[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16424-16434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 434, AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY 
                                  ACT

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 250 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 250

       Resolved, That, at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment 
     policy for sub-Sahara Africa. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed ninety minutes, 
     with forty-five minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     International Relations and forty-five minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments recommended by 
     the Committees on International Relations and Ways and Means 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 2489. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  House Resolution 250 is a structured rule, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The 
purpose of this legislation is to authorize a new trade and investment 
policy for sub-Sahara Africa.
  The rule provides for 45 minutes of general debate, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Additionally, the rule provides 45 minutes of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The rule also provides that it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of text of H.R. 2489, which represents the 
combined work product of the two committees with jurisdiction.
  The rule provides for consideration of only the amendments printed in 
the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
  The rule further provides that the amendments will be considered only 
in the order specified in the report; may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report; shall be considered as read; shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill, against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and against amendments printed 
in the report.
  The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone

[[Page 16425]]

votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 
minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, House resolution 250 is a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 434, as is customary in the House for all trade 
legislation that comes out of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
Additionally, this fair rule makes in order four amendments, all of 
which are sponsored by Democratic Members of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, the end of the Cold War has opened up sub-Saharan Africa 
to the world as never before. And only now are so many African nations 
able to start making the necessary reforms to become part of the global 
economy. We are witnessing the rebirth of Africa as these nations move 
towards democracy and seek a higher standard of living for their 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, the new economic realities of sub-Sahara Africa must be 
met and encouraged by the United States. Indeed, improving the lives of 
the people in sub-Sahara Africa can best be accomplished by advancing 
the development of free market economies and representative 
democracies. H.R. 434 is the vehicle for that economic and social 
progression.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act will provide sub-Saharan 
countries with the tools needed to raise the standard of living in 
African nations, while simultaneously benefiting the United States by 
opening new trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms and 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, under H.R. 434, the President would identify potential 
African nations that may qualify for free-trade status. The African 
nation would consult with the United States Government and, whenever 
applicable, the private sector, with the goal of promoting trade, 
investment and debt relief for the African country.
  The bill outlines specific criteria the sub-Saharan country must meet 
and adhere to in order to be eligible for trade status. The potential 
nations must demonstrate progress towards establishing positive pro-
trade reforms in those countries.
  In addition, the sub-Saharan country must be dedicated to the 
eradication of poverty and the important role of women to economic 
growth and development.
  There is no question that the creation of an investment-friendly 
environment in Africa will benefit both the United States and Africa by 
attracting the capital necessary to promote much-needed job creation 
and economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also builds upon accomplishments of the 106th 
Congress. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1143, the 
Microcredit for Self-Reliance Act of 1999, a bill establishing 
microcredit programs that reach the poorest of the poor in developing 
nations with small loans that help people work their way out of 
poverty.
  The record of these programs has shown that women benefit 
significantly by starting small businesses and climbing out of poverty. 
The African Growth and Opportunity Act contains a core provision that 
will continue to improve economic opportunities for women by further 
advancing micro-enterprises.
  Mr. Speaker, the fundamental goal of the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act is to provide incentives for sub-Saharan African 
nations to move forward in their reform efforts; improve their 
economies and foster economic development.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations; and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson); along with the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer); the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my dear friend, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), for yielding me the 
customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. Although no 
one would challenge the idea that our policy towards Africa needs to be 
improved, this rule presents the House with a very limited choice on 
how to change that policy. It will not even consider 25 of the 29 
amendments, many of which would have made great improvements on the 
bill that is before us.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule does nothing to stop the illegal transfer of 
goods from China to the United States by way of Africa. This rule does 
nothing to protect the American workers from being mistreated. This 
rule does nothing to protect the American garment workers who are at 
risk of losing their jobs to underpaid workers in countries like China. 
This rule does nothing to protect the environment in Africa, which has 
already suffered irreversible degradations. Also, Mr. Speaker, this 
rule does nothing to implement serious debt relief for African 
countries, debt relief that so many other countries enjoy.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule will not even let the House 
debate the bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), which is 
supported by dozens of relief organizations and workers' groups. Under 
this rule, multinational countries can set up shop in Africa and 
exploit the very people that this bill is supposed to help.
  My Democratic colleagues and I tried to convince the Committee on 
Rules to make amendments in order that would have addressed these 
issues, amendments like that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) to help abolish slavery once and for all; like that of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to provide some debt relief to 
sub-Saharan Africa; and like that of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop) and the amendment of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) to prevent illegally shipped textiles from entering the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 54 countries in Africa. The people in some of 
these countries are the poorest in the world. The very least we can do 
is implement a decent policy towards them, a policy that protects the 
environment as well as African and American workers. And, 
unfortunately, this rule will prevent us from doing so. For that 
reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out, because of the comments made by my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), that if we 
look at the Jackson amendments, there were seven individual amendments, 
not a substitute amendment, that was offered before the Committee on 
Rules.
  Also, as I stated in my opening remarks and I will restate now, trade 
legislation, including as recently as last year, is dealt with by the 
Committee on Rules and, more importantly by this House, in a structured 
rule, and this rule is very, very similar to the rule that was 
introduced and passed by this House last year.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act and this fair rule.
  Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, my colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and others who testified somberly described the 
many problems plaguing Africa. I think we are all too familiar with the 
images of hungry African women and children living in poverty and war-
ravaged nations. For too long, the people of sub-Saharan Africa have 
suffered from the rampant spread of disease, environmental degradation, 
and political corruption. Our hearts go out to these victims of human 
suffering.

