geographically based violence that make it difficult to 
believe the future is going to automatically be a bright one.
  So I feel all these concerns about these problems, having just been 
there and traveled to some of these countries. Oddly enough, though, I 
believe we have to struggle to simultaneously do two things. First, we 
have to see each of these situations as different instead of just 
generalizing. Second, at the same time, we have to see the 
interrelationships between the different situations in Africa and the 
different countries in Africa. Because if we do not see how these 
situations relate to each other, we will not be able to help to make 
stability and peace possible, and we will not be able to help with 
fighting disease and establishing democracy and fighting corruption.
  I do not pretend to come close to understanding all of these 
interrelationships, but I am trying to assist our own analysis of what 
American foreign policy toward African nations should be.
  Let me suggest, at the risk of oversimplification, a few distinctions 
between three different important situations in Africa that we have 
been reading about right now: Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, and Zimbabwe. They are very different. First, Sierra Leone 
is obviously a very small country compared to the others, apparently 
about twice the size of the State of Maryland. The situation in Sierra 
Leone is certainly more confined than the situation in the Congo, but 
it does involve other elements. A lot of the refugees from Sierra Leone 
have gone to Cote d'Ivoire, which has led to some destabilization 
there.
  The leader of Liberia, Charles Taylor, has been heavily involved in 
backing Mr. Sankoh in Sierra Leone, and has caused problems backing the 
RUF organization that committed so many of these crimes. Unlike so many 
other African countries, Sierra Leone recently, in the last few years, 
had their first real democratic election. The President was thrown out 
in a coup, then the ECOMOG, the Nigerian-led force, came in and put him 
back in power. But the country descended into this, one of the most 
brutal civil wars we have witnessed in many years. So the Sierra Leone 
situation is a very tenuous governmental situation. There is no long, 
continuous period of rule, either democratic or otherwise, by one 
particular power or entity or person.

  Contrast that with the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
Congo is, obviously, a huge country. To give you an idea of the size, 
it is basically the size of all of the United States, from the 
Mississippi River all the way over including the entire east coast. It 
is that big in area. But it has not suffered so much from instability, 
except for in the last few years, as from a brutal rule of Mr. Mobutu 
who, for maybe 35 years, was the autocratic ruler of what was then 
called Zaire and who, in fact, some regarded as one of the greatest 
thieves of all time, in terms of all the resources and riches he 
spirited out of his nation of Zaire which is now called Congo.
  Finally, Mr. Mobutu had to flee and a group of powers from around 
Africa, some of whom are fighting each other now, together helped 
establish President Laurent Kabila in power a few years ago.
  So it is a terribly difficult situation, but it is not the same as 
Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone is a frightening situation. There are great 
crimes being committed. But what is happening in the Congo quite a few 
people have referred to as a world war, or Africa's first world war. It 
is that significant and that problematic.
  In fact, many people do not realize it but there are so many 
countries that now have their troops fighting in Congo that it really 
does look like a world war. There are alliances. For example, one side 
of combatants that are supposedly allies--although they have been 
fighting amongst themselves some--are Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi. They 
are backing the rebels trying to fight the Kabila government. On the 
other side, you find groups from Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe trying 
to support and keep in power Mr. Kabila.
  In addition to that, we fear there are economic incentives for some 
of these countries to want to stay in Congo. It is a country rich with 
incredible resources, including diamonds. Some suggest some of these 
countries may not want to leave the conflict because of the economic 
opportunities that exist. So, I would have to say Congo is already like 
the ultimate Rubik's Cube in foreign policy; it is so complicated and 
difficult, in terms of understanding what is going on and what could be 
done. It is like a world war.

  Now, contrast that with the third example, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is in a

[[Page S3878]]

