[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16434-16483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  1045

                   AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
250 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 434.

                              {time}  1046


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub-
Sahara Africa, with Mr. Ewing in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will 
control 22\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in 
opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the chairmen and the ranking 
members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the 
time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in 
opposition to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that request. Time must be 
yielded by the Members who control the time under the special order 
adopted by the House, the ranking members and the chairmen of the 
appropriate committees.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Members that do 
oppose this bill on certain grounds, and I believe they should be 
afforded an opportunity that the Chair could, in fact, make 
accommodations for, and I urge the House to do that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given 
time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I think there should be a reasonable amount of time 
presented for the opportunity for those who oppose this bill to be able 
to speak on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will suspend.
  The rule provides that the time will be yielded by the chairmen and 
the ranking members of the two appropriate committees, and that is the 
way the Committee of the whole will proceed under the rule approved by 
the House.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 434, the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  This bill is the product of years of bipartisan congressional efforts 
to promote increased trade and investment between our Nation and sub-
Saharan Africa. This measure authorizes a new trade and investment 
policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and expresses the 
willingness of our Nation to assist the eligible countries of that 
region with a reduction of trade barriers, the creation of an economic 
cooperation forum, the promotion of a free trade area, and a variety of 
other trade and related mechanisms.
  This bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has broad support 
in the Committee on International Relations

[[Page 16435]]

and was ordered to be reported in February of this year.
  Yesterday, in the meeting of the Committee on Rules, one of our 
distinguished colleagues, one who has demonstrated a long and 
passionate commitment to humanitarian issues, expressed concerns that 
this bill does not do enough for the people of Africa. Mr. Chairman, 
although this is indeed a modest bill, it would be a grave mistake to 
underestimate its strength. Both its power and its modesty, Mr. 
Chairman, come from the fact that this bill does not attempt to do 
anything for the people of Africa but rather it proposes to encourage 
beneficial trade with the countries and peoples of Africa.
  This act recognizes a universal and independent desire of individuals 
everywhere to improve their lives and those of their families. Adam 
Smith recognized this power back in 1776 when he wrote, ``The desire of 
a man to better himself comes to him in the womb of his mother.'' A 
fundamental belief in individual aspiration is reflected in nearly all 
of the domestic legislation that we consider in this body, from tax 
laws, to education subsidies, to natural resource management. That 
principle must not be ignored in our policies toward other nations.
  The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Africa, but much 
economic activity there goes unrecorded and underreported. Ghanaian 
women with little formal education grow their crops and sell them in 
cooperative rural markets every week, season after season. Senegalese 
merchants travel to cities all across the globe selling their wares and 
remitting the bulk of their profits. Somalis, working together 
throughout the Middle East, spend their salaries on products which are 
in high demand back home and ship them to family members. In turn, they 
trade them for profit in the markets of Hargeisa and Mogadishu. It may 
come as a surprise to some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that on any 
given day a visitor to Hargeisa can stand on a street corner and 
exchange Deutschemarks, francs, pounds and dollars at international 
exchange rates.
  These activities, and countless others like them, are happening and 
they are happening right now, as we speak, all over the African 
continent. They are not driven by any giant multinational corporations 
nor by international banks. They are not supervised by the Agency for 
International Development or by the IMF. This work occurs because 
people have discovered that it puts food on the table and clothes on 
the backs of their children.
  Make no mistake, my colleagues, I strongly support U.S. foreign aid 
to Africa, and my record of that support is clear. In recent years, I 
have been supportive of the Development Fund for Africa, the Seeds of 
Hope Act, the International Financial Institutions, debt relief and the 
work of the United Nations. But foreign aid cannot serve as a backbone 
of any modern economy. At best, it can jump-start independently 
sustainable economic activity and help individuals gain a foothold.
  As I have said, H.R. 434 is a modest bill. One can think of many 
problems confronting the people and the countries of Africa that this 
bill does not specifically address, and we have heard some of them 
already in the debate on the rule. But it would be a mistake to reject 
this bill for what it is not without recognizing the significant 
benefits that it represents.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the extraordinary 
group of Members who have come together and worked extremely hard in 
support of this effort before us. Both Democrat and Republican, black 
and white, conservatives and liberals have found much common ground in 
the pages of H.R. 434.
  I would like to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairman 
of our Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); to the ranking 
Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne); to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the dean of our 
New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. Chairman, even the often contentious counties of sub-Saharan 
Africa have come together united in support for this bill. I commend my 
colleagues for their efforts and their commitments, and I urge 
favorable consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman 
of our Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce), be permitted to control the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act. It will open a new era in U.S. relations with sub-
Saharan Africa. This bipartisan bill was reported with little 
opposition on a bipartisan basis from the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Chairman, sub-Saharan Africa today is very different from what it 
was just a few short years ago. In the 1990s, more than two dozen of 
the 48 countries in the region have held democratic elections and 30 
have undertaken specific economic reforms.

                              {time}  1100

  Increasing numbers of Africans have embraced the principles of 
democracy and free markets, which enable people and nations to improve 
the course of their futures.
  Last year I traveled to Gabon. I believe President Omar Bongo and his 
country are an example of the changes under way across the African 
continent. President Bongo has set out on a plan to energize his 
country. He has brought a high level of prosperity to his country and 
actually developed an empowered middle class. And to ensure economic 
opportunity for the Gabonese people, the president is also directing 
the country's efforts in infrastructure building and privatization of 
state-owned industries.
  Gabon is a good example of what is happening in Africa today. And 
here, in this body, we are laying the legislative groundwork that will 
help support the steps Gabon and other nations are taking in Africa.
  Today, we adapt U.S. policy in response to the African renaissance. 
Specifically, this legislation will add a trade component to U.S. 
policy toward the region to mutually improve the standard of living of 
Americans and the African people.
  It is unfortunate that the tremendous potential of sub-Saharan Africa 
has not been reflected in U.S. trade policy to date. But this bill 
fills that gap. I commend many members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to where we are today 
on the floor in developing this legislation.
  In developing this legislation, I particularly compliment the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, who 
are the lead sponsors of this bill. They have done great work.
  In addition, I must mention the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) particularly who have expended 
enormous effort in bringing this bill to the floor.
  I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the balance of my time may be managed by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that he may be able to yield and assign 
the time as he chooses.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 16436]]


  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
statement I may yield the time controlled by the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs on the Democratic side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first take one moment to remind 
our colleagues where this legislation began.
  The genesis was with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott). I have yet to see a bill with as 
strong bipartisan support with people on both sides of the aisle 
supporting it, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Ways and Means the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many of my friends, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on the Republican side.
  There are many of us who would like to do more today. Africa is a 
continent that we have often ignored. The United States, with its often 
European and Middle Eastern-focused policies it is attempting to 
engage, the economic stage of Africa has been left behind. A continent 
with the poorest people on this planet, devastated by illness, famine, 
and economic hardship, America's foreign assistance has given the least 
to this continent that needs it the most.
  There is more that we should be doing. We should be doing more in 
almost every category, from assistance to health, education, and in 
trade.
  For my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not an 
easy vote. Some of our core constituencies are divided. Concern for 
labor protection, the concern for the environment, things that we 
cherish, are not as significant and powerful as they should be.
  I am among those who believe we should be doing more in every trade 
bill to include labor and environmental rights. We need to make sure 
that when we work to lift these other nations that we lift all of their 
citizens and not just a few.
  The provisions of this bill are as good as we can get in this 
compromise. I can assure my colleagues, if this was a different 
Congress, we would have more protection for labor, we would have more 
committed to the poorest of the poor, and we would do more for the 
environment.
  But our choice is not that today. We do not decide the composition of 
this House. What we have to do is do the best we can for these people 
who have suffered so much, with the legislature that the American 
people have given us.
  GSP is a good program. It forces countries to address the ILO 
standard. And when we take a look at its history, almost a dozen 
countries have lost GSP preference because they did not follow those 
rules. In another number of cases, countries that had failed to follow 
the ILO standard when challenged and threatened with the removal of GSP 
ended up accepting the better standard for labor.
  I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stretch 
politically today. There are tough questions here. There are concerns 
that we all have about why we are not doing more for Africa in aid, in 
health care, in education, in trade and assistance. But the choice 
before us is this bill or nothing.
  Will Africans be better off if we kill this bill today? I think not. 
I think, if we can move this bill forward today, we will be able to 
build on its strength in the future.
  Lastly, for my friends who have had a bad experience with NAFTA, this 
bill is not about NAFTA. This bill does not take away tariffs in a 
permanent manner, irrespective of countries' actions. The countries 
that deal with us under this bill will have to make improvements on how 
they treat their working men and women. They will have to address these 
issues that so many on our side care about. This is a bill that begins 
an engagement that we should have undertaken long ago.
  I again commend all those involved, but particularly the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) for their great efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as 
much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly, 
emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed.
  Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and 
I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way, 
not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for 
most of us today, that we are on the brink of history.
  It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as 
rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like 
we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of 
African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no 
village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with 
any other country except our great United States of America.
  As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And 
for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really 
done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve 
this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of 
these African countries and recognizing that they know that if 
everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we 
would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we 
would not be able to take this one giant step.
  But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to 
just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to 
humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state.
  I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do 
we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major 
leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many 
organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations, 
saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding 
and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing.
  For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go 
to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that 
these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that 
they are going to take our jobs away from us.
  Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a 
decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be 
able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue 
to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will 
continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of 
our technology and our consumer appetite.
  So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far 
enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come 
in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to 
improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that 
before we went into that next century, where every country we have had 
some agreement with, with this European country through the European 
Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in 
Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel, 
every continent except Africa.
  Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we 
started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children 
will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to 
enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great 
Republic.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 16437]]


  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act.
  Over the last several years, many Members of this body have been 
working hard to improve America's relationship with Africa. We have 
done this because what happens in Africa matters. It matters to 
Africans, and it matters to our country.
  The United States has real interests in seeing that Africa begins to 
reach its considerable potential. Such an Africa would offer limitless 
cultural and economic opportunity to Americans.
  Already our exports to Africa are some $6.5 billion. This is greater 
than our exports to the former Soviet Union. It is greater than our 
exports to all of Eastern Europe. And the volume is growing. U.S. 
exports to Africa are growing by more than 8 percent per year. This is 
130-some thousand American jobs.
  As this map shows, businesses in my home State of California have 
been part of this. California is one of the top States in the country 
when it comes to exports to Africa, as is Illinois, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Texas. We can see the result of the growing exports here 
to Africa.
  On the other hand, if Africa fails to meet its potential with the 
United States of America, then the United States will not escape the 
negative economic political and security implications. There would be 
lost economic opportunities, yes, but there would be more.
  The reality is that terrorism and environmental degradation know no 
bounds. Simply put, this legislation, which has broad bipartisan 
support, is critical to the United States' relationship with Africa.
  The Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs recently said, 
``No other U.S.-Africa issue can be taken seriously until the Africa 
Growth and Opportunity Act is passed.''
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I second that. But so do 
all the African ambassadors here in Washington, everyone who has 
unanimously supported this legislation. The African ambassadors 
understand the importance of this legislation, and they have rejected 
in no uncertain terms the efforts of critics to speak authoritatively 
for Africans.
  So I say to my colleagues, if they care about the future of the 
continent, if they care about the future of 700 million people, support 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had 
heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well.
  He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would 
expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa 
where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could 
do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
joined in that effort.
  We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would 
advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement 
with sub-Saharan Africa.

                              {time}  1115

  That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a 
culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S. 
trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan 
Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and 
who have given of their time and their energies so graciously.
  This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in 
Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held 
democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed 
in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May, 
Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million 
people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in 
nearly two decades.
  As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said 
that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R. 
434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework 
for United States-African trade relations.
  In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade 
partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and 
political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic 
Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia-
Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy 
discussions.
  It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive 
African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the 
Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions.
  It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free 
trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria.
  H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice 
that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in 
Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on 
their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits 
of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30 
percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors 
have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile, 
the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent.
  The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will 
support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub-
Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a 
better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally 
in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, 
terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation.
  A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market 
for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of 
Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the 
region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former 
Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in 
1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the 
region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past 
several years.
  As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will 
establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and 
will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and 
political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a 
wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to 
codify many significant initiatives already under way in the 
administration.
  I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing 
to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached 
from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of 
U.S. aid where it is needed.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair 
slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill. 
I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in 
Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and 
extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to 
suggest that we know better for

[[Page 16438]]