[[Page 16426]]

  But there is hope. Since the beginning of this decade, 48 countries 
in sub-Saharan Africa have moved toward democracy and market-based 
economies.
  And, in just the past week, a cease-fire in the Congo and a peace 
agreement ending the war in Sierra Leone were signed.
  Today the opportunity is ripe in the United States to give momentum 
to these positive trends by engaging Africa through trade, investment, 
and cooperation.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act does just that. This 
legislation not only begins to break down barriers to trade but also 
provides needed debt relief and facilitates $650 million in investment 
in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Does this bill solve every problem facing the African people? No. But 
through this legislation, we are strengthening the foundation on which 
a stronger, more stable, more prosperous Africa will stand, an Africa 
that will be in a better position to address its problems with a strong 
ally found in the United States.
  American companies and workers stand to benefit along with the 
African people. This legislation opens the door to a market of nearly 
700 million people who will have the opportunity to buy American-made 
goods. Exports are the economic key to growth, competitiveness, and job 
creation here at home, and the U.S. must continue to look for new 
markets to penetrate.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another bonus found in this legislation, which 
is the broad support it has garnered. I am proud to join with the 
Speaker, the Republican leadership, the President, and many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including one of the bill's 
lead sponsors, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), in my support 
of this legislation.
  Passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act will provide one 
more example of Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the White 
House, working together to do something positive for American workers 
and businesses, while reaching out to improve the lives of millions of 
Africans who are much less fortunate.
  I urge support of the rule and the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the author of the 
bill, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the majority of the members of 
the Committee on Rules for what is a fair rule.
  I think the members of the Committee on Rules know that many of the 
amendments that were received were received too late. I spoke with many 
of the Members that had these amendments, since I intended to have 
supported them, and they acknowledged that they were too late.
  I do not think it is unusual for the Committee on Rules to have a 
closed rule on those issues which the Committee on International 
Relations and the Committee on Ways and Means believes is necessary to 
craft a well-balanced piece of legislation and that it is not to be 
drafted on the floor.
  I think trade is one of those issues. But I am reminded, as I ask my 
colleagues to support this rule, of the struggle that many of us had in 
the area of civil rights and to remember those who said that our 
legislation just did not go far enough, or we had so many friends that 
wanted to improve our lot but the Voting Rights Act did not take care 
of housing, the Voting Rights Act did not take care of jobs, the Voting 
Rights Act did not take care of equality. And certainly, if we included 
all of those things, most of the people who objected would not have 
voted for the Voting Rights Act anyway.
  It is interesting to see how people would want this bill, the African 
Growth and Opportunity Bill, to improve all of the things that we have 
historically ignored. But really what is truly amazing is how, when we 
got to Africa, that they raised the bar.
  How could we get to a continent that, when we look on TV, all we see 
is some little black baby with a swollen stomach, with flies around his 
or her mouth, stories of famine, stories of droughts, stories of 
poverty, stories of people begging for us to send a dollar, adopt a 
kid, and now we are asking for the first time that this great republic 
open up its trade doors and allow Africa to compete?
  Does the bill ask for any special treatment in Africa? Does it ask 
for anything that we have asked for from our friends in the Middle East 
and Israel? Are the labor standards here lower than our trade in 
Ireland or any European country? Are we asking the Africans to do more 
than we ask our friends in North and South America?
  When did we think that we had to demand so much more in a trade 
agreement to wipe out a country's debts even though it is not owed to 
us? We love the Africans so much that no matter who they owe, where 
they owe it, we should wipe it out.
  We want environmental and work conditions over there that we do not 
demand in my Congressional district, and they certainly do not demand 
it from other countries. But now comes the time for us to show our love 
for all the people that are in Africa, and we love them so much that we 
want to put so much in this bill that will never get off the ground.
  Well, I tell my colleagues this: I know that Americans know best for 
all the people in the world. And if they do not like our policy, we 
will bomb them until they understand it. I mean, that is what democracy 
is all about. But there comes a time that we ought to listen to the 
people who love their country, who are elected in their country, and 
who represent their country here.
  Now, if we are concerned about the sub-Saharan countries and want 
some type of equality in trade, every ambassador, every President, 
every head of State ask us to do one thing: leave the bill alone. Vote 
for the bill, and vote for the rule.
  Of course, if my colleagues know better what the African people want, 
if they know better what they deserve, then join with me and so many 
others after this bill becomes law and let us try to improve upon what 
we have done. But do not think that the whole world is not watching 
that, if we close the door this time, we will not have an opportunity 
next year to improve the bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, Mr. Speaker, and the rule 
under which this bill will be considered is so important because it 
would fundamentally alter U.S. relations with many nations of Africa.
  Africa should and deserves to be treated as a trade partner, not a 
perpetual-aid partner. This bill treats Africa as a trade partner. That 
is why this bill had such strong bipartisan support in the Subcommittee 
on Africa and our full Committee on International Relations, strong 
bipartisan support, as a matter of fact unanimous support, in the 
Committee on Ways and Means of this House.
  What this bill does is to identify those African nations that are 
committed to reform and it identifies these as the countries the United 
States will develop a special economic relationship with. These 
countries, countries that are giving themselves the best chance to 
develop through a partnership with American businesses, will take part 
in annual trade forums with the United States, just as we hold with 
nations of Asia.
  They will also have greater opportunities to sell their goods to 
American consumers, who will also benefit. These are real benefits that 
should be incentives to African countries to continue their reform path 
allowing their citizens to reach their potential.
  In debating this legislation, we should appreciate that this is a 
critical juncture for Africa. There has been real political and 
economic progress on the continent over the last several years.
  Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, long suffering from 
military dictatorships, recently held Democratic elections, which I and 
other

[[Page 16427]]