very different position. Zimbabwe actually had what, fortunately, 
became about 20 years ago, majority rule. Although I obviously believe 
that the previous Rhodesian Government was a terrible government, some 
of the institutions from that era have continued into the current era 
and suggest at least a significant commitment in the past to reasonable 
governance and the rule of law.
  Unfortunately, that promise and that hope that Mr. Mugabe originally 
brought have fallen apart. Many people think what is happening in 
Zimbabwe is a race war; that is not the case. It is not a war of black 
against white. Some think it is about land reform. Although certainly 
there should be some land reform, that is not what is happening in what 
used to be a country that some thought was moving in the right 
direction.
  What is happening in this country--that basically was on a better 
path than Congo, and certainly a better path than Sierra Leone--is 
President Mugabe is not moving his country forward in a democratic way, 
in the way that the great Nelson Mandela did. Nelson Mandela, one of 
the greatest persons of the 20th century, after all those years of 
imprisonment, became the President of South Africa. What did he do 
after his first term was up? He believed it was important that 
democracy work, and he stepped aside and let someone else be elected 
President. This is just the opposite of what Mr. Mugabe is doing in 
Zimbabwe, which is threatening to destroy, in my view, a country that 
has great promise.
  I am trying to illustrate how different these situations are. Why do 
I do this? We must consider our responses to each of these crises 
individually, as well as in the context of Africa as a whole. When we 
look at each one, as well as any other situation in Africa, I can 
understand the hesitation on the part of the American people and our 
elected Representatives. Hesitation is not only understandable, but it 
makes some sense.
  I understand the need to be hesitant. Hesitation should not be born 
of oversimplification or incorrect generalization. I know why we are 
hesitant to get involved in too many places. I have personally said 
many times we are overcommitted around the world. We have over 250,000 
American troops stationed abroad in this post-cold-war era. We have 
gotten ourselves in situations in Bosnia and Kosovo and in East Timor 
and even in Colombia, potentially, that some people would regard as 
open-ended. I am more optimistic about the East Timor situation. 
However, I am fearful that in Bosnia and Kosovo we got into a situation 
very heavily. It is open ended. We may find it difficult to extricate 
ourselves. That is a reason for hesitation.
  There are reasons for being hesitant specifically with regard to the 
record of the efforts made in Africa in the past. Certainly, the 
failure of the U.N. mission in Congo in the early 1960s is an example 
often cited as an attempt that failed that makes people hesitant. 
Without any doubt, the miserable failure of our Somalia mission in 
northeast Africa in 1993 and 1994 is another example of where the 
American people would have some reason to pause before wanting to get 
involved in helping to resolve some of the conflicts in Africa.
  I think this hesitation begs the question with regard to Africa. I 
think the question is, Why do we act decisively in other parts of the 
world, and seem to be disproportionately hesitant to act when it comes 
to problems in Africa? There are a lot of reasons that might be given 
for treating Africa differently. Let me suggest I don't think these 
reasons hold up. I want to mention a few of the reasons that have been 
given or might be given.
  First, our not acting in Africa cannot be because of a lack of 
tragedy, brutality, and even genocide in Africa. Despite the cries of 
``never again'' that were legitimately raised with respect to Bosnia 
and Kosovo and even East Timor, how can anyone now use that kind of 
phrase with regard to what happens in Africa? I don't need to cite 
chapter and verse from my colleagues, although maybe I should, about 
the tragedies and brutality and human suffering in Africa as a result 
of conflict, be it Angola, Burundi, or, of course, Rwanda.

  I don't think the reason we don't act in Africa is because the 
African countries should try to help themselves. The fact is, the 
African countries are doing a pretty good job with very limited 
resources to try to shoulder their share of the burden. In fact, they 
compare favorably to our European allies when it comes to stepping up 
to the plate in their own region.
  One of my criticisms of the Bosnia and Kosovo situation is I don't 
think the European allies did as much as they could and asked us to do 
more than we should in those situations. There are examples, in Africa, 
of a better record. Nigeria, a country I have often criticized on this 
floor, under their previous military regime actually has a good record 
of trying to resolve conflicts in their region. The ECOMOG forces, led 
by Nigeria, were involved in trying to change the situation for the 
better in Liberia, and the Nigerians in the past have taken aggressive 
steps to try to solve the problem in Sierra Leone, and some hope they 
will be asked to do this again.
  When I was in Mali in December, one of the poorest countries in the 
world, they told me how some of their people were part of the ECOMOG 
force that went into Sierra Leone, and how they lost eight lives in 
that mission. They are taking the loss of lives of their own citizens 
in the name of trying to have peace and stability in their region. I am 
impressed by that.
  I am impressed by the comments of President Chiluba of Zambia this 
weekend who, after a couple hundred of his troops were missing in 
Sierra Leone, said he regretted it. He was concerned for their safety, 
but peace was worth this kind of effort.
  For anyone who thinks the African nations and the African Presidents 
are asking us to do everything, that is not what the record shows. I 
don't think it can be a fair objection to our acting and a reason for 
hesitance to say they are asking for American troops to do this. That 
is not true. I am not hearing demands for American troops. In fact, I 
talked to ten different African Presidents about the Congo situation in 
December, and I don't remember any of them asking for American troops 
to be involved in this situation. In fact, some did specifically seem 
to indicate they prefer that there not be American troops involved for 
whatever reason. This is not a question of whether American ground 
troops will be asked to resolve these situations.
  I don't think our hesitance can be explained by suggesting that 
African situations are somehow too complex--though, as I indicated they 
often are complex--to try and unravel. Some of the situations are 
horrible but are relatively straightforward, such as Angola. And as I 
said, although Congo is complex, so, certainly, are the situations in 
Bosnia with the ethnic divisions and borders that show no particular 
relationship to the ethnic identity of the people. There are little 
enclaves throughout the area. We are talking in this Congress about 
getting more involved in the situation in Colombia with real money and 
real resources. That is an enormously complex situation which is 
related to the situation in other Latin American countries. So it can't 
simply be that these are tough nuts to crack; they are, but they are 
not the only ones. We have acted in some incredibly difficult and 
complex situations in parts of the world that are not in Africa.
  Can it be because somehow Africa doesn't involve our national 
security? I don't think it can be that these situations are not 
dangerous, not only for Africa but for us and the rest of the world. 
The situation in the Congo is often called Africa's first world war, as 
I have said. That means not just tragedy for Congo and the nations 
directly adjacent, but it means it has the potential for enormous 
disruption throughout the entire continent, and I suggest a 
destabilizing influence throughout the world when it comes to political 
borders, when it comes to the spread of AIDS, when it comes to millions 
of children who are orphans, when it comes to child soldiers marauding 
around the countries, and, yes, national security because this kind of 
situation, if left unchecked, opens the door to other countries and 
other entities that are not our friends, trying to exploit the tragedy 
in Africa, whether it might be attempted by Libya, North Korea, or 
perhaps China. It cannot be that we hesitate because this continent