Africa than Africans do. If people are concerned about whether the 
trade will be fair, if people are concerned about whether the working 
conditions will be fair, I think it is reasonable to say, let the 
African countries and their leadership determine those issues, worker 
protection and the like.
  It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an 
opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected. 
Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism. 
This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous 
new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will 
enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already 
taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be 
more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty-
free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive.
  Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That 
is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of 
textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the 
U.S. market. We also have protections in this bill to ensure that 
import sensitive items are not brought in under the provisions of this 
legislation. For those who believe we will be hurting our textile 
markets, I think if we look at the bill, we find that that is not true.
  There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African 
workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African 
workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we 
do with other countries.
  The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global 
economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we 
have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential 
competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs 
and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition.
  The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations, 
including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are 
the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned, 
there is a provision that the President must certify that any product 
that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import 
sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market 
worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP. 
The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation 
has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights, 
including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can 
petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have 
had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where 
competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are 
more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a 
different standard applied, and I will fight for that.
  I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but 
it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential 
consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other 
issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core 
worker rights.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) who serves on the Subcommittee on Africa.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I note his superb leadership in this area. I note the superb 
leadership of the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee as well the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  There are two arguments against this bill, the first that it is 
really bad for Africa. The gentleman from Maryland was quite eloquent 
in making the case how wrong it is to apply such an assumption that the 
representatives of each African nation are selling their people short, 
that they do not care about worker exploitation, that somehow they do 
not care about environment. These are the assumptions one must be 
making if one says that the support of this legislation by every 
government in the African continent is somehow to be discounted.
  As to the second argument that it hurts the United States, the 
gentleman from Maryland's argument was also quite persuasive. On what 
assumption do we base the fear that African nations are not reliable? 
On what assumption do we base the prejudice that an African nation will 
not be able to comply with its obligations under the trade agreements 
not to have massive transshipments? In our trading arrangements with 
other nations around the world, we assume that they honor their 
obligations, including the prohibitions against mislabeling and 
transshipments. Why do we throw this assumption out when we are dealing 
with Africa? It seems to me that the assumption is fair in this case, 
even if there were a much larger percentage of textiles than there is.
  Lastly, let me conclude by pointing out that we give less in direct 
aid to Africa per capita than any other part of the globe with the 
possible exception of India depending how it is measured. This is not 
an aid bill. This is a bill to open up a reciprocal relationship of 
trade and respect. Other countries we give more than $30 per capita. To 
the people of sub-Saharan Africa, we give less than 17 cents per 
capita. Is that right? Is that fair?
  If you wish to change it but you have constraints with the budget, at 
least open up trade, open up hope. That is what this bill does. I am 
proud to support it.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for 
me to rise in support of this legislation.
  America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with 
Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many 
will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in 
some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned 
efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty 
had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa 
has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and 
a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to 
encourage this.
  By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our 
goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its 
economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports 
and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can 
buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa 
and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment.
  The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is 
not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own 
congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in 
exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the 
top 10 States in exports to the region.
  Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will 
promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and 
encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this 
legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term 
relationship with Africa.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, progress for African trade and growth can 
never take place unless there is first a recognition that Africa has as 
much promise as any other region in respect to long-term trade and 
commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural 
markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a 
significant part of the global

[[Page 16439]]

economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great 
radical organizer Saul Alinsky was that an aggrieved, neglected or 
oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before hope 
for progress can be ignited.

                              {time}  1130

  For the 17 years that I have been in Congress, there has been no 
significant attention focused on African trade. Like many of my 
colleagues, I am the cosponsor of several additional measures related 
to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, 
this bill is probably the only African relevant bill that will reach 
the floor of the House in the 106th Congress.
  Let me note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is 
as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I urge the full support for this landmark piece of legislation.
  Progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless 
there is first recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other 
region with respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. 
Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products 
and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global 
economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great 
radical organizer, Saul Alinsky, was that an aggrieved, neglected, or 
oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before the 
hope for progress can be ignited.
  For the seventeen years that I have been in Congress there has been 
no significant attention focused on African trade. This long overdue 
bill stands alone--and despite its imperfections and incompleteness, 
this legislation deserves our full support. Hope for Africa begins with 
today's recognition of Africa as a deserving trade partner.
  Like many of my colleagues I am the co-sponsor of several additional 
measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid 
appropriations, this bill is probably the only Africa relevant bill 
that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress.
  Let me also note the fact that some have charged that this 
legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. In the much highlighted textile industry the Sub-Saharan 
African countries have less than one percent. On the other hand, China 
has almost 10 percent of the U.S. textile market. In the seventeen 
years that I have served on the Education and Labor Committee no union 
has yet complained to me about losing textile industry jobs to China.
  Just transfer one percent of the textile trade from China to Africa 
and you will do nothing to hurt American jobs--you merely maintain the 
status quo. Why are the same people who are yelling about trade with 
the infant economies of Africa so wimpish or silent on trade with 
China.
  In the final analysis we have a problem here similar to the one faced 
by King Solomon when two women claiming to be the mother of one baby 
came before him. There are some who are proclaiming that, never mind 
the pleas of the African leaders, it would be better to vote this bill 
down and do nothing for Africa. Following the wisdom of King Solomon, 
it is clear that these negative opponents do not understand what is 
best for Africa. I urge a yes vote on this landmark legislation.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) for yielding this time to me, for his hard work and 
commitment to Africa and to America.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 434. This is one of the most difficult 
no votes which I again will cast today, but I have attempted to dig 
beneath the surface of this legislation and analyze what its true 
impact will be.
  I was compelled to vote against this bill when it was examined in the 
House Committee on International Relations. As one who has historically 
encouraged and worked for a comprehensive trade and development policy 
for Africa, this is not a vote which I cast lightly. In opposing this 
legislation I part company with the President I strongly support and a 
number of congressional colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect.
  Now very troubling to me, the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
fails to respect African sovereignty. It threatens the rights of 
African nations to determine for themselves the economic priorities 
that are in the best interests of their people. H.R. 434 continues to 
carry harsh eligibility requirements. To obtain trade benefits, 
countries must reorder their spending priorities to suit the 
preferences of foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund.
  Now, considering the mystery and the destructive nature of many of 
the IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa, this eligibility 
requirement is one which I cannot in good conscience support.
  Other provisions in this legislation require countries to reduce 
taxes for corporations while at the same time cut domestic spending 
which will inevitably lead to further reductions in vital health care 
and education programs which are already starved for funds.
  Africa has been neglected for too long, and as I listened to this 
debate, the supporters of this bill say that it is a modest first step. 
Well, it should be a major first step. It should not be symbolic, as 
many are saying. Africa deserves better.
  In our enthusiasm to promote American business opportunities and 
forge new relationships with countries in Africa, we must remain 
focused on the paramount need at hand to support a free and fair trade 
policy which benefits Africa and America.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), vice chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and 
foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to 
promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing 
African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global 
economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute 
market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries 
provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens.
  Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment 
will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and 
infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace 
and significantly raise their standard of living.
  It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's 
woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa 
is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who 
criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate 
aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this 
Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress 
enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope 
legislation.
  This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses 
U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is 
aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small 
farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as 
the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African 
development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will 
have a balanced trade and aid program.
  Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this 
legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the 
comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) 
during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman 
from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are 
supportive of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve 
this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the 
crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

[[Page 16440]]


  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated 
as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their 
resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little 
regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain 
forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth 
in Africa.
  With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of 
our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our 
appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into 
Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa, 
their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies 
will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their 
free-market system that has served this country so well.
  These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and 
African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great 
benefit to our country.
  I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that 
Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers 
on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are 
visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this 
morning.
  So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of 
legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the 
House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers 
and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American 
market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is 
involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1 
percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little 
sliver of red is African imports to this country.
  While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent 
here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot 
to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the 
continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing 
industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or 
it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now 
to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile 
industry.
  If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much 
in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the 
continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make 
sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do 
something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build 
the industrial base in that country.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few 
months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he 
said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and 
divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to 
find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists 
and farmers and government can stand together.''
  President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens 
in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a 
trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of 
workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face 
on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global 
economy.''
  I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically 
in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals 
from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take 
advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African 
workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the 
Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese 
workers into sub-Saharan Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999]

   A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers

                          (By R.C. Longworth)

       As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting 
     richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on 
     the outskirts of the global village.
       ``Global inequalities in income and living standards have 
     reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program 
     said in its annual global overview, the Human Development 
     Report.
       For instance:
       The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20 
     percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income, 
     91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports 
     and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living 
     in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have 
     about 1 percent of each.
       The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul 
     Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140 
     billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43 
     least-developed countries and their 600 million people.
       The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the 
     rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are 
     not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that 
     costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight 
     year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh.
       The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their 
     net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the 
     world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they 
     were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing 
     nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in 
     sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to 
     $518 from $661 in 1980.
       In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30 
     times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that 
     proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1.
       The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is 
     not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with 
     the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people 
     and communities, not just markets and their manipulators.
       ``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of 
     efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said. 
     ``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human 
     development.
       ``Many activities and goods that are critical to human 
     development are provided outside the market, but these are 
     being squeezed by the pressures of global competition.
       ``When the market goes too far in dominating social and 
     political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of 
     globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating 
     power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and 
     corporations, marginalizing the others.
       ``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the 
     expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the 
     rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to 
     preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but 
     also to provide enough space for human, community and 
     environmental resources to ensure that globalization works 
     for people, not just for profits.''
       The gap between people, like the one between nations, also 
     is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said. 
     Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations--
     especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it 
     said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China 
     and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe.
       One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to 
     wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is 
     increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly 
     dominated by a few countries and companies.
       Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the 
     United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and-
     development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same 
     10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S. 
     government over the past 20 years, it said.
       Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the 
     telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70 
     percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical 
     products, it said.
       The major countries and the global corporations may have 
     earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly 
     of power

[[Page 16441]]

     is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the economic 
     pie and, often, from decent health care and education.
       ``The privatization and concentration of technology are 
     going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define 
     research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs 
     and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list 
     than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.''
       Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,'' 
     are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent 
     laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking 
     the ability of developing countries to develop their own 
     products.
       Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand 
     has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users 
     than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said.
       The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between 
     nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality 
     of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said.
       Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World 
     countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates 
     climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates 
     to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries--
     Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome 
     severe levels of human poverty.''
       The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around 
     the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global 
     economy in a backlash of public resentment.
       Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core 
     of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of 
     responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and 
     corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial 
     volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the 
     past two years only the first of many upheavals.
       At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written 
     in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International 
     Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these 
     talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus 
     on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human 
     concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing 
     inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor 
     people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.''
       They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an 
     unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.''
       The UNDP report called instead for a ``global 
     architecture'' that would include:
       A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to 
     strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets.
       A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign 
     capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise 
     development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term 
     investments.
       New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti-
     monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from 
     dominating industries.
       New rules on global patents that would keep the patent 
     system from blocking the access of Third World countries to 
     development, knowledge or health care.
       New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks 
     that failed last year, would include development countries 
     and respect local laws.
       More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing 
     countries to impose capital controls to protect their 
     economies.
       A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to 
     encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental 
     laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised 
     voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel, 
     the toy company.
       The leading industrial nations already are considering new 
     global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP 
     report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they 
     be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations.
                                  ____


               Introducing H.R. 772, ``HOPE for Africa''

                  (By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.)

       To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated 
     business, investment and trade that gave us slavery, 
     colonialism and widespread human and economic exploitation, 
     today we introduce H.R. 772, ``The HOPE for Africa Act of 
     1999,'' based on Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and 
     Empowerment as the basis for a new respectful and mutually 
     beneficial human and economic relationship.
       Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment 
     programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse. 
     This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands 
     of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and 
     tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic 
     regimes; and economic and political instability.
       We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade. 
     We are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists. 
     By introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a 
     new principle that should underlie every trade bill in the 
     United States--that the benefits of trade must be shared 
     widely by the majority of the common working people in every 
     participating society, not just benefit the business and 
     financial interests of an elite few.
       We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our 
     business development and trade provisions are more expansive 
     than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average 
     African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to 
     organize for their own protection and economic security; has 
     the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can 
     produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so 
     business development and economic growth can be sustained 
     indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be 
     able to work their way out of their poverty and 
     underdeveloped condition with dignity.
       The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies 
     that can be embraced by both working Americans and working 
     Africans because it raises the living standards of both. It 
     does not raise some African living standards at the expense 
     of lowering some American living standards. It is also good 
     for long-term business development and economic investment 
     because average workers on both continents will be able to 
     buy the goods and services that they produce and, in the 
     process, build a fairer and more perfect economic world.
       First, H.R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to 
     economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation 
     is built on the principles and goals developed by African 
     finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization or 
     African Unity, and with input by African workers' 
     organizations such as COSATU in South Africa.
       Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's 
     crushing $230 billion debt--unconditional, comprehensive debt 
     forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20 
     percent of sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt 
     service, few resources are left to devote to development and 
     urgent local needs.
       Third, H.R. 772 addresses the AIDS crisis by replenishing 
     and targeting assistance from the Development Fund for Africa 
     for AIDS education and treatment programs; making it U.S. 
     policy to assist Sub-Saharan African countries in efforts to 
     make needed pharmaceuticals and medical technologies widely 
     available; and prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine 
     African intellectual property and competition policies that 
     are designed to increase the availability of medications. 
     Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, 83 percent of AIDS 
     deaths have occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa.
       Fourth, H.R. 772 restores Africa's budget line item for 
     foreign aid with a set guaranteed amount, not to decline 
     below 1994 levels. This would restore parity for Africa with 
     U.S. foreign aid treatment of other vital regions. Currently, 
     Africa is the only region not a line item in the budget.
       Finally, President Clinton says we must put a new and human 
     face on trade--and I agree. But the new face must be based on 
     a new foundation. The policies regarding Africa that the 
     Congress sets now will deeply affect the economic future of 
     the continent and, thus, the future of the African people for 
     decades to come. With such high stakes, it is vital that we 
     get the initial policy right. With this in mind, I submit 
     H.R. 772, which has the broad-based support of African and 
     U.S. development, trade and economic experts and also 
     organizations in Africa and the U.S., representing the 
     interests of the majority of the people who will be affected.
                                  ____


  A Human Face on the Global Economy--The HOPE For Africa Act of 1999

                 (By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.)