Members of this body had the privilege to observe. And, hopefully, 
Nigeria is turning itself around with its new reforms, with its new 
democracy.
  Other African nations are making similar progress. Mozambique, 
recently war torn, is moving toward democracy; and with it they have 
had a set of economic reforms, the very reforms encouraged by this 
legislation. As a result, what has happened in Mozambique? They have 
seen their economy grow at better than 12 percent a year over the last 
few years.
  Yet we need to be realistic. In many ways Africa is in the balance. 
Without efforts today to bring Africa into the world economy, without 
efforts like the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Africa could 
become permanently marginalized. Africans would suffer. And the 
American people would not escape the consequences.
  This legislation is not a fix-all. Its rejection, though, would be a 
complete disregard of our interest in economically engaging with Africa 
at this critical time. To reject this legislation is to say we do not 
have any room on the economic map for Africa in this new century. I do 
not think we will go that way.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  This bill provides no debt relief for sub-Saharan African countries. 
It sets no requirements to use African labor. And it ignores the AIDS 
crisis in Africa.
  It grants extensive rights and benefits to multinational corporations 
operating in Africa but requires nothing of them with respect to 
workers and protection of the environment.
  Why should we support a rule that disallows dozens of amendments? Why 
should we support a rule that blocks amendments to strengthen labor 
protections? Why should we support a rule that stops amendments to 
protect against a flood of Chinese transhipped textiles? Why should we 
support a rule that blocks amendments to keep Americans working? Why 
should we support a rule that stops amendments to ensure that trade 
benefits accrue to African workers and African-owned businesses, not 
transplanted foreign workers and foreign-owned businesses?
  We need a better bill for Africa, and we can get a better bill for 
Africa. But the only way we get a better bill for Africa is to vote 
against this rule.
  NAFTA cost this country hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is too late 
right now to fix what happened when we passed NAFTA. It is too late to 
fix what happened when we passed GATT. We can fix this by sending this 
rule down.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday 
asking the committee to make in order an amendment that would be 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). This amendment would have required 
that the apparel receiving duty-free and quota-free treatment must be 
manufactured from U.S.-manufactured yarn and fabric, fabric which is 
cut in the United States. This standard now applies in the Caribbean 
area. However, the Committee on Rules did not see fit to make this 
amendment in order. Therefore, I cannot vote for this rule.
  Trade agreements should give American workers a fair shake, not hurt 
them. In its present form, H.R. 434, unlike NAFTA, does not do this. It 
poses a serious risk to our domestic textile industry and its 
employees. The bill does not prevent the illegal transshipment of 
apparel from other countries where countries now regularly exceed their 
quotas. This bill could throw thousands of U.S. workers out of jobs by 
allowing a huge flood of cheap Asian goods to move through Africa to 
the United States. It only requires that a mere 35 percent of the total 
value of textile and apparel products be added in the African countries 
in order to qualify for duty-free and quota-free treatment. Asian 
countries, particularly China, would be ready, willing and able to make 
up that remaining 65 percent.
  By requiring U.S. yarn and fabric as the Bishop-Myrick amendment 
proposed, this bill would have ensured that U.S. textile workers, not 
Asian textile manufacturers, get to produce the fabric that African 
workers turn into clothes. In addition, Africa would still get a huge 
boost since all the sewing, labeling and packaging would be done in an 
African country in order to qualify. In other words, the Bishop-Myrick 
language is a win-win for American workers and the workers in sub-
Saharan Africa.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
both the rule and the bill. Three hundred eighty years ago, our 
Nation's first trade policy landed 19 Africans in Jamestown, Virginia. 
Since then our Nation has struggled with that painful and profound 
legacy. Undoubtedly the effects of trade are far reaching and long 
lasting. In many ways my presence here today and that of 33 million 
other Americans is the result of our Nation's first African trade 
policy.
  As I told a delegation from Gabon that came to visit my office 
yesterday, the blood that unites us runs deeper than the water that 
divides us. So as Congress considers a new trade policy with Africa for 
a new millennium, for many of us this issue is charged with strong 
emotions and deep convictions. There are people of good will and 
intentions on both sides. It is very rare, almost never, that I stand 
in opposition to a bill sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), a man whom I have known and looked up to virtually all of my 
life and for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. We both 
want what is right and best for Africa.
  However, with respect to this rule, a dozen of my Democratic 
colleagues offered 20 amendments, all of which were rejected except for 
four, only one of which is not a nonbinding sense of Congress 
resolution. These amendments, which this restrictive rule would keep us 
from considering, did two things that are vital:
  Number one, cutting out of the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
terms that would cause damage, make things worse for, the majority of 
people in Africa, 750 million people whose per capita income is only 
$500 a year. But it is AGOA's ability to undermine the already harsh 
status quo of food security, access to health and education, control of 
natural resources and economic sovereignty in Africa that has moved me 
to this action.
  These are the provisions, mainly contained in AGOA's section 4, that 
led a broad array of Africa labor, religious, anti-hunger and other 
civic groups to reach out to me to develop an alternative to the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act. Many amendments, from transshipment 
amendments, amendments with respect to eliminating debt, not senses of 
Congress but taking pressure, downward pressure off the sub-Saharan 
African wages so that they might be able to purchase what we produce 
here in America is a factor in an ongoing trading policy.
  A labor policy. Certainly after 380 years, the center of any trading 
relationship with sub-Saharan Africa would take African labor and 
workers very seriously. These amendments were rejected by the Committee 
on Rules. Other amendments were offered by other Members of Congress to 
deal with the issue of AIDS. Substantive amendments to prohibit the 
United States Government from bringing World Trade Organization action 
against sub-Saharan African countries that are seeking to provide low-
cost drugs where more than 85 percent of all AIDS-related deaths since 
the early 1980s have occurred.
  These amendments to the African Growth and Opportunity Act were 
rejected. Instead, the Committee on Rules substituted nonbinding sense 
of

[[Page 16428]]