[[Page S3879]]

is not in our national interest and is not a question of our national 
security.

  Finally, perhaps most important, our hesitance cannot be because the 
United States and the West have no responsibility to act. Consider the 
colonial legacy. After my trip, I had a chance to read one of the best 
and most powerful books I have read in a long time called ``King 
Leopold's Ghost'' by Adam Hochschild. This is basically the story of 
the brutal exploitation of the Belgian Congo by Belgium's King Leopold 
and others in the previous century. Colonialism essentially marauded 
the social structure of a peaceful people.
  When that period finally came to an end in 1960, I believe, they had 
a democratic election. I am sure it was not perfect, but a man named 
Patrice Lumumba, a hero to the Congolese people, was elected President. 
A few months later, he was brutally murdered, without a doubt at the 
instruction of our CIA and our country. That is what we did to the 
people of Congo, and we installed Mr. Mobutu who proceeded to have one 
of the most brutal rules in history for the next 30 to 35 years.
  To suggest we do not have a responsibility, that we did not have 
anything to do with this is just plain wrong. The same thing goes for 
Angola. This is not about the colonial era only. Angola was used for 
many years as a playground for the cold war. The Soviet Union and the 
United States decided to have it out here, and they planted more 
landmines in the fields, the rich farm fields of Angola, than any other 
place in the entire world. As a result, there are more amputees in 
Angola than anywhere else in the world and in any other time in human 
history. Walk down a street in Angola and look at the number of people 
who have lost a limb to landmines--not that lives, of course, were not 
taken. It is appalling. That was our war. I understand the stakes that 
were involved, but to suggest we do not have a responsibility when we 
were that involved in the situation and to fail to help the people from 
Angola to have a decent life is simply wrong.
  I have just given six reasons that I do not think can really be the 
reasons for our not acting in some of these situations. I will now 
suggest three reasons I think might genuinely explain our extreme 
hesitance and reluctance to help stop these conflicts in Africa, as 
compared to our willingness to do it in other parts of the world.
  First, I believe there is a genuine fear that we will get stuck in 
one of these situations. Some might call it the Vietnam syndrome, and I 
understand that, having been a young opponent of the Vietnam war myself 
in my college years. I remember the song entitled ``Knee Deep in the 
Big Muddy.'' That was a symbol for our generation of how we were stuck 
in Vietnam. I am sure many people worry about that.
  I submit we are already stuck in Bosnia and Kosovo, and I believe we 
became stuck in those places because we went headlong into those 
conflicts with no good plan about how to finish it or what resources we 
would commit to it or what steps would allow us to finish the job or 
decide that we cannot finish the job. I do think that our hesitance is 
part of our very recent memory of the enormous tragedy in Africa in 
Somalia when we lost 18 of our brave soldiers in the helicopter 
disaster that led to our withdrawal. There is no question in my mind 
that Americans and American foreign policymakers worry that if we try 
to help in one of these situations, we will get stuck and cannot get 
out. When I say ``we,'' I mean the international community, not 
necessarily just the United States.
  Second, I think we do not act perhaps when we should because we have 
a tendency in this country to think in terms of having to do all or 
nothing in one of these situations; that we have to do the whole thing, 
and if we do not do the whole thing, somehow we have not lived up to an 
American obligation to do absolutely everything to solve the problem.