       President Clinton in his State of the Union Address said: 
     `` . . . trade has divided us, and divided Americans outside 
     this chamber, for too long. Somehow we have to find a common 
     ground on which business and workers and environmentalists 
     and farmers and government can stand together . . . . We must 
     ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually 
     benefit from trade--(applause)--a trade that promotes the 
     dignity of work, and the rights of workers, and protects the 
     environment . . . . We have got to put a human face on the 
     global economy. (Applause.)''
       I agree completely. However, the only piece of legislation 
     mentioned in the President's Address, and the first trade 
     bill being pushed by the administration, is the Republican-
     sponsored African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), H.R. 
     434--which is a continuation of the old face of trade.
       The new face of trade must be based on a new foundation. 
     That is why I introduced a Democratic alternative, H.R. 772 
     ``The Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment 
     (HOPE) for Africa Act of 1999.''
       The old face of the AGOA has been dubbed ``NAFTA for 
     Africa'' by the trade press, and represents the failed status 
     quo trade policy that has lost the support of the American 
     people and was rejected last fall by Congress. Like Fast 
     Track, the AGOA's chief sponsor is conservative corporate-
     oriented Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL).
       When this legislation was introduced last year, I called it 
     the ``Africa Recolonization Act'' and joined 185 of my 
     colleagues in opposing it. Opposition to the AGOA is 
     widespread in Africa. The Congress of South African Trade 
     Unions declared this bill worse

[[Page 16442]]

     than no bill at all. Indeed, South African President Nelson 
     Mandela declared the bill ``not acceptable to us'' in a joint 
     news conference with President Clinton.
       This bill is not the first time that developed countries 
     have sought to do business with Africa. Slavery and 
     colonialization were long-standing international commercial 
     policy with Africa, and the results are the desperate 
     poverty, environmental devastation and civil unrest plaguing 
     Africa today. There is a long history of U.S.-Africa economic 
     relations that must be overcome.
       My HOPE for Africa bill promotes sustainable, equitable 
     development in Africa, and fair and mutually beneficial trade 
     between our two regions. Specifically, HOPE represents the 
     new approach to international commercial policy that the 
     President says he is seeking: access for African countries to 
     U.S. markets; broad benefits to ordinary Africans; corporate 
     adherence to labor, human rights and environmental standards; 
     employment of African workers; promotion of African capital 
     accumulation and investment partnership; emphasis on 
     establishing small and medium-sized businesses in Africa; and 
     partnerships between Africans and Americans.
       HOPE provides for mutually beneficial trade by taking a 
     holistic approach to interlocking trade, investment, business 
     facilitation, debt relief and aid elements that are vital to 
     any successful economic relationship between sub-Saharan 
     Africa and the U.S. Indeed, the bill is based on the 
     principles of the Lagos Plan on economic development created 
     by the African finance ministers and the Organization of 
     African Unity.
       Moreover, HOPE includes the purchase, at the significantly 
     discounted market rate, and cancellation of African debt 
     which has a face value of $230 billion and annual debt 
     service that devours over 20% of all African export earnings. 
     Cancellation of this debt would provide a clean slate--and 
     working domestic credit markets and resources for education, 
     infrastructure and health--for African countries facing the 
     challenges of the global economy. HOPE also targets U.S. 
     foreign aid toward uses with broad public benefits, such as 
     the prevention and treatment of the AIDS epidemic ravaging 
     Africa. The AGOA does not even mention AIDS.
       The AGOA extends short-lived trade ``benefits'' for the 
     nations of sub-Saharan Africa. In exchange for these crumbs 
     from globalization's table, the African nations must pay a 
     huge price: adherence to economic policies that serve the 
     interests of foreign creditors, multinational corporations 
     and financial speculators at the expense of the majority of 
     Africans.
       Specifically, the AGOA requires sub-Saharan Africa to adopt 
     a range of policies straight out of the International 
     Monetary Fund's discredited play book. These policies include 
     cuts in spending on health care and education, orienting food 
     production away from meeting domestic needs and toward 
     exports, and divesting natural resources and precious public 
     assets to foreign investors. No other region's right to 
     economic self-determination is dismissed so cavalierly by 
     U.S. policy makers.
       AGOA provides no relief from Africa's crushing debt burden, 
     and does nothing to ensure that African workers and 
     businesses, as opposed to foreign corporations, will enjoy 
     the benefits of expanded trade.
       Whose interests will the AGOA advance? Look at the 
     coalition promoting it--a corporate who's who of oil giants, 
     banking and insurance interests, as well as apparel firms 
     seeking one more place to locate their low-paying sweatshops. 
     Some of these corporations are already infamous in Africa for 
     their disregard for the environment and human rights.
       Africa is a region of tremendous human creativity, vast 
     natural and cultural wealth, and enormous economic potential. 
     More than 750 million people live in sub-Saharan Africa, 
     compared to 250 million in the United States. The standard of 
     living for most of Africa's people has been falling. The 
     region's per capita income is less than $500 annually--versus 
     $752 in 1980 when the IMF first began to work its will on 
     African economic policy.
       How shall we overcome our exploitative history with Africa? 
     By the AGOA or by HOPE? It should be clear. AGOA ignores the 
     needs of nations it is ostensibly designed to assist. HOPE 
     embodies the priorities African nations themselves have 
     identified. HOPE represents the new approach which places the 
     needs of people ahead of narrow corporate interests and the 
     dictates of economic dogma. HOPE is the human face on the 
     global economy that President Clinton says he seeks.
                                  ____


                  The Trade Debate and HOPE for Africa

                        (By Robert L. Borosage)

       In 1999, the historic debate about US trade policy and the 
     global economy will once again be joined. Economic collapse 
     abroad and political opposition at home have shattered the 
     Washington trade consensus. In his State of the Union 
     address, President Clinton admitted as much, suggesting the 
     need for a new dialogue on trade.
       The first round of that debate will take place in African 
     trade policy. The HOPE for Africa Bill, introduced by Rep. 
     Jesse Jackson Jr. and co-sponsored by an ever-growing number 
     of House members, contains the principles of a new direction 
     for US trade policy generally. It contrasts starkly with the 
     Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which is essentially a 
     NAFTA for Africa. The following outlines the political 
     context and stakes of that argument.


                 I. THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS IS NO MORE

       As President Clinton has warned, the world is gripped with 
     the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. 40% of the world 
     economy is in recession. Millions of Asians have been thrust 
     into poverty. Russia has gone belly up. The contagion now 
     engulfs Brazil, and threatens Latin America's economies. With 
     West Germany in decline, Europe also now experiences 
     declining growth that could lead into a recession.
       Even in the United States, an island of prosperity in a sea 
     of trouble, the effects are being felt. Manufacturing 
     industries were in recession for much of last year. Exports 
     declined; the trade deficit has hit new and unsustainable 
     height. The most efficient steel plants in the world have 
     been forced to lay off thousands of steelworkers. Layoff 
     announcements last year were the worst of the 1990s. Even 
     Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan has warned of the 
     dangers posed by the soaring trade deficits and the global 
     crisis.
       While the international policy elite struggles to contain 
     the crisis and worries about its effects on globalization, it 
     is apparent that globalization is the source, not the victim 
     of the contagion. For over two decades, global corporations 
     and banks have forged a global economy. They wrote the rules. 
     Workers, consumers, and environmentalists were not invited to 
     the table. They systematically pushed to dismantle controls 
     over corporations, capital and currencies. The short term 
     pain was worth it, they argued, for we would all reap the 
     benefits of faster growth and global markets.
       Now the returns are in. The world is plagued, as Joseph 
     Stiglitz, chief economist for the World Bank has reported, 
     with financial crises of increasing severity and frequency. 
     Moreover, as a series of authoritative studies have 
     documented, the defensive measures adopted by countries to 
     avoid the crisis have produced far slower growth and greater 
     inequality.
       In the wake of the global crisis, this policy cannot be 
     sustained. Across Asia, countries are scrambling to protect 
     their people, to limit the brutal impact of speculative 
     tides.
       And in the United States, even at the height of the 
     recovery, most Americans remain skeptical about the benefits 
     of trade. The failure of the NAFTA accord reinforces those 
     attitudes. Over the last two years, a coalition of unions, 
     consumers, and environmentalists joined with isolationists on 
     the right to block fast track trade authority. As AFL-CIO 
     President John Sweeney has said, ``the Washington consensus 
     isn't even a consensus in Washington anymore.'' It is time 
     for a new direction.


                        II. THE CURRENT DEFAULT

       This reality is increasingly recognized in the rhetoric of 
     global leaders. Last summer, President Clinton warned the 
     World Trade Organization that the global economy had to work 
     for working families or it could not be sustained. He called 
     for a new effort to build core labor standards and 
     environmental protections into the global trading rules. 
     Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has called for a ``new 
     architecture'' for global finance. British Prime Minister 
     Tony Blair has gone further, suggesting the need for a new 
     Bretton Woods, presumably a systemic attempt to bring capital 
     and currency speculation under greater control. Billionaire 
     financier George Soros has demanded action to stave off what 
     he calls ``the capitalist threat.''
       Yet the bold rhetoric has not yet been reflected in policy. 
     The contrast between changing rhetoric and static policy 
     grows wider as the crisis continues to spread.
       The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act expresses this 
     inertia. Modeled on the NAFTA Accord, encompassing the harsh 
     preconditions that the IMF enforced on Asian countries (and 
     later admitted were excessive), it represents the failed 
     policies of the past, not the new direction for the future.


             iii. the emerging alternative: hope for africa

       The HOPE for Africa legislation, based upon extensive 
     discussions with worker, scholars and activists in the 
     African community, offers a small ``d'' democratic, 
     internationalist alternative to the NAFTA model. It provides 
     the beginnings of a new direction for US trade policy, and 
     responds to the president's call for a new dialogue on the 
     rules that should guide the global economy. Core elements 
     include;
       Debt relief to enable nations to pursue independent paths 
     to growth and development. In contrast, the Africa Growth and 
     Opportunity Act offers no relief from the crippling debt 
     burdens that force countries to open their economies, 
     dismantle controls on capital, sacrifice food crops for 
     export crops, and lock themselves in a constricting 
     development straight jacket. Yet the record shows that 
     countries do far better if they increase investment and 
     sustain democratic freedoms while pursuing their own course 
     to development.

[[Page 16443]]

       Secure access to aid targeted on human needs. Poor nations 
     need investment in education, health care, and other core 
     human needs. By providing a floor underneath aid levels and 
     by targeting human needs, HOPE for Africa provides nations 
     with a basis upon which to plan. This contrasts sharply with 
     the ``NAFTA for Africa'' model, which guarantees nothing and 
     will end up providing aid that will go to repay foreign 
     creditors.
       Preferential access to the US market, but only if the 
     countries choose to meet core human rights and environmental 
     standards. Countries that decide to adhere to their own 
     international commitments--to core international labor 
     rights, to environmental protections, respect for other human 
     rights--can gain preferred access to the US market. This 
     contrast sharply with the NAFTA-WTO model that protects 
     property rights but not labor rights, protects speculators 
     but not the environment. One would lift standards up; the 
     other would drive them down.
       Preferred access limited to companies that actually serve 
     to add employment, business opportunity and production within 
     Africa, as opposed to multinationals content to use Africa as 
     a transshipment point for goods made elsewhere.
       The contrast with current policy is apparent. Today the US 
     offers preferential access to its markets to countries 
     routinely, whatever their record on labor rights or 
     environmental protections. The ``NAFTA for Africa'' bill 
     sustains such preferences on the condition that nations 
     enforce IMF-like austerity and privatization dictates.


       iv. the coming political debate: no more business as usual

       With the first signs that the Asian nations may be emerging 
     from the global crisis and the hope that the Europe and US 
     will escape much of its impact, the temptation is to return 
     to business as usual. Already the Business Roundtable has 
     announced a public relations campaign to educate Americans on 
     the benefits of trade and the need for fast track trade 
     authority. The administration is pushing for a new round in 
     global trade talks, and possibly for China's accession to the 
     World Trade Organization. With the support of much of the 
     Wall Street-multinational corporate lobby and the 
     administration in hand, Republican leaders began this year 
     assuming that they could pass the ``NAFTA for Africa bill 
     quickly with bipartisan'' support.
       But as the growing support for the HOPE for Africa 
     alternatives shows, the old consensus cannot be put back 
     together again. Attempts to impose it will meet ever-greater 
     opposition at home and abroad. And if the US economy slows 
     and unemployment rises, the failure to define a new course 
     that works for working people may generate a harsh xenophobic 
     and nationalist reaction.
       HOPE for Africa points the way to a new direction, one 
     grounded in respecting independent national paths to 
     development and growth, while protecting core human values. 
     If frames a debate that is vital to working people a home and 
     abroad. It deserves more than a hearing. It deserves support 
     and passage.
                                  ____