Congress resolutions. There are no basic labor, no human rights, no 
African employment, no environmental rules for U.S. corporations 
planning to take advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Those of you who might be watching this on C-SPAN, go to your web 
site, www.USAfrica.org. There you will find United Meridian Corporation 
and Kmart and Amoco and Chevron and Tyco Submarine Systems, Mobil 
Corporation, the Gap, the Limited, National Retail Federation, a long 
list of corporations who plan to take advantage of the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act. This act is most appropriately titled U.S. 
Corporate and Foreign Investment in Africa Act of 1999, not growth for 
750 million sub-Saharan Africans, many of whom my distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from New York identified. This is the poorest 
region of the world, with the richest land and the richest resources.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude on this point. The Chicago Tribune 
wrote an article just yesterday where they said the top three officers 
of Microsoft Corporation, Bill Gates, a Mr. Ballmer, a Paul Allen, 
their top personal assets from Microsoft come close to $140 billion. 
Their personal assets are more than the combined gross national product 
of the 43 least developed countries and their 600 million people. So 
what does it mean for a gentleman with the kind of wealth of a Bill 
Gates to just buy an entire industry on an entire continent with that 
kind of wealth? If we do not have restrictions in our law so that 
American investment in sub-Saharan Africa is done right, if that is the 
only point that I make today, American investment in sub-Saharan Africa 
in light of our history and in light of the condition of those people 
must be done right. This rule falls short of our ability as Members of 
Congress to make this a better bill so that more Americans can benefit.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair will remind Members 
that comments are to be made to the Chair and not to the viewing and 
listening audience.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the bill 
provides protections against human rights abuse. Any country engaging 
in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights is not 
eligible to receive benefits provided under the bill.
  I am particularly pleased as a Member from New York where we had the 
dean of our delegation the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) speak, 
we have the dean of the Republicans of New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this 
structured rule regarding H.R. 434.
  After careful consideration and consultation with our Committee on 
International Relations, the Committee on Ways and Means and the House 
leadership and all Members with an interest in this bill, the Committee 
on Rules has provided a thoughtful rule which will allow timely passage 
of this measure. I appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), on this 
matter as well as the leadership of the manager of the rule this 
morning, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds). Our committee 
appreciates the many courtesies extended toward our members and staff 
during consideration of this measure and other bills by the members and 
staff of the Committee on Rules.
  The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act enjoys broad and bipartisan 
support. In the 105th Congress, we passed this bill by a wide margin. 
The administration has been extensively consulted and strongly supports 
this measure. African nations of sub-Saharan Africa are unanimous in 
their support, and African civic groups such as the National Council of 
Churches, the American Jewish Committee, the NAACP and Empower America 
have all expressed their strong support for this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge speedy passage of this rule followed by favorable 
consideration of the bill during the next few hours.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act is so important because it 
would fundamentally alter U.S. relations with many nations of Africa. 
Africa should, and deserves to be treated as a trade partner, not a 
perpetual aid partner. That is what this legislation does.
  H.S. 434 identifies those African countries that are committed to 
reform as the countries the United States will develop a special 
economic relationship with. These countries, countries that are giving 
themselves the best chance to develop through a partnership with 
American businesses, will take part in annual trade forums with the 
United States, just as we hold with the nations of Asia. They will also 
have greater opportunities to sell their goods to American consumers, 
who will also benefit. These are real benefits that should be 
incentives to African countries to continue their reform path, allowing 
their citizens to reach their potential.
  In debating this legislation, we should appreciate that this is a 
critical juncture for Africa. There has been real political and 
economic progress on the continent over the last several years. 
Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, long suffering from 
military dictatorships, recently held democratic elections which I had 
the privilege to observe. Hopefully Nigeria is turning itself around. 
Other African nations are making similar progress. Mozambique, recently 
war-torn, is moving toward democracy and, with a set of economic 
reforms, the very reforms encouraged by this legislation, has seen its 
economy grow by over some 12 percent recently.
  Yet we need to be realistic. In many ways, Africa is in the balance. 
Without efforts today to bring Africa into the world economy, without 
efforts like the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Africa could 
become permanently marginalized. Africans would suffer. And the 
American people would not escape the consequences. This legislation is 
not a fix all; its rejection though would be a complete disregard of 
our interest in economically engaging with Africa at this critical 
time. I don't think we'll go that way.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this rule.
  I want an Africa trade bill, but I want a good Africa trade bill. I 
want to promote economic growth and the well-being of the people of 
sub-Saharan Africa. I know this goal is supported by the authors of 
this bill, and I applaud the Committee on Ways and Means and others who 
are pursuing this goal relentlessly.
  I am not opposed to trade liberalization that is balanced, 
reciprocal, enforceable and beneficial to all parties. This rule will 
prevent that. I am disappointed that many Members of the House are not 
allowed to address the very real concerns that we have about the loss 
of over 400,000 jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industries that 
has taken place across this country since 1995 and would be exacerbated 
by this bill.
  Despite my attempts last year and this year in the Committee on Rules 
and on the floor to make sure that the Africa Growth and Opportunity 
Act does not do more harm than good, the bill as reported is not 
beneficial to all parties concerned. The bill is flawed deeply without 
the amendment that the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) 
and I proposed to the Committee on Rules.
  The bill opens the door to illegal transshipments of goods from 
China, and it misses an opportunity to benefit American workers by 
requiring that imported goods from sub-Saharan Africa contain U.S. cut 
and formed fabric.
  If the amendment that we proposed had been allowed, this body could 
have created a win-win for America and a win-win for the countries of 
Africa. The amendment we propose would have allowed the countries of 
Africa to access our strong and vast consumer economy in a fair way, 
but it would have also preserved our domestic textile and apparel jobs.
  I regret that the Senate will be forced to fix this bill before it 
passes. This rule does not allow us to do our job here in the House. I 
ask that the House join me in opposing this unfair

[[Page 16429]]

rule so that we can craft a truly good bill that will in fact be an 
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. Seldom, if ever, have I ever gotten up on the 
House floor and suggested a no vote against the rule. Seldom on the 
House floor have I ever seen so blatant an effort to eliminate U.S. 
jobs.
  In fact, let me read to my colleagues a press release from the 
Chinese Trade Ministry, March 23, and I quote:

       Setting up assembly plants in Africa with Chinese 
     equipment, technology and personnel could not only greatly 
     increase sales in African countries but also circumvent the 
     quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin by European 
     and American countries.

  This is not an African growth and opportunity bill. It is not a U.S. 
growth and opportunity bill. This is an Asian growth and opportunity 
bill.
  I am a member of the Committee on International Relations with my 
colleague, but we look at this differently. Mr. Speaker, it is our 
responsibility, all 435 of us as representatives of the American 
people, to put their interests first. The explanation we ought to have 
today is to the textile workers who we have disregarded their jobs. 
Clearly, there will be job loss. We are like ostriches with our head in 
the sand.
  This body has never allowed bad legislation to move with the 
intention that it would get fixed somewhere in the process until this 
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. If that passes, to 
vote against the bill, to move this back to committee and to do the 
work that we need to make a good bill and save U.S. jobs.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. H.R. 2489 is another trade bill 
that exploits the developing world for the benefit of multinational 
corporations and investors. Regardless of what this bill's supporters 
say, there is absolutely nothing in this bill to enforce worker 
protections and labor standards. We have been down this road before. 
When Congress passed NAFTA without putting labor and environmental 
protection standards at the core of the bill, we were told to put our 
faith in side agreements that would supposedly guarantee labor rights 
and environmental standards.