  Some say do not do it at all unless you are going to go in and get 
the job done. I have heard that many times with regard to military 
intervention; why don't we just go in there and finish the job? It is 
an attitude which, on occasion, is appropriate but I think sometimes 
leads to mistakes.
  When it comes to the African situation, this notion that we should do 
everything or nothing leads to real problems. In Somalia, we tried to 
do too much when we did not know what we were doing, and then we did 
nothing when it came to Rwanda. It does not have to be everything or 
nothing. In fact, there is a recent example I am relatively pleased 
about, and that is what we are doing in East Timor. We are not leading 
the charge there. Australia is leading the charge and Asian countries 
are leading the charge. We are helping in a measured, reasonable way 
because the countries in that region, as I suggest some of the 
countries in Africa, are trying to do the same thing.
  I believe that is a reason people are afraid of doing some things 
because they want to do everything or nothing.
  A third reason we do not act, and a genuine reason--and I fear it is 
the most important reason and I wish I did not have to come to this 
conclusion--but I do think there is somehow, unbelievably, a double 
standard when it comes to Africa. This is very bad for Africa, and I 
submit it is just as bad for the United States.
  When I see President Mbeki of South Africa and the President of the 
People's Republic of China, Jiang Zemin, get together at a news 
conference and comment about how they are tired of having one country 
calling all the shots in the world, I see fertile ground for resentment 
against the United States that can hurt us today and can especially 
hurt America and our children and grandchildren in the future.
  This is a sad thing to let happen because we do not have a lot of the 
colonial baggage and some of the resentment that Africans feel toward 
countries such as Belgium because we were not deeply involved in many 
of those situations. We have a positive opportunity, when it comes to 
much of Africa, to get it right.
  It is this idea of getting it right that brings me to the specific 
purpose of these comments, and that is that we should not summarily 
retreat from the pursuit of peace and self-determination in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. I fear there will be some kind of a 
knee-jerk reaction because of the very disturbing news and film coming 
from Sierra Leone. The United Nations there obviously has not yet got 
it right. I may well be interested in seeing and helping that United 
Nations effort become stronger and tougher to deal with the brutality 
that is going on, and we cannot abandon that situation, but I believe 
there is a way to get it right in Congo. One of the main reasons is the 
leadership of a man from whom I stole the phrase ``Get It Right,'' and 
that is our Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, whom I 
had the chance to accompany on a trip to Africa in December. It was an 
honor to be on that trip, and we had a chance together to meet with 
virtually every one of the African Presidents who are directly 
interested in this conflict.
  I want my colleagues to know that, although we were extremely moved 
and troubled by the AIDS crisis in Africa, and that overtook us 
emotionally on the trip, the core reason for the trip was to see if the 
Ambassador and I and others could get an understanding of the 
complexity of what is going on in the Congo and what we could do about 
it.
  I want my colleagues to know--and I heard him do it--that at each 
stop, Ambassador Holbrooke said: We want to help, but there are no 
blank checks and we must get it right or we cannot help.
  He was very measured and showed due caution. Of course, the situation 
in the Congo is incredibly difficult, but I see some reason to see it 
as progressing in the right direction, slowly but surely. I understand 
that our support may not necessarily work, that there could be a 
failure, but I think that serious logical steps can be taken.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to, just very briefly, 
indicate some of the steps that have been taken in the Congo pursuant 
to what is called the Lusaka agreement that suggests to me this is a 
situation worth supporting if at all possible.
  The countries involved, including the Congo itself, and some of the 
rebel groups, have signed this Lusaka agreement that set up something 
called a

[[Page S3880]]