                                                         PACE,

                                      Fairfax, VA, March 15, 1999.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 330,000 members of 
     PACE, the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 
     Workers International Union, I am writing to urge you to 
     support the HOPE for Africa Act, H.R. 772. This is the first 
     time in our collective memories that the House has considered 
     a bill that tries to ensure that any wealth generated by 
     increased trade is shared by workers in all affected 
     countries. The bill does so in part by including strong 
     workers' rights provisions. The HOPE for Africa Act contrasts 
     sharply with the African Growth and Opportunity Act, H.R. 
     434, which is almost identical to H.R. 1432, which passed the 
     House last year.
       The HOPE for Africa Act would expand trade between the U.S. 
     and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa more than the Growth 
     and Opportunity Act, but without damaging the U.S. economy. 
     It would do so by increasing market access for Lome Treaty 
     products, for which the U.S. is not a competing supplier. 
     HOPE would also shift apparel quota from China to Africa, 
     rather than adding additional imports to an already glutted 
     U.S. clothing market to the detriment of workers here. Most 
     importantly, HOPE includes strong language against 
     transshipment of goods and use of guest workers, both aimed 
     at seeing that its benefits accrue to African workers, rather 
     than to Asian producers.
       H.R. 772 does all of this without imposing the 
     counterproductive conditionalities of H.R. 434. Instead of 
     requiring African countries to reshape their economies to 
     serve U.S. investors, HOPE recognizes the right of African 
     countries to shape their own economic development plans.
       Finally, HOPE for Africa provides the financial assistance 
     that African nations will need to be able to participate in 
     the world economy. It restores the budget line item for 
     African aid. The failure of African Growth and Opportunity to 
     do this leaves Africa as the only region of the world with no 
     guaranteed annual level of American aid. HOPE also provides 
     relief from Africa's crushing $230 billion burden of foreign 
     debt. No debt relief is contained in the African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act.
       The House has a unique opportunity to forge a new consensus 
     on trade policy, one that serves workers as well as 
     employers. We urge you to become a cosponsor of the HOPE for 
     Africa Act, H.R. 772, and to work to enact it into law.
       Thank you for consideration of our views on this important 
     piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                             Paula R. Littles,

                                            Director, Citizenship-
     Legislative Department.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   March 30, 1999.
       Dear Colleague: I write to share with you a letter written 
     by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile 
     Employees (UNITE) on behalf of H.R. 772, the ``HOPE for 
     Africa Act.'' As you may know textile manufacturing jobs are 
     often transplanted to overseas markets with lax worker 
     protections and wage rates. Consequently, many working men 
     and women in America find themselves down-sized, outsourced 
     and left behind. Yet instead of taking a protectionist 
     position on international trade issues in Africa, UNITE has 
     chosen to support the ``HOPE for Africa Act'' because ``for 
     the first time in [their] collective memories,'' there is a 
     trade bill being offered that ``tries to ensure that any 
     wealth generated by increased trade is shared by workers in 
     all affected countries.'' If you would like more information 
     about the ``HOPE for Africa'' act, please contact me or have 
     staff contact my Legislative Director, George Seymore, at 5-
     0773 or [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                            Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                                        Unite!

                                                    March 1, 1999.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 250,000 members of 
     UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile 
     Employees, we are writing to urge you to support the HOPE for 
     Africa Act, H.R. 772. This is the first time in our 
     collective memories that the House has considered a bill that 
     tries to ensure that any wealth generated by increased trade 
     is shared by workers in all affected countries. The bill does 
     so in part by including strong workers rights provisions. The 
     HOPE for Africa Act contrasts sharply with the African Growth 
     and Opportunity Act, H.R. 434, which is almost identical to 
     H.R. 1432, which passed the House last year.
       The HOPE for Africa Act would expand trade between the U.S. 
     and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa more than the Growth 
     and Opportunity Act, but without damaging the U.S. economy. 
     It would do so by increasing market access for Lome Treaty 
     products, for which the U.S. is not a competing supplier. 
     HOPE would also shift apparel quota from China to Africa, 
     rather than adding additional imports to an already glutted 
     U.S. clothing market to the detriment of workers here. Most 
     important, HOPE includes strong language against 
     transshipment of goods and use of guest workers, both aimed 
     at seeing that its benefits accrue to African workers, rather 
     than to Asian producers.
       H.R. 772 does all of this without imposing the 
     counterproductive conditionalities of H.R. 434. Instead of 
     requiring African countries to reshape their economies to 
     serve U.S. investors, HOPE recognizes the right of African 
     countries to shape their own economic development plans.
       Finally, HOPE for Africa provides the financial assistance 
     that African nations will need to be able to participate in 
     the world economy. It restores the budget line item for 
     African aid. The failure of African Growth and Opportunity to 
     do this leaves Africa as the only region of the world with no 
     guaranteed annual level of American aid. HOPE also provides 
     relief from Africa's crushing $230 billion burden of foreign 
     debt. No debt relief is contained in Growth and Opportunity.
       The House has a unique opportunity to forge a new consensus 
     on trade policy, one that serves workers as well as 
     employers. We urge you to become a cosponsor of the HOPE for 
     Africa Act, H.R. 772, and to work to enact it into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ann Hoffman,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____


                          Middle East & Africa


  nigeria: oil in troubled waters--with a week to go before Nigeria's 
  election, Robert Corzine and William Wallis visit the turbulent oil 
                                 delta

       If only that were true. In recent weeks, dozens of young 
     men from the Ijaw tribe have been killed by Nigerian army 
     bullets as they demonstrated for a bigger share of the oil 
     wealth produced by foreign companies in the delta.
       Four years after the execution of the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa, 
     who campaigned for the rights of the delta's Ogoni people, 
     the region is again teetering on the edge of open rebellion 
     against the federal government in faraway Abuja.
       The conflict also threatens to divide the communities of 
     the delta, as young activists challenge the authority of more 
     cautious traditional leaders. Foreign oil companies such as 
     Royal Dutch/Shell, which operate on

[[Page 16444]]

     behalf of the Nigerian state, are already in the line of 
     fire. Militant groups have orchestrated kidnappings and 
     closed oil installations in the state of Bayelsa.
       Saro-Wiwa's militant message has been embraced by many of 
     the region's minority tribes. The Ijaw--Nigeria's fourth 
     largest tribe--have even resurrected Egbesu, their ancient 
     god of war, to support their cause. ``Egbesu Boys'' recently 
     marched into Yenagoa, the capital of Bayelsa, wearing only 
     black shorts and holding white candles in a peaceful protest. 
     But clubs can easily replace candles, and it was armed Egbesu 
     Boys who died in the fighting with soldiers in Yenagoa.
       Oil wealth is at the root of the tensions in the delta. 
     Nowhere in the world do so many of the world's poorest people 
     rub shoulders with some of its richest multinationals.
       In their reed huts and tiny canoes, the Ijaws are dwarfed 
     and encircled by towering gas flares and the pipelines that 
     criss-cross the meandering creeks and rivers of the delta.
       Canoes carved from local trees and designed for the placid 
     waters of the mangrove swamps are regularly tipped over in 
     the wake of orange speedboats ferrying oil workers to and 
     from installations.
       ``When you see Shell workers and the installations they 
     live in, and our swamp where the people are wallowing, you 
     cannot be happy,'' a youth leader says.
       Dragging his hand in the water from the side of a boat, he 
     collects a rainbow film of oil on his dark skin. He says it 
     is from an untreated spill. He is one of many young men in 
     the delta who believe that oil leaks from ageing pipes--and 
     not over-fishing--have choked the life from the once-fish-
     filled waters.
       In one incident, he recalls, a loose bolt in a connecting 
     pipe sent a 30-foot jet of oil over a village at the Santa 
     Barbara crossing. For 24 hours, it spewed out a thick layer 
     of oil, covering huts, fishing nets, cooking utensils and the 
     small periwinkle snails that substitute for fish if the catch 
     is poor.
       ``The only fish we can find here now are small and bony. We 
     call them `broke-marriage' because their flesh melts into the 
     soup and husbands accuse their wives of feeding it to another 
     man,'' says an old woman.
       Local resentment against oil companies has made large parts 
     of the delta no-go areas for foreign oil men, who risk being 
     kidnapped or attacked by angry villagers.
       ``Arresting oil company boats is one of the few ways the 
     Ijaw can gain the federal government's attention,'' says 
     Antony Ikonibo, paramount ruler of the Akassa clan, a 
     collection of 50 fishing villages and settlements near the 
     mouth of the Nunn River.
       In Khongo, the main village in Akassa, the signs of neglect 
     are everywhere.
       The jungle has reclaimed the high school, built by a 
     civilian government in the 1970s. Goats sleep in one of the 
     few classrooms still in use. In the evening, villagers gather 
     around a muddy pool that serves as the main water supply. 
     There is no electricity. Concrete slabs intended to protect 
     the village from floods lie abandoned on the riverbank, the 
     contractor having pocketed the money and abandoned the 
     project.
       Although the residents of the delta are united in the 
     demands for a long-awaited share of the oil wealth, the 
     emergence of militant groups and their increasingly 
     aggressive tactics have divided communities.
       ``If we're not careful, soon the traditional leaders will 
     be the target as it happened in Ogoniland,'' says Chief 
     Ikonibo.
       ``There they were appealing for calm but the youths thought 
     they were taking money [from oil companies] and so they 
     butchered them.''
       Many residents say it would be a tragedy if a struggle 
     directed against a remote and distant government claimed many 
     of its victims from within the neglected communities 
     themselves.
       But as one young man in Khongo noted: ``If a man from the 
     Delta is on the wrong side, he'll die like a fly.''
                                  ____



                                                  Transafrica,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 1999.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I am writing in strong support of the 
     Human Rights Opportunity Partnership and Empowerment for 
     Africa Act of 1999 (``HOPE for Africa Act''), soon to be 
     introduced by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. This bill would 
     promote sustainable economic development and democratic 
     governance in Africa as a means of securing for that 
     continent maximum socio-economic benefits from its myriad 
     economic relationships with the United States public and 
     private sectors.
       The Hope Act was developed over several months of meetings 
     with a variety of grassroots organizations, both African and 
     American. The Act, among other things: describes the status 
     of Africa at the dawn of the new millennium; cancels Africa's 
     official U.S. debt; addresses the role of sovereignty in the 
     conduct of mutually beneficial relations between nations; re-
     establishes a line-item for aid to Africa in the U.S. Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations bill, and strongly encourages 
     Export-Import Bank and OPIC involvement with small, female 
     and minority-owned businesses.
       Thus far, members who have announced their intention to co-
     sponsor the HOPE Act are:
       House Minority Whip, David Bonior (D-MI); Congressional 
     Black Caucus Chair, Jim Clyburn (D-SC); Congresswoman Cynthia 
     McKinney (D-GA); Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA); 
     Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA); Congressman Elijah 
     Cummings (D-MD); Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH); 
     Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI); Congresswoman Sheila 
     Jackson-Lee (D-TX); Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); 
     Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Congressman Lane Evans (D-
     IL); Congressman John Conyers (D-MI); Congressman George 
     Miller (D-CA).
       On March 11, 1998, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 
     1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a bill designed 
     to authorize new trade and investment policies towards sub-
     Saharan Africa. The Senate failed to pass companion bill S. 
     778.
       H.R. 1432 would have imposed on Africa the most harmful 
     conditionalities of the North America Free Trade Agreement 
     (NAFTA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Act, 
     like many structural adjustment programs, would have 
     bankrupted local African enterprises, increased Africa's 
     dependency on food imports, gutted vitally needed social 
     services, reduced government expenditures on health and 
     education, and widened the gap between rich and poor. Even 
     President Nelson Mandela, standing next to President Clinton 
     at an internationally televised press conference during 
     President Clinton's March 1998 visit to Africa, said the 
     following regarding H.R. 1432 in general, and its 
     conditionalities in particular:
       ``These matters are the subject of discussions and they are 
     very sensitive matters . . . This is a matter over which we 
     have serious reservations. This legislation to us, is not 
     acceptable.''
       Efforts to remove these harmful provisions from H.R. 1432 
     were rejected by the House Leadership.
       On February 2, 1999, Congressman Philip Crane (R-IL) 
     introduced H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, 
     in substantially the same form as H.R. 1432. However, H.R. 
     434 eroded H.R. 1432 in that language pertaining to 
     development assistance and human rights was deleted.
       By introducing the HOPE for Africa Act, Congressman Jackson 
     seeks not only to remove the damaging provisions of the Crane 
     bill, but more importantly to ensure maximum social, 
     economic, and political benefits for the nations of Africa as 
     they rightfully expand extant economic relations with the 
     U.S. public and private sectors.
       In the United States as in Africa, an educated and healthy 
     populace is vital to competitiveness in an increasingly 
     complex global marketplace. And, in Africa as in America, 
     labor and environmental standards should form part of 
     responsible public/private undertakings. The Jackson bill 
     recognizes this.
       The U.S. process of policy formulation--whether domestic or 
     foreign in focus--has never limited debate and discussion to 
     a ``single track.'' During our Congressional battle against 
     apartheid, for example, and later during the Congress's 
     efforts to restore democracy to Haiti, there were a plethora 
     of ideas and approaches, reflected in a number of different 
     legislative initiatives, as to how best to achieve these 
     important goals.
       The creation of a new and comprehensive economic policy 
     package towards Africa should be no different.
       U.S. criticism of the Soviet Union during the Cold War was 
     that forced adherence to the established ``party-line''--no 
     variation, no debate, no offering of alternate ideas--
     resulted in policies that ran counter to the long-term 
     interests of the then-Soviet people. If we do indeed wish the 
     people of Africa to benefit from the vast wealth and 
     potential of that continent, and from the ever-expanding 
     opportunities for US/Africa cooperation, we must--unlike the 
     Soviets--allow open and constructive debate on the best means 
     of doing so.
       I seek your leadership to ensure the passage of the HOPE 
     for Africa Act. Should you wish to discuss this matter 
     further, I would welcome your call at (202) 797-2301.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randall Robinson,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                 Women's EDGE,

                                                February 11, 1999.
       Dear Representative: Women's EDGE, a coalition of 
     international development organizations, domestic women's 
     groups, and individuals, is writing to express our concern 
     about the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act II (H.R. 434). We 
     oppose this bill, as currently written. Women's EDGE works to 
     give women and families around the world an economic edge. 
     Women's EDGE believes that H.R. 434 will harm, rather than 
     help, the majority of African citizens. We support the HOPE 
     (Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership, & Empowerment) for 
     Africa Act, sponsored by Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. 
     (D-Illinois) as that best opportunity to achieve sustainable 
     development in the Sub Saharan African (SSA) region.