                              {time}  0945

  Five years after its passage, Mexican workers are earning less than 
they did before NAFTA. American companies, and get this, American 
companies pay Mexican workers lower wages than Mexican companies pay 
Mexican workers, and yet here we are set to impose this same failed 
trade model on people of sub-Saharan Africa.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules rejected every single proposed 
amendment that would have actually given hope to the people of sub-
Saharan Africa. Instead, we are set to give the world's largest 
corporations the freedom to exploit the world's poorest people without 
having to worry about labor laws, tough environmental standards or 
worrisome worker unions.
  Vote no on the bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is not 
fair.
  I reluctantly supported this bill last year. I attempted to amend 
this bill, and I was made to believe that my concerns would be 
addressed on the Senate side last time. They were not. Now this bill, 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act, is before us. It is no better 
now than it was last year. It still imposes unfair conditions on 
Africa.
  Those of us with long histories working on behalf of Africa know the 
history of the rape of Africa. Many of the same corporations who fought 
us to the bitter end when we were trying to free South Africa are now 
lined up spending millions of dollars to pass this legislation led by 
the big oil companies, some of whom we are still trying to make good 
corporate citizens in places like Nigeria.
  Let me just tell my colleagues what I tried to do. I tried to amend 
the bill. One amendment would have struck the most onerous conditions 
of the bill, these conditions that require African countries to cut 
corporate taxes, reduce government spending, and remove restrictions on 
foreign investments. We do not allow foreign countries to dictate our 
economic policies, nor should we attempt to dictate the economic 
policies of African countries.
  My second amendment would have clarified that these conditions apply 
only to new programs and benefits established by the bill and not to 
existing foreign aid programs and trade benefits. This amendment is 
essential to ensure that countries that cannot meet these strict 
conditions can continue to trade with the United States as well as 
continue to receive foreign aid.
  A third amendment would have allowed African countries to qualify for 
the programs and benefits in the bill even if they are unable to meet 
all of the bill's difficult conditions.
  None of my amendments were made in order, and my amendments were 
timely, as were other amendments when we attempted before the Committee 
on Rules.
  Let me just say we are not here simply because we want to oppose this 
bill. Again, we know the history of Africa, and we are not going to 
support the rape of Africa a second time in a more sophisticated way.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last year, when this same bill came to the 
floor, we attempted to offer an amendment which is the same amendment 
we attempt to offer now. It is not a poison pill; it is not an unfair 
provision. It would give African countries the same sort of trade 
treatment that we extend to Caribbean countries, Central American 
countries, and indeed to Mexico and to NAFTA. Basically it says if they 
buy our yarn and our cloth in their apparel when it is made from 
American-made source products, can come back into this country duty 
free and trade and tariff free.
  It is fair; it is also a good way to police the imports coming into 
this country to make sure that they were indeed made in Africa, for our 
greatest fear about this bill is not some overwhelming surge of imports 
coming from Africa itself, but the fact that these sub-Saharan 
countries will become a massive platform for transshipment. As Asian 
countries hit their quotas, as they try to evade tariffs, there would 
be an enormous temptation to ship through Africa where the goods, 
apparel and textile goods, can come into this country duty free and 
tariff free.
  Last year we were shut out also. This year we have been shut out 
again.
  This should be, this well of the House, should be a free market of 
ideas. We should be able to come here and put forth our ideas if they 
are not relevant, if they are not off the wall, if they are good, 
sound, solid ideas and vie for votes on the House floor. But let the 
competition be set, that the best bill can win right here in the House. 
Well, this bill today will not give us that kind of opportunity of that 
kind of vote.
  Last year, this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Bishop) on a motion to recommit. As everybody knows, that is a 
procedural motion, and for the most part Republicans do not vote for a 
Democratic motion to recommit. Even so, we got 193 votes for this 
amendment. I think 193 votes in last year's debate should buy us a 
ticket to this year's debate, should allow us to offer this amendment 
on the House floor and explain it, give us more than 5 minutes to 
explain it. If we win, fine; if we do not, fine as well. But give us 
the opportunity at least. Let this well be a free market of ideas.

[[Page 16430]]