joint military commission. This joint military commission is committed 
to doing the job of actually enforcing the peace and making sure the 
parties withdraw from the other countries.
  In order to get to phase 2 of this operation that is now 
contemplated, a number of things had to happen. The joint military 
commission had to be created, and an initial 90 observers from the U.N. 
had to be deployed. That was done. But before the next phase goes 
forward--the one that involves some 5,500 U.N. troops and personnel--a 
number of other things had to happen as well.
  There had to be a functioning cease-fire. Although it has not worked 
at all times--and at the moment is in a little bit of trouble because 
of the conflict between Uganda and Rwanda--on the whole, it has 
succeeded in the last month. Second, it was essential that all these 
parties come together and pick one person as a facilitator of the 
process of national dialogue. After a number of efforts, they did so, 
by appointing President Masire, the former President of Botswana.
  They had to create an operational arrangement of the U.N. MONUC group 
and the JMC to coordinate, and they did it. They had to have a signed 
commitment by the parties of the conflict guaranteeing security and 
freedom of movement and access for the U.N. team. And they did it.
  So now we come to the point of where additional steps, hopefully, can 
be taken. We are now looking at getting into the second phase of this 
peace operation, including developing plans to disengage and withdraw 
the troops from the various countries and parties that have signed this 
agreement, and the conducting of an inter-Congolese dialog that could 
lead to a genuine democratic country, and to develop these plans with 
the JMC.
  If that is accomplished, and only if these steps are accomplished, 
would we go forward to the final steps, phase 3, which involves 
verifying the withdrawal of foreign forces, normalizing border 
security, and, yes, finally, again, after all these years, the 
conducting of a democratic election.
  So what I am seeing here, although it is certainly not perfect, is a 
measured step-by-step approach--not an all-or-nothing approach--but a 
step-by-step approach, led by the African countries. That is something 
I think we should encourage and even admire because it is so very 
difficult to do in this situation.
  For me, there is a sufficient record to say, we must try to do 
something--not send U.S. troops, not send a huge United Nations force 
of 30,000 or 40,000 people, as some have wondered about.
  It may not work, and we may ultimately have to say no to doing more, 
as tragic as failure would be--but based on the facts that I have 
witnessed and learned about, I think we must try.
  We must not wash our hands of this or just say that it would be an 
example of throwing money in the Congo to make ourselves feel better. I 
believe we should support financially--and in other ways--the efforts 
for peace in the Congo. We must try.
  Again, why must we try? I think because this is a test--it is a very 
tough test--but it is a test of whether the United States really does 
have a double standard vis-a-vis Africa. To abandon the Congo without 
an effort would be a strong signal that we intend to abandon all of 
Africa.
  We must try, even though we have tried in other situations with great 
difficulty--such as Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti. Let me again suggest I 
think we went too headlong into those situations. I do not think we 
were careful to take the measured steps that are being done in this 
case. And that led to our complete, abject failure to act with regard 
to Rwanda. As I have said, even with regard to Somalia, mistakes were 
made. But I think that is because it was, again, an example of an all-
or-nothing approach, with no clear mission, and no exit strategy.

  I think this is different. I think this has the potential to work, 
although it is difficult, because it is measured and it is an African-
dominated approach.
  I think we have to try because at this time in human history the 
crimes against Africa have to be halted. I do not have time to talk 
about the slave trade, the gap between the rich and the poor, the use 
of these countries as a playing field for colonial powers during the 
cold war. But we cannot extol this new global economy and trade around 
the world and have these African nations treated forever as hopeless 
and fundamentally different.
  We must try, in fact, because the lofty rhetoric of U.S.-Africa trade 
becomes something of a cruel hoax on the people of Africa if we are not 
going to confront the brutality, the chaos, and even the genocide in 
the very nations with whom we claim we want to have improved trade.
  We must try because I think it truly hurts America in the world's 
eyes, at a critical time in our role as a world leader, if we are 
perceived as being unwilling to help African nations when they 
desperately need that help.
  Finally, to return to my initial theme--because each situation in 
Africa is different, and yet interrelated--if we help move this process 
forward, this Lusaka agreement, involving cooperation between the U.N. 
and the joint military commission, it cannot only give Congo what it 
has always deserved and never had--real peace, self-determination and 
hope--but it can help its neighbors.
  Rwanda is greatly destabilized and threatened because of this 
conflict in the Congo. Uganda has a very problematic border with the 
Congo, and other countries, and is now in conflict with Rwanda because 
they are in the Congo together. That would help alleviate that 
situation. Burundi has enormous problems of its own, which President 
Mandela is trying to help with. None of these countries should be 
involved in the Congo conflict. They have problems of their own.
  Angola, which I have described as one of the most horrifying 
situations in Africa, should not be having troops up in this area for 
whatever reason, perhaps because of their conflict within their own 
country. We can cause this to be a more localized problem that perhaps 
we could deal with.
  Namibia certainly should not have troops up in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, nor should the other countries, when all it does 
is drain their resources and causes problems over their borders.
  And, of course, Zimbabwe. Talk about any country in the world that 
should not be using its resources right now to fight a war in the 
Congo, when it has such desperate economic and political problems at 
this time. Even South Africa suffers in its tremendous struggle to 
become one of the great nations of the world as long as this Congo 
conflict continues.
  Let us be realistic, but let us also be open to the possibility of 
trying in the Congo. Let us not have a double standard where we act 
with great rhetoric and words of ``never again'' in so many places in 
the world, but when it comes to Africa, we seem to be unable to act.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________