[[Page 16445]]

       H.R. 434 aims to improve the livelihoods of African 
     citizens by pursuing an export-promotion strategy to the 
     exclusion of other methods. We are deeply disturbed that H.R. 
     434 contains no provisions for development assistance to 
     Africa. Women's EDGE believes that trade and aid are both 
     important policy tools for the U.S. to use to achieve its 
     diplomatic and economic aims. Furthermore, in order to truly 
     benefit African citizens, the U.S. needs to support basic 
     development needs such as basic education, education and 
     access to technology, and capacity-building efforts. By 
     laying the foundation for strong human capital development, 
     the U.S. will be aiding African citizens today and tomorrow. 
     In contrast to H.R. 434, the HOPE for Africa Act supports 
     restoration of annual aid to Africa at the 1994 level ($802 
     million) under the Development Fund for Africa and 
     prioritizes funding for basic human needs.
       Women must be central to any discussion of sustainable 
     economic development. A recent World Bank paper (No. 428) 
     stated that ``if Sub-Saharan Africa is to achieve equitable 
     growth and sustainable development, one necessary step is to 
     reduce gender inequality in access to and control of a 
     diverse range of productive, human, and social capital 
     assets. . . . Reducing gender inequality--a development 
     objective in its own right--increases growth, efficiency, and 
     welfare''.
       Trade policies must take women's social and work roles into 
     account and design policies that improve women's lives, 
     rather than increase their burden. Numerous studies have 
     shown that trade provisions affect women differently because 
     of the social roles that women play in most societies, as 
     well as the wage discrimination, job segmentation, and 
     cultural barriers women often face. While we commend the 
     authors of H.R. 434, for recognizing the importance of women 
     to economic development (Sec. 3), we are dismayed that there 
     are no provisions within the bill to facilitate women's 
     access to education, credit, capital, or technology in order 
     to increase their ability to become economically self-
     sufficient. Instead, many of the export-driven strategies 
     within H.R. 434 will serve to undermine women's businesses 
     and health.
       Some examples include:
       Micro-credit programs, which have gained strong support in 
     the U.S. Congress, are an avenue through which women have 
     been able to parlay small loans into thriving businesses 
     throughout SSA. However, in Zimbabwe, as trade was 
     liberalized, women micro-entrepreneurs were unable to compete 
     with the flood of cheap goods entering their country (AWEPON/
     DGAP, 1996).
       Susan Joekes' research has shown that in Sub-Saharan Africa 
     (SSA), a switch to export-promotion crops (non-traditional 
     agricultural promotion) has often diverted resources from 
     domestic consumption. Men have controlled the extra cash 
     earned from this strategy and the nutritional status of women 
     and children has declined. Falls in girls' school enrollment 
     has also been observed, reflecting the need to use additional 
     labor to meet domestic and export production.
       Women's EDGE has grave reservations about the impact of the 
     eligibility requirements on the poor in SSA, particularly 
     poor women. The eligibility criteria outlined in H.R. 434 
     calls for the restructuring of African economies. Past 
     experience has demonstrated that this sort of restructuring 
     has led to deep cuts in government health, nutrition, and 
     education programs. As a result, professional women who work 
     in the government (and are disproportionately concentrated in 
     these sectors) are displaced, and poor women see an increase 
     in the cost of health care, food, and education. Any eligi- 
     bility criteria should allow nations the necessary latitude 
     to ensure food security, adequate health care, and access to 
     basic education for its citizens.
       The HOPE for Africa Act, rather than using the ``cookie-
     cutter approach'' outlined in H.R. 434 to determine 
     eligibility, recognizes the need for self-determination for 
     African nations. The HOPE for Africa Act enables African 
     nations to pursue policies in the best interests of their 
     citizens and recognizes the different capacities, natural 
     resource base, and economic, social, and political needs of 
     each nation.
       Women's EDGE shares the concerns that other organizations 
     have articulated about the preoccupation of expanding the 
     textile industry in SSA, given that global trade rules will 
     end textile and apparel quotas in 2005. With China competing 
     for the textile market once the quotas are lifted, nascent 
     industries will be overwhelmed and it is likely that China 
     will become one of the sole suppliers of textiles for the 
     global economy. This strategy seems to be shortsighted as a 
     long-term development model for the region. The HOPE for 
     Africa expands the market access for African goods, while 
     protecting workers rights and the environment. Women's EDGE 
     also supports the HOPE for Africa contention that debt relief 
     must be an integral part of any policies aimed at improving 
     the livelihoods of African citizens.
       Women's EDGE urges you to oppose H.R. 434 and instead, 
     support the HOPE for Africa Act that includes development aid 
     and debt relief, and respects the sovereignty of African 
     nations.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ritu R. Sharma,
     Executive Director, Women's EDGE.
                                  ____



                                                  Sierra Club,

                                Washington, DC, February 10, 1999.

 Don't Trade Away Africa's Environment--Oppose the African Growth and 
 Opportunity Act (``NAFTA for Africa'') Support the HOPE for Africa Act

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Sierra Club's more 
     than half-million members, I urge you to oppose the African 
     Growth and Opportunity Act (``NAFTA for Africa'') and to 
     support the HOPE for Africa Act instead. Last fall Congress 
     defeated fast track legislation as the first step toward 
     forging a new, progressive trade policy that would guarantee 
     protections for working families and the environment 
     alongside any new trading privileges for business. The NAFTA 
     for Africa represents the failed status quo trade policy that 
     has lost the support of the American people and was rejected 
     last fall with the defeat of fast track. The HOPE for Africa 
     Act represents the first, bold step toward creating a new, 
     progressive trade policy for the twenty-first century.
       The NAFTA for Africa would pressure African countries into 
     handing over their minerals, oil, and timber to transnational 
     corporations by threatening to withdraw the low tariffs now 
     granted for African exports to the United States under the US 
     Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Without strong 
     environmental and labor standards, increased foreign 
     investment by transnational oil, mining, and logging 
     companies would destroy the natural resources--the farmland, 
     pure water, and forests--that the vast majority of Africans 
     depend on for sustainable development.
       The NAFTA for Africa would:
       encourage the kind of irresponsible and unaccountable 
     investment represented by Royal Dutch Shell's oil operations 
     in Nigeria's Ogonilnad. Shell has polluted the land and 
     water, destroying Ogoni farmland and spreading disease, while 
     propping up the country's military dictatorship with oil 
     revenues. The NAFTA for Africa would spur investment by 
     foreign mining and oil companies that have already displaced 
     thousands from their homes without recourse to law, ignored 
     Africa's weak environmental laws, and polluted the air, soil, 
     and water with mine wastes, mercury, and cyanide.
       increase tropical deforestation by foreign logging 
     companies in Central Africa, where deforestation rates 
     already exceed those of Brazil. In addition to destroying 
     forests that help to curb global warming and provide clean 
     water to Africa's farms and cities, industrial logging could 
     expose the African people to terrible disease risks. 
     According to The New York Times, the deadly Ebola virus was 
     recently unleashed in Zaire and Gabon after foreign logging 
     companies cut their way into untouched, primary forests, 
     exposing humans to the forest animals that harbor the 
     disease.
       harm Africa's ability to benefit from new foreign 
     investment by requiring cuts in corporate taxes and 
     government spending. With few options for taxes to support 
     needed public services, such essentials as public health and 
     education would almost certainly be slashed.
       In contrast, the HOPE for Africa Act would offer Africa a 
     partnership for equitable and sustainable development that 
     could serve as a model for a new, progressive American trade 
     policy. In place of the NAFTA for Africa's meager trade 
     benefits, HOPE for Africa would open the US market to the 
     wide variety of goods listed under the Lome Treaty in which 
     the US is not a competitor, would grant new access for 
     African textiles and apparel while protecting the rights of 
     workers and the environment, and would not set onerous, new 
     conditions for continued GSP preferences.
       In addition, HOPE for Africa would:
       provide comprehensive relief of Africa's crushing burden of 
     $230 billion in foreign debt. Debt relief would allow Africa 
     to re-direct its own resources toward priority development, 
     health, education, and environmental needs. And debt relief 
     would reduce the enormous pressure to recklessly exploit and 
     export the region's rapidly shrinking natural resources.
       provide adequate foreign assistance through the Development 
     Fund for Africa and through the US Agency for International 
     Development. Hope for Africa requires that such assistance be 
     spent in consultation with the intended beneficiaries, the 
     African people, and would be directed toward education, 
     micro-credit, health, environmental protection, and other 
     priority goals.
       ensure that foreign corporations operating in Africa adhere 
     to internationally recognized labor rights and to developed 
     country environmental standards. Hope for Africa would give 
     US citizens access to US courts to enforce these obligations.
       The Hope for Africa Act offers the opportunity to launch a 
     new, progressive trade policy in partnership with the African 
     people that promotes equitable and sustainable development 
     for all. The NAFTA for Africa offers only more of the same, 
     failed policies of the past. We urge you to support the Hope

[[Page 16446]]

     for Africa Act and to reject the NAFTA for Africa.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Carl Pope,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                      American Lands Alliance,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 1999.

 American Lands, Center for International Environmental Law, Defenders 
 of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Pacific Environment and Resources 
  Center and Sierra Club Urge Congressional Support for the Hope for 
                               Africa Act

       Dear Member of Congress: Yesterday, Representative Jesse 
     Jackson, Jr. and thirty other Members of Congress introduced 
     legislation that will help protect Africa's threatened native 
     forests.
       The HOPE (Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and 
     Empowerment) for Africa Act of 1999 (H.R. 772) is one of the 
     first international trade and investment bills that forest 
     activists can stand behind and endorse.
       Unique among trade legislation, the HOPE for Africa Act 
     includes strong environmental safeguards to ensure that 
     corporations operating in Africa and accessing the bill's 
     benefits act responsibly with respect to the local 
     environment. Specifically, the bill would:
       1. Deny U.S. market access to products that are produced in 
     a manner inconsistent with the environmental standards that 
     apply to similar operations in developed countries;
       2. Empower U.S. citizens to enforce provisions of the Act 
     in U.S. courts; and
       3. Provide adequate foreign assistance to Africa while 
     requiring that the assistance be spent in consultation with 
     the African people and be directed toward environmental 
     protection and other goals.
       On the other hand, The ``NAFTA for Africa'' bill, or the 
     Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 434), provides a 
     myriad of new rights to foreign corporations operating in 
     Africa while remaining completely silent on environmental 
     protections.
       The NAFTA for Africa bill would encourage the continuation 
     of logging practices that have led to the near deforestation 
     of Africa's frontier forests. According to the World 
     Resources Institute, in West Africa, nearly 90 percent of the 
     original moist forest is gone, and what remains is heavily 
     fragmented and degraded. In Central Africa, over 90 percent 
     of all logging occurs in primary forest, one of the highest 
     ratios of any region in the world. In Zaire, which contains 
     more than half Central Africa's remaining forests, many 
     tropical forests remain intact, in part because of the 
     nation's poor transportation system. The NAFTA for Africa 
     bill would mean open season on these endangered forests while 
     the HOPE for Africa Act would encourage forest protection.
       The HOPE for Africa Act would provide forests activists 
     with the opportunity to protect Africa's endangered forests 
     with support for environmental protection policies, financial 
     assistance and local input on sustainable practices while the 
     NAFTA for Africa bill would provide new rights to foreign 
     logging corporations without any consideration for forest 
     protection.
       We hope that you will listen to voices of forest activists 
     from across the country and protect Africa's remaining native 
     forests by supporting the HOPE for Africa Act and opposing 
     the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
           Sincerely,
     Antonia Juhasz,
       Director, International Trade and Forests Program, American 
     Lands.
     on behalf of:
     Brennan Van Dyke,
       Director, Trade and Environment Program, Center for 
     International Environmental Law.
     William Snape,
       Legal Director, Defenders of Wildlife.
     Mark Vallianatos,
       International Policy Analyst, Friends of the Earth.
     Doug Norlen,
       Policy Director, Pacific Environment and Resources Center.
     Daniel A. Siligman,
       Director, Responsible Trade Campaign, Sierra Club.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 7, 1998]

                             At What Cost?