  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule 
and this legislation that we are about to take up today. This is a good 
bill, and it is a very important bill for Africa.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the 
leadership that he has demonstrated on this legislation as well.
  I have no great personal interest in this legislation. I have no 
constituent or I have no company that is pressing me to support this 
bill. I am not ideologically driven by these trade issues, and I am 
sensitive to the concerns of the textile industry, having watched what 
happened in Massachusetts over a 50-year period. But I am supporting 
this bill because I do not believe, as alleged, that this bill will 
make African nations take any action that they would not otherwise 
take.
  I do not believe that imposing harsher than normal conditions on 
trade with the poorest countries of the world is fair or right, even if 
it is designed to create a precedent for other trade bills, and I do 
not believe that U.S. workers will be harmed by the minimal benefits of 
this legislation. What I do believe is that African countries want to 
expand their economies, put more of their citizens to work and be given 
the opportunity to sell their goods throughout the world, including the 
United States. This bill gives them an opportunity to help themselves.
  This is the right bill at the right time, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this rule so that we can move forward on final 
passage.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation, and I 
rise to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his 
leadership and his strong support for this legislation. I rise today to 
support the African Growth and Opportunity Act. A strong and open and 
fair trade investment relationship between the United States and the 
countries of sub-Saharan Africa could help reduce poverty and expand 
economic opportunity.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, according to the Department of Commerce, 
exports to Africa already support 133,000 U.S. jobs. 133,000 U.S. jobs 
are supported now with this relationship. In fact, the United States 
exports to the sub-Saharan region exceed by 20 percent, already by 20 
percent, those to all the States of the former Soviet Union combined. 
We are already starting to forge important relationships.
  Now will this by itself serve as the panacea to help our relationship 
by itself with Africa? No. And I would encourage those people that rise 
today to try to help pass this rule and this legislation to come 
together to do some things to improve the number of loans under the 
micro-development loans for the poor program for Africa, to try to work 
with relief organizations and aid and assistance programs to further 
bolster our relationship between the United States and Africa, and also 
to try to direct assistance and aid through our foreign aid programs 
which sometimes are in greater ratios, directed at other countries and 
not so much at Africa.
  We need to work on this relationship more. This is a first start, and 
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to this rule, but not to the intent of the bill before us. 
For the second year in a row, the Committee on Ways and Means has told 
us there is nothing to worry about with regard to transshipment of 
Asian textiles through Africa. Those of us in agriculture know better. 
In the past 15 years we have dealt with this multibillion dollar 
problem in commodities, including garlic, peanuts, walnuts, pistachio 
nuts and coffee, tobacco; it goes on and on, and, of course, textiles.
  Despite the tireless efforts of our Customs Service, our chief 
textile negotiator at USTR said recently that he felt the problem was 
getting worse. Indeed, the cleverness of exporters seeking illegal 
access to lucrative U.S. markets has forced Customs to result to 
complex testing for trace elements. Customs simply does not have the 
manpower to test every product entering the U.S., and the incentives to 
cheat the system have always managed to keep ahead of our ability to 
detect new methods of transshipment.
  The Bishop-Myrick amendment rejected by the Committee on Rules was an 
honest attempt to address the problem. The refusal of the Committee on 
Ways and Means to effectively address transshipment and of the 
Committee on Rules to deny us a chance to even debate this issue sends 
the wrong message to the agriculture community at a time when farm 
prices are at a record low.
  The adjusted world price for cotton is half of what it was a few 
short years ago, and mill use in the United States is down 8 percent 
from last year. Where are the new market opportunities for farmers that 
were promised by the leadership of this House when we passed the 
Freedom to Farm bill? They are in the Bishop amendment which was 
rejected by the Committee on Rules for the second year in a row.
  I thank the gentleman for having yielded this time. I hope our 
colleague will send this rule back to the Committee on Rules, where we 
can get a fair rule, one that will address a win for Africa and a win 
for the textile and cotton industry in the United States.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to put this whole matter in perspective.
  First, how did this matter come before the Committee on Ways and 
Means and ultimately now to this Congress? It did not come because some 
corporate lobby brought it to our committee. It did not come because of 
somebody in some slick suit said, Look, let's go and take advantage of 
Africa.
  It came up because those of us who were conscientious about the issue 
looked at what was happening in our 1994 GATT bill consideration and 
noticed that we were dealing with every country in the world, every 
continent in the world, trade relations, trade policies, but nothing 
for Africa on this subject at all. And so our committee decided that 
that was not right, that our country owed it to Africa and to the 
people of Africa and to the people of America to engage Africa as a 
trading and investment destination, as we had engaged the rest of the 
world.

                              {time}  1000

  That is how this whole policy started out. And I should tell the 
Members this, those who worry about conditionalities in the bill ought 
to really line up with what is happening in Africa today. This bill 
would not be possible, there would be no reason to talk about it, there 
would be no way we could even pass it today, if it were not for what is 
happening in Africa itself. This bill builds upon the initiative of 
African-Americans.
  In Africa right now many countries have, through great pain, adopted 
reform that includes promoting the movement of goods and services 
through their countries, maintaining a fair judicial system and 
promoting the rule of law, protecting property rights, providing 
national treatment for foreign investors, implementing measures to 
facilitate investment, developing regional markets and promoting 
regional integration, and striving to reduce poverty and increase 
access to education and health care, particularly for women. This is 
what Africa is itself doing for its own people. This bill simply builds 
on that foundation.
  For those who worry about transshipments in Africa, I want to ask 
this question: Why do we consider something peculiar in the African 
experience, in the African culture, that raises these concerns beyond 
what we are concerned about them in other countries? Why is this such a 
big issue in Africa? It defies logic.

[[Page 16431]]

  First, there is no history of transshipment issues with Africa. 
Africa is one of the continents in the world where there are less 
problems than any other place on transshipments.
  Second, it is almost insulting to the Africans to suggest that they 
want to transship. When we were in Uganda with our President in 1998 
with six African heads of State, each one of them stood up and took 
great umbrage at the suggestion that they would simply be transshipment 
arenas for China or for some other place.
  They said, look, we want the jobs in our own countries. We want to 
empower our own people. We want to employ our own people. Why would we 
have all these years, having a chance to ship our goods to America and 
not put our own people to work? It is an absurdity. African-Americans 
need the jobs. They are going to employ their own people, and there is 
nothing inherent in the African experience that suggests there would be 
concern about transshipment.
  I think this whole business about the issue of conditionalities, I 
think we have to look to the Africans on this question as well. There 
are many ways to talk about how to improve this bill, and I could think 
of a lot of ways to improve it, and everybody else out here could. But 
we have to now deal with what is possible to be done in the context in 
which we are working.
  The African nations understand that this is an important first step, 
this is not the end all and be all, but it is an important first step 
in this whole process. Let us not, in this measure, attempt to be more 
wise than the Africans about what they need. Let us stand with Africa 
for a change, and change the policy that relates to our relationship 
with it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKs of New York. Mr. Speaker, the question that presents itself 
today is whether or not we should support this rule and this bill.
  The question some have asked, is this a perfect rule or a perfect 
bill, I daresay in the year and a half that I have been a Member of 
this great House, I have yet to see a bill or a rule that I feel is 
perfect. So clearly this is not a perfect bill and not a perfect rule. 
But there is a goal at the end.
  Unfortunately, what I hear, because of some of the past relationships 
or lack of relationships we have had with the African continent, some 
feel that everything must be in this bill. That is impossible. I think 
that this will not and cannot be the only bill which deals with Africa, 
but it is a first step, an historic step to making sure that we put 
Africa on the screen here in America.
  So I say to the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means and to the 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I thank them 
for bringing this bill to the forefront. I urge Members to vote for the 
rule and vote for the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I properly rise to support 
this rule and congratulate the collaboration of the Committee on 
International Relations and the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  But what I want to point out is that this is the face of African 
trade in America. All of these States in the United States are already 
doing business with Africa. Africa is standing as an equal trading 
partner.
  I know, as we have said and my colleagues have acknowledged, this is 
not the only step. I associate my remarks with those of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel). We wanted an open rule. We believe in debt 
relief. But this is the beginning. Are we going to tell Americans that 
we cannot go to the next step and do a greater trade or have a greater 
trade relationship with Africa?
  I am amazed that my colleagues would suggest that we have written a 
bill or supported a bill that has no concerns for the needs of the 
African people. In the bill, it says that one of the criteria elements 
will be reducing poverty, increasing the availability of health care, 
educational opportunities, maximizing credit to small farmers and 
women. It has in it a provision for a strong opposition to 
transshipment or dumping.
  We are looking out for all of us. This is a good bill. This is a good 
bill because it provides language that indicates that there must be a 
good visa system, there must be domestic laws and enforcement 
procedures that void transshipment or dumping.
  I believe that this bill will be the first start for beginning 
relationships with small businesses, relating to small businesses in 
Africa. Likewise, I think it is important to note that this bill 
specifically emphasizes women entrepreneurs.
  I believe this will be an enormous, enormous boost to the economy of 
Africa, and yes, to the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which will govern 
our debate on the H.R. 434, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, and 
I rise in strong support of the over-arching bill, which I believe will 
usher in a new era of trade and prosperity for the people of Africa and 
the United States.
  When we came back after the Christmas break, I considered it one of 
the highest priorities of this Congress to pass this particular piece 
of legislation. I have been to many meetings and met with countless 
individuals of whom all share a tremendous amount of excitement for 
this bill. Just a few short months ago in my home town of Houston, I 
spoke before the Corporate Council on Africa, who had gathered together 
delegates from virtually every area of Africa and the United States, 
and each of them expressed to me their tremendous anticipation of this 
bill, and of improved trade relations with Sub-Saharan Africa.
  I have met with many African Ambassadors on this issue to discuss the 
impact of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act on their countries, and 
each of them was singularly positive. For many of the countries in 
Africa, this will be their first true opportunity to leverage their 
most precious resource--their people--in order to achieve robust 
capital investment. With that capital, it will be much easier for those 
countries to help themselves--to improve their telecommunications, 
electrical, and health infrastructures.
  Having said that, there are several issues that I believe should be 
addressed by this bill, but which were left out of the version reported 
to Rules by the International Relations and Ways and Means Committees. 
One of these issues is the problem of AIDS in Africa.
  As a Member of a Presidential Mission to Africa on HIV/AIDS just 
recently, I was a witness to the true devastation that has been caused 
to the African economy, and the African community. I toured special 
communities especially created to deal with families whose lives have 
been changed by HIV/AIDS. I have met the grandparents, who would be of 
retirement age here in the United States, but who must work to support 
their grandchildren--orphaned by AIDS.
  As a result, I will be offering two amendments later in this debate 
to bring recognition to this important issue. The first amendment, 
which I am offering along with Congressmen Olver, Lewis, and Horn, and 
Congresswoman Pelosi, makes it clear that it is the ``Sense of 
Congress'' that AIDS must be dealt with if we are to have a healthy 
trade relationship with Africa.
  I also will be offering an amendment that encourages corporate 
America, who will benefit greatly from the passage of this Act, to 
engage the problem of AIDS in Africa. I also states that corporate 
America should be ready to assist in Africa's prevention efforts 
through the use of some fiscal mechanism, like a HIV/ AIDS Response 
Fund. Many of these corporations engage in charitable gift-giving here 
in the United States, we ought to make sure that they are willing to do 
the same abroad as well.
  Another area in which the bill could use some improving is in its 
lack of focus on small business. Small businesses are the backbone of 
our economy, providing more than half of the private workforce in the 
United States. They also represent 96 percent of all U.S. exporters. 
Small businesses also make up the bulk of the African economy. We 
should encourage these two groups to work together--to bring about the 
positive change that all of us desire. The routes of trade should be 
filled

[[Page 16432]]

with more than just multinational-conglomerates, because it will be 
small business that gives us stability, flexibility, and growth.
  I am thankful that three of the amendments that I offered at the 
Rules Committee have been made in order under this rule and I would 
like to thank Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member Moakley for their hard 
work. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the bill, 
and to support my amendments. Thank you.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend the leadership of 
this House that have taken this very important legislation, the 
gentlemen from New York, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Reynolds; the Committee on 
International Relations, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for me, a person that in the 
middle sixties started going to Africa, working with the freedom 
movements in Kenya, with the Kenyu party back in the fifties, with 
SWAPO in Namibia, dealing with the racist regime of Ian Smith in 
Rhodesia and talking about independence for Africa. So today is a great 
day.
  It is a day that we have some conflict, there is no question about 
it. We have longtime leaders like the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who have been 
fighting for Africa for many, many years, and we have our newer 
generation who are there, coming up to step up to the plate. So I think 
Africa is in good shape for the future.
  I think that every area needs an opportunity. When we look at Asia 
after World War II and at Hong Kong, we had the lowest per capita 
income in Asia. Housing was poor, education was down, there were no 
jobs. If we go to Hong Kong today, we will see a bustling, vibrant 
economy. Why? Because in Hong Kong and in Asia they determined that 
there was a need to have some investment.
  We needed to start with a program. We needed to start with something 
that could be done. Textiles started in that place. Now we have seen 
the development moving into more and more sophisticated types of 
industry.
  Africa, a continent of 800,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa, a place 
that has all of the resources and riches, plus it has a very strong and 
vibrant people, because people who can exist on less than $5 a month by 
their own ingenuity and by their own creativity, by their own industry, 
are a group of people for whom the sky is only the limit if they had 
the opportunity.
  They say that even a trip of a thousand miles must begin with the 
first step. I think that today the first step is being taken. No, this 
is not a bill that is all-encompassing. As a matter of fact, in the old 
mythology, in the Pandora's box, all of the evils came out in that 
myth, but the cap was put down and hope remained in it.
  So I think that it is important that hope remains alive, but I think 
we have to take a first step. This is an important first step.
  I think that it is insulting to tell the Diplomatic Corps from Africa 
that this is not good for them. I just returned from Africa this past 
week, and everyone there was saying, please have this bill pass, it 
means that much to us.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and pass the bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the subcommittee on Africa.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, African textile and apparel exports to the United States 
last year were $570 million. This is .86 percent of the total U.S. 
textile and apparel imports, less than 1 percent. The U.S. 
International Trade Committee reports that this volume would increase 
maybe 25, 50 percent, to just over 1 percent if this bill passes. Is 
that any kind of threat to the most powerful economy in the history of 
the world? No, it is not.
  Opponents also miss the point that today all but two African 
countries have no textile quotas. That is 46 sub-Saharan countries.
  So why have we not seen the transshipment problem we have heard about 
today in these 46 countries? This bill has safeguards against 
transshipment. One is that it provides for a review of its textile 
provisions by requiring the executive to report to us in Congress on 
the growth of textile and apparel imports from Africa, and if there is 
a transshipment problem discovered, and there is no reason to believe 
there would be one, today there is none, we checked with Customs, there 
is none, but if there is, we can simply pull that country out of the 
program and this bill establishes a way to do that.
  Let me say that most everyone in this body, Democrat and Republican, 
have been working to promote U.S. trade and investment in Africa. Why? 
It increases the standard of living of Africans, it increases the 
standard of living of people in the United States. One hundred thirty-
three thousand jobs right now are dependent upon exports to Africa that 
will increase under this bill.
  This bill is bipartisan. It has been years in the making. We have 
held hearings on this bill. We have built this huge bipartisan support 
of Republicans and Democrats for this bill.
  I have heard some comments about the environment. For us on the 
committee, we have been holding hearings on the environment in Africa. 
We have programs like the Campfire Program in Zimbabwe, like the Ndeki 
Forest Program in the Congo, that we are supporting. We will continue 
to do that.
  But this bill need to be passed today, this Trade and Investment 
Opportunity Act for America and for Africa.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and the rule.
  Last week I was in Africa and visited three very poor countries, 
Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. Two of them are involved in a very, 
very violent war that has killed tens of thousands of people over the 
last year, but they still recognize that poverty is their number one 
enemy. And they also are noticing, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent 
billions of dollars in the Balkans, and are still bogged down over this 
bill.
  Africa will notice. Today is the day to send this bill forward, even 
if it is not perfect. For those who are concerned that it is not a 
perfect bill, what is the protection? The protection is these countries 
do not have to participate. It is almost patronizing to say that 
somehow we have to put out this perfect bill and this they somehow 
cannot sort through all these conditions themselves.