                            (By Bob Herbert)

       It has a nice name, the ``African Growth and Opportunity 
     Act,'' and a clever slogan, ``trade not aid,'' but a bill now 
     before Congress is in fact an enormous benefits package for 
     thriving multinational corporations and a threat to the very 
     sovereignty of the sub-Saharan nations that sponsors of the 
     bill say they want to help.
       The bill narrowly passed the House in March, where it was 
     introduced and pushed hard by Representative Philip Crane, an 
     Illinois Republican who has referred to some developing 
     African countries and their leaders as ``retards.'' (A 
     spokeswoman told me on Friday that the Congressman had not 
     intended to offend anyone.)
       The sponsor in the Senate, which has yet to vote on the 
     measure, is Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. The bill 
     has the strong backing of the Clinton Administration, as well 
     as such giant corporations as Texaco, Coca-Cola and Kmart.
       The aim of the bill is to liberalize trade between the 
     United States and Africa. It would, among other things, allow 
     duty-free and quota-free exports to the U.S. for 10 years, 
     support the creation of a U.S.-sub-Sahara free-trade 
     agreement and encourage the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation to set up funds to stimulate private development 
     in Africa.
       But the bill also makes some demands. In essence, 
     participating countries would have to adhere to the harsh and 
     often inhumane requirements of the International Monetary 
     Fund. Thus, these underdeveloped and often very poor 
     countries would have to undergo a radical economic 
     restructuring that would include cuts in corporate taxes, 
     reductions in government spending and privatization of some 
     of their most valuable assets--mines, forests, harbors, oil 
     wells and the like--with the multinationals and other wealthy 
     foreign investors ready to snap them up at fire-sale prices.
       ``What does this mean to the people on the ground in these 
     countries?'' asked Randall Robinson, the president of 
     TransAfrica and an opponent of the Crane-Lugar bill.
       He noted that I.M.F. structural adjustment programs are 
     already under way in some African countries and studies of 
     those programs have shown disturbing effects. Ghana is one 
     example. It is cited as an I.M.F. success story. And yet, as 
     Mr. Robinson pointed out, public spending on education, 
     health and agriculture--in accordance with I.M.F. dictates to 
     limit spending--has been falling. Health care for the poor 
     has taken a particularly heavy hit, even though children are 
     dying in staggering numbers.
       Half of all deaths in Ghana in recent years have been of 
     children under 5, though that age group makes up just one-
     fifth of the country's population.
       In Senegal, under the guidance of the I.M.F., spending on 
     education has been cut. One might ask what sense this makes 
     in a country in which more than 65 percent of adults and 77 
     percent of all women are illiterate.
       From the point of view of the I.M.F. and the 
     multinationals, it makes economic sense.
       The trade bill also requires participating countries to 
     join the World Trade Organization, even though many African 
     countries have chosen not to join. The Organization for 
     Economic Development, a supporter of the W.T.O., has reported 
     that sub-Saharan Africa would be a loser under W.T.O. rules 
     because countries that import more food than they export 
     would inevitably be hurt by requirements to cut domestic 
     agriculture subsidies.
       This is not a small matter. Four in 10 Africans suffer in 
     some degree from hunger or malnutrition. Agricultural 
     subsidies can be a matter of life and death in such 
     populations.
       But the trade bill fashioned in Washington says simply: you 
     will join the W.T.O.
       Attempts to amend the bill--to modify the most onerous 
     requirements--have been beaten back. President Nelson Mandela 
     of South Africa has characterized the bill as ``not 
     acceptable.'' But most sub-Saharan leaders, faced with 
     desperately poor populations and desperately high 
     unemployment, have signed on. They appear to hope that in 
     some way, somehow, a trade agreement with the big boys, with 
     the United States and its great corporations, will alleviate 
     their economic suffering.
       It's a situation ripe for wholesale exploitation.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       The choice between the major provisions of two proposed 
     pieces of legislation with respect to U.S./Africa economic 
     policy--HOPE for Africa and African Growth and Opportunity--
     are contrasted below. This legislation will define U.S. 
     economic policy towards Africa for the foreseeable future. 
     HOPE stands for Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and 
     Empowerment.


          economic policy: self-determination or paternalism?

       African Growth and Opportunity rejects African nations' 
     right to self-determination by coercing them to adopt the IMF 
     economic development model which has already had devastating 
     consequences in the region.
       HOPE for Africa is based on the recognition that African 
     nations have the right to determine their own approach to 
     economic development.


                       trade benefits for africa

       African Growth and Opportunity's meager trade ``benefits'' 
     (the only benefits for Africa in the entire bill) are either 
     short-lived, illusory or redundant.
       HOPE for Africa offers broad market access for African 
     goods.

[[Page 16447]]




        benefits for african businesses, communities and workers

       African Growth and Opportunity contains no conditions that 
     African citizens or businesses benefit from the market access 
     provisions.
       HOPE for Africa aims to raise living standards and foster 
     capital accumulation in Africa.


                              debt relief

       African Growth and Opportunity provides no binding debt 
     relief whatsoever--despite the fact that Africa's crushing 
     $230 billion debt burden is a massive obstacle to economic 
     and social progress.
       HOPE for Africa provides for comprehensive debt 
     cancellation. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20 
     percent of Sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt 
     service, few resources are devoted to development and urgent 
     local needs.


                   sustainable development assistance

       African Growth and Opportunity fails to even restore the 
     budget line item for Africa aid eliminated in 1996--even 
     though U.S. assistance is at a historical low of .02 percent 
     of the U.S. GNP and Sub-Saharan Africa is now the only region 
     of the world with no guaranteed annual level of American aid. 
     The bill provides no safeguards to ensure that funds that are 
     allocated will be used to benefit African nations and African 
     economic development instead of U.S. corporations, for 
     instance seeking subsidies or government backing of 
     investment they were planning to undertake anyway.
       HOPE for Africa restores aid to Africa and ensures it is 
     used for Africa's benefit.


                            the aids crisis

       African Growth and Opportunity ignores the AIDS crisis, and 
     fails to even mention the word AIDS, much less allocate any 
     U.S. aid funding to combat the AIDS epidemic currently 
     enveloping the continent.
       HOPE for Africa addresses the AIDS crisis by replenishing 
     and targeting assistance from the Development Fund for Africa 
     for AIDS education and treatment programs; making it U.S. 
     policy to assist Sub-Saharan African countries in efforts to 
     make needed pharmaceuticals and medical technologies widely 
     available; and prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine 
     African intellectual property and competition policies that 
     are designed to increase the availability of medications.


               labor rights and environmental protection

       African Growth and Opportunity is silent on these issues.
       HOPE for Africa includes strong safeguards to ensure that 
     corporations operating in Africa and accessing the bill's 
     benefits act responsibly with respect to their employees and 
     the local environment.
                                  ____


Side-by-Side Comparison: HOPE for Africa (H.R. 772) and African Growth 
                     and Opportunity Act (H.R. 434)

       The Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment 
     for Africa Act (``HOPE for Africa Act'') H.R. 772 was 
     conceived and drafted by African and U.S. civil society 
     groups, economists, trade specialists and legislators to 
     address the real needs and concerns of sub-Saharan African 
     nations (hereafter SSA). It includes mutually beneficial 
     U.S.-Africa trade and investment opportunities--meaning that 
     African businesses and workers, not just U.S. corporations, 
     will enjoy the Act's broad trade benefits. It adopts a 
     holistic approach to the elements essential to ensuring a 
     mutually successful U.S.-sub-Sahara Africa economic policy, 
     including business facilitation, debt relief, aid and AIDS 
     prevention and treatment. The legislation enjoys broad 
     support of African labor, environmental and development 
     organizations, as well as their U.S. counterparts. It is 
     being promoted by a coalition of African-American clergy, 
     community organizations and leaders.
       In contrast, the ``African Growth and Opportunity'' Act 
     adopts the NAFTA formula for Africa: giving foreign 
     corporations broad new rights that will increase their 
     capacity to profit from control of African resources, while 
     doing nothing to ensure that benefits actually accrue to 
     African nations and people. This NAFTA for Africa legislation 
     also contains harsh eligibility rules that will force African 
     nations to alter their economic and social policies and laws 
     to suit the needs of foreign investors and the dictates of 
     the International Monetary Fund--despite the IMF's dismal 
     record in the region. NAFTA for Africa is supported by the 
     multinational corporate lobby and harshly criticized by 
     African and African-American community, church and 
     development groups. Nelson Mandela called the bill ``not 
     acceptable.''
       The choice between the two bills, whose major provisions 
     are contrasted below, will define U.S. economic policy 
     towards Africa for the forseeable future.


          economic policy: self-determination or paternalism?

       H.R. 434 rejects SSA nations' right to self-determination 
     by coercing them to adopt the IMF economic development model 
     which has already had devastating consequences in the region. 
     In order to qualify for the bill's narrow trade benefits SSA 
     countries must be annually certified by the U.S. President as 
     meeting a long list of U.S.-imposed, IMF-style conditions:
       Cutting government spending, such as further depriving 
     vital health and education services of desperately needed 
     funding; Cutting corporate taxes; Privatizing public assets 
     through divestiture and opening up most areas of their 
     economies to ownership and control by foreign multinationals, 
     such as mines, agricultural land and telecommunciations; 
     Abandoning economic development policies that nurture local 
     industry and enable it to compete globally; Joining the WTO, 
     where the OECD has said African nations will be the big 
     losers; and Adopting policies, like the abolition of price 
     controls, that will jeopardizing food security.
       H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa is based on the recognition that 
     African nations have the right to determine their own 
     approach to economic development.
       Rather than being conditioned on SSA nations' adopting a 
     one-size-fits-all economic model, the substantial benefits 
     provided (market access for a wide range of African products, 
     business facilitation, debt relief, development assistance), 
     are instead designed to provide SSA nations with the 
     resources and the freedom of maneuver necessary to pursue the 
     policies that are in the best interest of the majority of 
     their citizens, and
       The HOPE for Africa Act is modeled on the policy priorities 
     established in the Lagos Plan of Action drawn up by African 
     Finance Ministers in cooperation with the Organization for 
     African Unity.


                       trade benefits for africa

       H.R. 434's trade ``benefits'' (the only benefits for Africa 
     in the entire bill) are either short-lived, illusory or 
     redundant, and are conditioned on the discredited IMF-style 
     policies.
       Lifts existing quotas for Kenya and Mauritius and locks in 
     quota-free treatment for the rest of SSA for textiles and 
     apparel. This benefit is illusory, however, given that global 
     trade rules will end textile and apparel quotas in 2005, at 
     which point all countries who have invested in this industry 
     will be overwhelmed by the dominant producer: China
       In the interim, there are no meaningful safeguards to 
     ensure that ``African'' textiles and apparel exported to the 
     U.S. will actually be African in origin; weak transshipment 
     rules mean they may be shipped through Africa from third 
     countries such as China.
       The Generalized System of Preferences program for SSA 
     countries will be extended until 2009.
       All SSA countries are granted ``least developed country'' 
     benefits of the GSP program. It turns out that all but a 
     handful of the most economically developed African countries 
     already have been designated as qualifying for this 
     treatment.
       H.R. 772. HOPE for Africa offers expansive market access 
     benefits to African countries, including new benefits for 
     countries that enforce internationally recognized human 
     rights and labor standards.
       For the next five years before termination of the apparel 
     and textile quota system, HOPE for Africa lifts the quotas 
     now existing for Kenya and Mauritius and locks in quota-free 
     treatment for the other SSA countries, but ensures that such 
     goods will be produced Africa, by African workers, under 
     conditions that protect workers' rights.
       African countries will be granted quota-free, duty-free 
     U.S. market access for the broad range of goods listed under 
     the Lome Treaty in which the U.S. is not a competing 
     producer. Lome covers goods like bananas, certain minerals, 
     processed foods, and tropical products in which African 
     countries have an advantage.
       HOPE provides strong, enforceable protections against 
     transshipment.
       The Generalized System of Preferences program for SSA 
     countries will be extended until 2005.


               labor rights and environmental protection

       H.R. 434 denies trade benefits to countries engaging in 
     ``gross'' violations of human rights, but does not contain 
     meaningful, enforceable language on labor rights and is 
     silent on environmental issues.
       It denies benefits to countries engaging in ``gross'' 
     violations of human rights.
       It contains weak and unenforceable language with respect to 
     labor rights protections that major labor unions have 
     declared ineffective.
       It provides expansive rights and benefits to multinational 
     corporations operating in SSA, but requires nothing of them 
     with respect to the protection of the environment.
       H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa contains strong, enforceable 
     provisions denying benefits to human rights violators, as 
     well as strong, enforceable safeguards to ensure that 
     corporations operating in Africa benefiting from the bill act 
     responsibly with respect to their employees and the local 
     environment.
       It denies benefits to countries engaging in ``significant'' 
     violations of human rights.
       It denies U.S. market access to products that are produced 
     under conditions that violate internationally recognized 
     labor standards.

[[Page 16448]]

       It provides additional trade benefits for products of joint 
     ventures using the environmental standards the use in their 
     developed country facilities.
       It empowers U.S. citizens to enforce the labor, 
     environmental and other protections of the Act in U.S. 
     courts.


        benefits for african businesses, communities and workers

       H.R. 434 contains no conditions that African citizens or 
     businesses benefit from the market access provisions:
       It doesn't require companies to employ citizens of sub-
     Saharan nations. Already, Asian workers are being imported 
     into several African countries--where significant 
     unemployment already exists among Africans--to work at Asian-
     owned factories.
       It doesn't require investment or creation of jobs in sub-
     Sahara Africa. Rather, the weak transshipment rules allow 
     goods to be shipped through Africa.
       It applies a mere 20% value-added requirement for the GSP 
     program to SSA--lower than any other eligible region. This 
     reduces the likelihood of significant employment gains under 
     the bill.
       H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa aims to raise living standards 
     and foster capital accumulation in Africa. To this end, the 
     bill provides and requires:
       Additional trade benefits for companies with 51% African 
     equity participation.
       60% African value-added for goods to obtain the duty-free, 
     quota-free market access guaranteed by the bill.
       Companies benefiting from the trade preferences employ 90% 
     African workers.


                              debt relief

       H.R. 434 provides no debt relief whatsoever--despite the 
     fact that Africa's crushing $230 billion debt burden is a 
     massive obstacle to economic and social progress.
       HOPE for Africa provides for comprehensive debt 
     cancellation. With upwards of 20% of sub-Saharan nations' GDP 
     going to debt service, few resources are devoted to economic 
     development and urgent local needs.
       African debts have been repaid many times over, but the 
     vicious cycle of taking out new loans to pay the excessive 
     compound interest on the old loans ensures that its debt will 
     never be ``officially'' satisfied.
       HOPE for Africa calls for full cancellation of African 
     foreign debt, starting with the relatively small debt owed to 
     the U.S. government and covering IMF, World Bank and private 
     sector loans. By eliminating the principle--whose market 
     value is less than a single year's interest payments--HOPE 
     will remove the burden of servicing the debt.
       During the period of debt cancellation, HOPE for Africa 
     caps debt payments so that no African country is forced to 
     pay an amount exceeding 5 percent of its annual export 
     earnings toward the servicing of foreign loans (the same 
     percentage countries paid under the Marshall Plan).


                   sustainable development assistance

       H.R. 434 fails to even restore the budget line item for 
     Africa aid eliminated in 1996--even though U.S. assistance is 
     at a historical low of .02% of U.S. GNP and sub-Sahara Africa 
     is now the only region of the world with no guaranteed 
     American aid.
       H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa restores aid to Africa and 
     ensures it is used to benefit the majority of SSA people.
       Restores annual aid guarantee at the 1994 level ($802 
     million) under the Development Fund for Africa.
       Requires that assistance be dispensed in consultation with 
     African civil society, that it be directed to such vital 
     areas as women's programs, education, healthcare, HIV/AIDS 
     education and treatment, micro-credit, sustainable 
     agriculture.


                         business facilitation

       H.R. 434's business facilitation measures are not actually 
     targeted to SSA businesses.
       Targets $500 million in existing OPIC funds for projects in 
     sub-Sahara Africa, but does not target African businesses as 
     beneficiaries, nor does it require that such funds be 
     dispensed in consultation with African civil society.
       Provides no safeguards to ensure that any financing will be 
     used to benefit African nations and African economic 
     development instead of U.S. corporations, that for instance, 
     are seeking government backing of investment they were 
     planning to undertake anyway.
       H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa, targets investment financing for 
     desperately needed infrastructure projects to small, women- 
     and minority-owned businesses with majority African 
     ownership, ensuring that the projects are undertaken in an 
     environmentally responsible manner.
       It targets $500 million in OPIC funds for infrastructure 
     projects in SSA, including schools, hospitals, sanitation, 
     potable water and accessible transportation.
       It allocates 70% of the OPIC funding to small, women- and 
     minority-owned businesses with at least 60% African ownership 
     and $1 million or less in assets.
       It targets 50% of OPIC funds used for energy projects to 
     renewable or alternative energy.
       It requires environmental impact assessments to be 
     conducted and made public wherever relevant.
       It creates advisory boards to oversee new OPIC funds 
     (section 501) and Ex-Im Bank financing in SSA (section 502). 
     These boards will have private sector experts in human 
     rights, labor rights, the environment and development. Board 
     meetings will be public.


                            the aids crisis

       H.R. 434 ignores the AIDS Crisis. NAFTA for Africa fails to 
     even mention the word AIDS, much less provide any programs or 
     funding to combat the AIDS epidemic currently enveloping the 
     Continent.
       H.R. 772, HOPE for Africa addresses the AIDS crisis by:
       replenishing aid and newly targeting assistance from the 
     Development Fund for Africa, specifically to AIDS education, 
     prevention and treatment programs.
       making it U.S. policy to help sub-Saharan African countries 
     make needed pharmaceuticals widely available.
       prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine WTO TRIPS-
     legal African intellectual property and competition policies 
     designed to increase the availability of medications.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

       Page 69, strike line 9 and all that follows through line 18 
     on page 70 and insert the following:

     SEC. 11. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA EQUITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS.

       (a) Initiation of Funds.--The Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall, not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, exercise the authorities it has to 
     initiate 1 or more equity funds in support of projects in the 
     countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in addition to any existing 
     equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the 
     Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Structure and Types of Funds.--
       (1) Structure.--Each fund initiated under subsection (a) 
     shall be structured as a partnership managed by professional 
     private sector fund managers and monitored on a continuing 
     basis by the Corporation.
       (2) Capitalization.--Each fund shall be capitalized with a 
     combination of private equity capital, which is not 
     guaranteed by the Corporation, and debt for which the 
     Corporation provides guaranties.
       (3) Types of funds.--One or more of the funds, with 
     combined assets of up to $500,000,000, shall be used in 
     support of infrastructure projects in countries of sub-
     Saharan Africa, including basic health services (including 
     AIDS prevention and treatment), including hospitals, potable 
     water, sanitation, schools, electrification of rural areas, 
     and publicly-accessible transportation in sub-Saharan African 
     countries.
       (c) Additional Requirements.--The Corporation shall ensure 
     that--
       (1) not less than 70 percent of trade financing and 
     investment insurance provided through the equity funds 
     established under subsection (a), and through any existing 
     equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the 
     Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act, are 
     allocated to small, women- and minority-owned businesses--
       (A) of which not less than 60 percent of the ownership is 
     comprised of citizens of sub-Saharan African countries and 40 
     percent of the ownership is comprised of citizens of the 
     United States; and
       (B) that have assets of not more than $1,000,000; and
       (2) not less than 50 percent of the funds allocated to 
     energy projects are used for renewal or alternative energy 
     projects.
       Page 70, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 
     20 on page 73 and insert the following:

     SEC. 12. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND EXPORT-
                   IMPORT BANK INITIATIVES.

       (a) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--Section 233 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(e) Advisory Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Board shall establish and work 
     with an advisory committee to assist the Board in developing 
     and implementing policies, programs, and financial 
     instruments with respect to sub-Saharan Africa, including 
     with respect to equity and infrastructure funds established 
     under section 11 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The advisory committee established under 
     paragraph (1) shall consist of 15 members, of which 7 members 
     shall be employees of the United States Government and 8 
     members shall be representatives of the private sector.
       ``(B) Appointment.--The members of the advisory committee 
     shall be appointed as follows:
       ``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives 
     of the private sector and 1 member who is an employee of the 
     United States Government.
       ``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are 
     employees of the United States Government.

[[Page 16449]]

       ``(C) Additional requirements.--Of the 8 members of 
     advisory committee who are representatives of the private 
     sector--
       ``(i) at least 4 members shall be representatives of not-
     for-profit public interest organizations;
       ``(ii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in development issues;
       ``(iii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in human rights issues;
       ``(iv) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in environmental issues; and
       ``(v) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in international labor rights.
       ``(D) Terms.--Each member of the advisory committee shall 
     be appointed for a term of 2 years.
       ``(3) Meetings.--
       ``(A) Open to public.--Meetings of the advisory committee 
     shall be open to the public.
       ``(B) Advance notice.--The advisory committee shall provide 
     advance notice in the Federal Register of any meeting of the 
     committee, shall provide notice of all proposals or projects 
     to be considered by the committee at the meeting, and shall 
     solicit written comments from the public relating to such 
     proposals or projects.
       ``(C) Decisions.--Any decision of the advisory committee 
     relating to a proposal or project shall be published in the 
     Federal Register with an explanation of the extent to which 
     the committee considered public comments received with 
     respect to the proposal or project, if any.
       ``(4) Environmental impact assessments.--The Corporation 
     shall carry out environmental impact assessments with respect 
     to any proposal or project not later than 120 days before the 
     advisory committee, or the Board, considers such proposal or 
     project, whichever occurs earlier.''.
       (b) Export-Import Bank Initiative.--Section 2(b)(9) of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(9)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(9) For purposes of the funds allocated by the Bank for 
     projects in countries in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in 
     section 17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act):
       ``(A) The Bank shall establish an advisory committee to 
     work with and assist the Board in developing and implementing 
     policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to 
     such countries.
       ``(B) The members of the advisory committee shall be 
     appointed as follows:
       ``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives 
     of the private sector and 1 member who is an officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government.
       ``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are 
     officers or employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(C)(i) At least half of the members of the advisory 
     committee who are representatives of the private sector shall 
     be representatives of not-for-profit public interest 
     organizations.
       ``(ii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall be a representative of an organization with expertise 
     in development issues.
       ``(iii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall be a representative of an organization with expertise 
     in human rights.
       ``(iv) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall be a representative of an organization with expertise 
     in environmental issues.
       ``(v) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall have expertise in international labor rights.
       ``(D) Each member of the advisory committee shall serve for 
     a term of 2 years.
       ``(E)(i) Members of the advisory committee who are 
     representatives of the private sector shall not receive 
     compensation by reason of their service on the advisory 
     committee.
       ``(ii) Members of the advisory committee who are officers 
     or employees of the Federal Government may not receive 
     additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their 
     service on the advisory committee.
       ``(F) Meetings of the advisory committee shall be open to 
     the public.
       ``(G) The advisory committee shall give timely advance 
     notice of each meeting of the advisory committee, including a 
     description of any matters to be considered at the meeting, 
     shall establish a public docket, shall solicit written 
     comments in advance on each proposal, and shall make each 
     decision in writing with an explanation of disposition of the 
     public comments.
       ``(H) The Bank shall complete and release to the public an 
     environmental impact assessment with respect to a proposal or 
     project with potential environmental effects, not later than 
     120 days before the advisory committee, or the Board, 
     considers the proposal or project, whichever occurs earlier.
       ``(I) Section 14(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act shall not apply to the advisory committee.''.
                                  ____


                         Amendment to H.R. 2415

                   Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

       Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

   TITLE VIII--INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR COMPETITION LAW RELATING TO 
 PHARMACEUTICALS OR OTHER MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN 
                               COUNTRIES

     SEC. 801. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR COMPETITION LAW RELATING 
                   TO PHARMACEUTICALS OR OTHER MEDICAL 
                   TECHNOLOGIES.

       No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
     Department of State may be used to seek, through negotiation 
     or otherwise, the revocation or revision of any intellectual 
     property or competition law or policy of a sub-Saharan 
     African country that is designed to promote access to 
     pharmaceuticals or other medical technologies if such law or 
     policy, as the case may be, complies with the Agreement on 
     Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
     referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)).
                                  ____


                   Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

       Page 92, after line 17, add the following:

     SEC. 20. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT FUND 
                   FOR AFRICA.

       (a) In General.--Section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2294) is amended by inserting before the 
     first sentence the following: ``There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this chapter for fiscal year 2000 
     and each subsequent year an amount not less than the amount 
     appropriated to carry out this chapter for fiscal year 
     1994.''.
       (b) Additional Requirement.--Amounts appropriated under the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations established under the first sentence of 
     section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2294), as added by subsection (a), shall be appropriated to a 
     separate account under the heading ``Development Fund for 
     Africa'' and not to the account under the heading 
     ``Development Assistance''.
                                  ____


                   Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

       Page 41, after line 16, insert the following:

                TITLE I--TRADE AND INVESTMENT PROVISIONS

       Page 41, line 17, strike ``SEC. 2'' and insert ``SEC. 101'' 
     (and redesignate each subsequent section accordingly and make 
     all appropriate technical and conforming changes).
       Page 92, after line 17, add the following:

  TITLE II--CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES

     SEC. 201. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.

       The Congress makes the following declarations:
       (1)(A) For the majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa to 
     be able to benefit from new trade, investment, and other 
     economic opportunities provided by this Act, and amendments 
     made by this Act, the pre-existing burden of external debt of 
     sub-Saharan African countries must be eliminated.
       (B) This fresh start will allow operation of local credit 
     markets and eliminate distortions currently hindering 
     development in sub-Saharan Africa.
       (2) The cancellation of debt provisions contained in this 
     title, and amendments made by this title, shall serve to help 
     establish a more level playing field on which sub-Saharan 
     African countries may move forward under the provisions of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 202. CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE UNITED STATES 
                   GOVERNMENT BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``PART VI--CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE UNITED STATES BY SUB-
                       SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

     ``SEC. 901. CANCELLATION OF DEBT.

       ``(a) In General.--The President shall cancel all amounts 
     owed to the United States (or any agency of the United 
     States) by sub-Saharan African countries defined in section 
     17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act as a result of--
       ``(1) concessional loans made or credits extended under any 
     provision of law, including the provisions of law described 
     in subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(2) nonconcessional loans made, guarantees issued, or 
     credits extended under any of provisions of law, including 
     the provisions of law described in subsection (b)(2).
       ``(b) Provisions of Law.--
       ``(1) Concessional provisions of law.--The provisions of 
     law described in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) Part I of this Act, chapter 4 of part II of this Act, 
     or predecessor foreign economic assistance legislation.
       ``(B) Title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

[[Page 16450]]

       ``(2) Nonconcessional provisions of law.--The provisions of 
     law described in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) Sections 221 and 222 of this Act.
       ``(B) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).
       ``(C) Section 5(f) of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act.
       ``(D)(i) Section 201 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 
     (7 U.S.C. 5621).
       ``(ii) Section 202 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5622).
       ``(E) The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et 
     seq.).
       ``(c) Termination of Authority.--The authority to cancel 
     debt under this section shall terminate on September 30, 
     2002.