                              {time}  1015

  They will do what is in their best interests. If they like these 
conditions, they will meet them and negotiate and work with the United 
States on trade.
  This is good for Africa. It is good for the United States. I support 
the rule and the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule. Sometimes we have to make tough choices, and if I were put to a 
choice under this bill of choosing to keep jobs in North Carolina or 
send them to Africa, that would be a wonderful choice that I would have 
to make. Unfortunately, because the Committee on Rules did not make in 
order the amendment authored by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), the choice is not that, but the choice is whether I keep jobs 
in the textile and apparel industry in North Carolina or create a 
platform in Africa for Asian and Eastern markets.

[[Page 16433]]

  So I think this rule is unfair. We should have been allowed to debate 
this issue on the floor. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and one of my mentors on free trade.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for his 
superb management of the rule. And I compliment the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce) and the others who have spent a great deal of time, such as 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who have worked long and hard 
on this very important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I was going to talk simply about the issue itself, but I 
feel compelled to respond to the remarks of the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), my friend, when he referred to the unfairness of 
this rule. Just a few hours ago, at 12:30, I referred to the fact that 
on the State Department authorization bill, the bill that is designed 
to deal with the problem that we have with embassy security around the 
world, we made in order a number of amendments, 41 in fact: 22 
Democratic amendments, 12 Republican amendments, and 7 bipartisan 
amendments. On this bill, we make in order only Democratic amendments.
  Now, I often have to fight the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), my friend, in the Committee on Rules who is often trying to 
withdraw Democratic amendments that we have made in order on bills. I 
am happy to say that he did not do it on this one.
  We have, in fact, made in order an amendment from the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my friend, an amendment from the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a bipartisan amendment, all amendments 
that have been offered by the Democrats. I am proud of this rule which 
will allow us to provide for a free and very, very open debate.
  Let me take a couple of minutes to talk about this very important 
issue. I am proud to have worked with many of our colleagues on the 
issue of global trade and Africa. It is no secret, in fact, it was said 
by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) in our committee 
yesterday, the poorest continent on the face of the earth is the 
African continent. And this bill is designed to not only address the 
concerns that exist among those 48 Nations in Sub-Saharan Africa but 
also to address concerns that exist right here in the United States of 
America.
  The Cold War is over. We are very proud of the legacy of Ronald 
Reagan and George Bush in bringing an end to the Soviet Union. I 
remember spending time in Angola and other spots when I traveled in the 
latter part of the last decade throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, and that 
has come to an end. Now what we have seen is a very fragile move 
towards political pluralism and democratization taking place in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 434 goes a long way towards encouraging even 
further moves towards free markets, further moves towards 
representative democracy, and we need to herald those things. But it is 
also important to note that this bill is not only designed to address 
the concerns that exist in that very important part of the world, Sub-
Saharan Africa; it is designed to address the concerns that exist right 
here in the United States of America.
  I agree with some critics. We should not spend all of our time simply 
thinking about other parts of the world. Our priority here is to deal 
with our national security interests. The best way for us to maintain, 
or one of the best ways for us to maintain our national security is to 
do everything that we can to have the highest standard of living 
possible.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) just referred to the fact 
that there will be 133,000 jobs created because of exports going from 
the United States to the 48 nations in sub-Saharan Africa. We also have 
to remember something else. What is it that gives us the highest 
standard of living the world? It is the fact that the world has access 
to our consumer markets.
  So we are going to create a chance for that struggling single mother 
who is trying to make ends meet to have the chance. She is going to 
have the opportunity to have a higher standard of living by being able 
to buy clothes for her children, by being able to purchase other things 
that are very important. That is what free trade is all about. We have 
so often argued that trade is not a zero sum game. Trade is, in fact, 
an issue which is a win-win all the way around.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I encourage bipartisan support for this rule 
and enthusiastic support for what I think is a very, very important 
piece of legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 263, 
nays 141, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               YEAS--263

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Baird
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

[[Page 16434]]


     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--141

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Goode
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
       

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Forbes
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     John
     Latham
     Luther
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Peterson (PA)
     Porter
     Rothman
     Serrano
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Thurman
     Udall (NM)
     Whitfield
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1043

  Mr. TURNER and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 306 on H. Res. 250, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''

                          ____________________