     ``SEC. 902. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Reduction of Debt not Considered to be Assistance.--A 
     reduction of debt under section 901 shall not be considered 
     to be assistance for purposes of any provision of law 
     limiting assistance to a country.
       ``(b) Inapplicability of Certain Prohibitions Relating to 
     Reduction of Debt.--The authority to provide for reduction of 
     debt under section 901 may be exercised notwithstanding 
     section 620(r) of this Act.

     ``SEC. 903. REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 1999, and 
     December 31 of each of the next 3 years, the President shall 
     prepare and transmit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees an annual report concerning the cancellation of 
     debt under section 901 for the prior fiscal year.
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `appropriate 
     congressional committees' means--
       ``(1) the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and 
     the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

     ``SEC. 904. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990) for the cancellation of debt under 
     section 901, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.

     SEC. 203. ADVOCACY OF CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO FOREIGN 
                   GOVERNMENTS BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Advocacy of Cancellation of Debt.--The Secretary of 
     State shall provide written notification to each foreign 
     government that has provided loans, guarantees, or credits to 
     the government of a sub-Saharan African country (and such 
     loans, guarantees, or credits are outstanding) that it is the 
     policy of the United States to fully and unconditionally 
     cancel all debts owed by each such sub-Saharan African 
     country to the United States. In addition, the Secretary 
     shall urge in writing each such foreign government to follow 
     the example of the United States and fully and 
     unconditionally cancel all debts owed by sub-Saharan African 
     countries to each such foreign government.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare 
     and submit to the Congress a report containing--
       (1) a description of each written notification provided to 
     foreign governments under the first sentence of subsection 
     (a);
       (2) a description of the response of each such foreign 
     government to such notification; and
       (3) a description of the amount (if any) owed to the United 
     States by any foreign government opposing the United States 
     policy advocated pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 204. ADVOCACY OF CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       Title XVI of the International Financial Institutions Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 262c-262p-5) is amended by redesignating section 
     1622 as section 1623 and by inserting after section 1621 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1622. ADVOCACY OF CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Treasury shall instruct 
     the United States Executive Directors at the International 
     Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development to use the voice, vote, and influence of the 
     United States to advocate that their respective 
     institutions--
       ``(1) fully and unconditionally cancel all debts owed by 
     any country in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in section 17 
     of the African Growth and Opportunity Act) to such 
     institution; and
       ``(2) encourage each country benefiting from such debt 
     cancellation to allocate 20 percent of the national budget of 
     the country, including savings from such debt cancellation, 
     to basic services, as the country has committed to do under 
     the United Nations 20/20 Initiative, with appropriate input 
     from civil society in developing basic service plans.
       ``(b) Advocacy of Policy to Prevent Sub-Saharan African 
     Countries From Paying More Than 5 Percent of Annual Export 
     Earnings for Debt Service on IMF or World Bank Loans.--The 
     Secretary of Treasury shall instruct the United States 
     Executive Directors at the International Monetary Fund and 
     the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
     until their respective institutions have fully and 
     unconditionally canceled all debts owed to such institutions 
     by any country in sub-Saharan Africa (within the meaning of 
     subsection (a)(1)) to use the voice, vote, and influence of 
     the United States to advocate that their respective 
     institutions not be party to, and that no future loan from 
     their respective institutions be used to finance in whole or 
     part the implementation of, any agreement which requires the 
     government of any such country, during any 12-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this section or any 
     anniversary of such date, to pay an amount exceeding 5 
     percent of the annual export earnings of the country during 
     the year toward the servicing of foreign loans.
       ``(c) Advocacy Methods.--The Secretary of Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States Executive Directors at the 
     International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development to carry out such instructions 
     by all appropriate means, including by letter to the country 
     representative members governing bodies of their respective 
     institutions, and by requesting formal votes on these 
     matters.
       ``(d) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall submit to the Committees on International Relations and 
     on Banking and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate a report that contains--
       ``(1) a description of the response by foreign governments 
     to the policies advocated pursuant to this section;
       ``(2) the result of any votes taken pursuant to requests 
     made under subsection (c);
       ``(3) the amount (if any) owed to the United States by any 
     country opposing any such policy; and
       ``(4) a copy of the letter referred to in subsection 
     (c).''.

     SEC. 205. CANCELLATION OF DEBT OWED TO UNITED STATES LENDERS 
                   BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall submit to the Congress a report on the 
     amount of debt owed to any United States person by any 
     country in sub-Saharan Africa. The report shall specify the 
     amount owed to each such person by each such country, the 
     face value and market value of the debt, and the amount of 
     interest paid to date on the debt.
       (b) Acquisition of the Debt by the United States.--Not 
     later than September 1, 2000, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall acquire each debt obligation owed to any United States 
     person by any country in sub-Saharan Africa. It is the sense 
     of the Congress that the price at which such an obligation is 
     acquired should be the market value of the debt obligation as 
     of January 1, 1999.
       (c) Debt Cancellation.--On the acquisition of a debt 
     obligation pursuant to this section, the debt obligation is 
     hereby canceled.

     SEC. 206. STUDY ON REPAYMENT OF DEBT IN LOCAL CURRENCIES BY 
                   SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       Section 603 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained 
     in section 101(d) of division A of the Omnibus Consolidated 
     and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) the viability and desirability of having each 
     indebted country in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in section 
     17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act) repay foreign 
     loans made to the country (whether made bilaterally, 
     multilaterally, or privately) in the currency of the indebted 
     country; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The matters described in subsection (e)(4).''.

     SEC. 207. ALLOCATION OF PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL BUDGETS OF 
                   SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR BASIC 
                   SERVICES.

       The Secretary of State shall encourage the government of 
     each sub-Saharan African country to allocate 20 percent of 
     its national budget, including the savings from the 
     cancellation of debt owed by the country to the United States 
     (pursuant to part VI of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     as added by section 202 of this Act), to other foreign 
     countries (as called for in section 203 of this Act), to the 
     International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development (as called for in section 1622 
     of the International Financial Institutions Act, as added by 
     section 204 of this Act), and to United States persons (as 
     called for in section 205 of this Act), for the provision of 
     basic services to individuals in each such country, as 
     provided for in the United Nations 20/20 Initiative. In 
     providing such

[[Page 16451]]

     basic services, each such government should seek input from 
     appropriate nongovernmental organizations.

     SEC. 208. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO LEVEL OF INTERIM 
                   DEBT PAYMENTS PRIOR TO FULL DEBT CANCELLATION 
                   BY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, prior to the full and 
     unconditional cancellation of all debts owed by sub-Saharan 
     African countries to the United States (pursuant to part VI 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section 
     202 of this Act), to other foreign countries (as called for 
     in section 203 of this Act), and to United States persons (as 
     called for in section 205 of this Act), each sub-Saharan 
     African country should not, in making debt payments described 
     in the prior provisions of law, pay in any calendar year an 
     aggregate amount greater than an amount equal to 5 percent of 
     the export earnings of the country for the prior calendar 
     year.
                                  ____


                   Amendment to H.R. 434, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

       Page   43,   line   22,   strike   ``(a)   In General.--''.
       Page 44, line 2, strike ``gross'' and insert 
     ``significant''.
       Page 44, beginning on line 3, strike ``and has'' and all 
     that follows through line 22 on page 48 and insert a period.
       Page 58, line 5, strike ``to the United States--'' and all 
     that follows through line 18 and insert the following: ``to 
     the United States from Kenya and Mauritius, respectively, not 
     later than 30 days after the country demonstrates the 
     following:
       ``(A) The country has adopted an efficient visa system to 
     guard against unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel 
     goods and the use of counterfeit documents in accordance with 
     the provisions of this Act. The Customs Service shall provide 
     the necessary technical assistance to Kenya and Mauritius in 
     the development and implementation of the visa system 
     described in the preceding sentence.
       ``(B) Not less than 90 percent of employees in business 
     enterprises producing the textile and apparel goods are 
     citizens of that country, or any 2 or more sub-Saharan 
     African countries.
       ``(C) The cost or value of the textile or apparel product 
     produced in the country, or any 2 or more sub-Saharan African 
     countries, plus the direct costs of processing operations 
     performed in the country or such countries, is not less than 
     60 percent of the appraised value of the product at the time 
     it is entered into the customs territory of the United 
     States.''.
       Page 58, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 5 
     on page 59 and insert the following:
       (2) Other sub-saharan countries.--The President shall 
     continue the existing no quota policy for each other country 
     in sub-Saharan Africa if the country is in compliance with 
     the requirements applicable to Kenya and Mauritius under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1).
       Page 61, after line 10, insert the following:
       (e) Treatment of Tariffs.--The President shall provide an 
     additional benefit of a 50 percent tariff reduction for any 
     textile and apparel product of a sub-Saharan African country 
     that meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     subsection (c)(1) and that is imported directly into the 
     United States from such sub-Saharan African country if the 
     business enterprise, or a subcontractor of the enterprise, 
     producing the product is owned by citizens of 1 or more sub-
     Saharan African countries who control not less than 51 
     percent of such business enterprise.
       Page 61, after line 10, insert the following:
       (f) Additional Enforcement.--A citizen of the United States 
     shall have a cause of action in the United States district 
     court in the district in which he or she lives or in any 
     other appropriate district to seek compliance with the 
     standards set forth under subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     subsection (c)(1) with respect to any sub-Saharan African 
     country, including a cause of action in an appropriate United 
     States district court for other appropriate equitable relief. 
     In addition to any other relief sought in such an action, a 
     citizen may seek three times the value of any damages caused 
     by the failure of a country or company to comply. The amount 
     of damages described in the preceding sentence shall be paid 
     by the business enterprise (or business enterprises) the 
     operations or conduct of which is responsible for the failure 
     to meet the standards set forth under subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of subsection (c)(1).
       Page 61, line 11, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       Page 62, strike line 1, and all that follows through line 
     18 and insert the following:
       ``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--(i) The 
     President may provide duty-free treatment for any article 
     described in clause (ii) that is imported directly into the 
     United States from a sub-Saharan African country.
       ``(ii) An article described in this clause is an article 
     set forth in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), or an article 
     set forth in the product list of the Lome Treaty, that is the 
     growth, product, or manufacture of a sub-Saharan African 
     country that is a beneficiary developing country, if, after 
     receiving the advice of the International Trade Commission in 
     accordance with subsection (e), the President determines that 
     such article is not import-sensitive. This subparagraph shall 
     not affect the designation of eligible articles under 
     subparagraph (B).''.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the 
bill--H.R. 434. Three-hundred-and-eighty years ago our nation's first 
trade policy landed 19 Africans in Jamestown, VA. 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 this nation's first African trade policy.
  As I told a delegation from Gabon that came to visit me in 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's rare--almost never--that I stand in 
opposition to a bill sponsored by Mr. Rangel, a man who I've known and 
looked up to virtually all of my life and for whom I have the utmost 
respect and admiration. We both want what's best for Africa.
  Today the weight and eyes of history are upon us. After centuries of 
getting it wrong--through slavery, exploitation, as pawns in a Cold War 
and neglect--it is incumbent upon us to get this new policy right.
  Why am I opposed to the rule and opposed to AGOA?
  Indeed, a dozen of my Democratic colleagues offered some 20 
amendments--all of which were rejected except for four, only one of 
which is not a non-binding sense of the Congress resolution.
  These amendments--which this restrictive rule would keep us from 
considering--did two things that are vital:
  Cutting out the AGOA terms that would cause damage--make things 
worse--for the majority of people in Africa and/or the U.S. If the AGOA 
were simply not good enough--because some important aspect was missing 
for instance, that would be one thing--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 action.
  These are the provisions--mainly contained in AGOA's section 4--that 
led a broad array of African labor, religious, anti-hunger and other 
civic groups to reach out to me to develop an alternative to AGOA. 
We're talking about groups like COSATU--South African's mighty labor 
federation representing one in five South Africans. These are the 
provisions that have led to the formation of a coalition of African 
American bishops and ministers against AGOA--and led the community, 
labor, church, pro-Africa and other U.S. groups from TransAfrica and 
Organization US to the AFL-CIO, Teamsters and Sierra Club to make a 
vote against AGOA a high priority.
  AGOA's section 4 would impose conditions--unlike any we impose on any 
other trade partners--requiring African countries to make major changes 
in their domestic economic and social policies as a condition for 
qualifying for AGOA's ``benefits.'' And, we are not talking about NAFTA 
telling Mexico to enforce intellectual property rights because that is 
a trade issue. We are talking about legislation that has the U.S. 
President annually certifying each sub-Saharan African countries' 
compliance with a long list of U.S.-imposed conditions: like requiring 
cuts in domestic corporate taxes and domestic health and education 
spending, we are talking about forced privitization through divestiture 
of African nation's mineral and oil wealth and of its other public 
assets, we are talking about changes in domestic pharmaceutical policy 
that are in compliance with African countries' obligations in the GATT-
WTO.
  There simply is nothing like that dealing with any other region of 
the world. And worse, the U.S. government has said to Africa's 
Ambassadors: it is this or nothing. Yet, the ``this'' is simply an 
intensification of the IMF-NAFTA policies that have been a disaster for 
African countries--because many of the provisions in AGOA are beefed up 
version of the ``structural adjustment'' policies imposed on Africa by 
the IMF in the past decades that have led to growing infant mortality, 
lowering of real incomes, devastating cuts in basic health and 
education services. Now we have the World Bank and IMF admitting that 
this policy has failed in sub-Saharan Africa and then the U.S. would 
impose it unilaterally through AGOA?
  And that does not get to the damage to the U.S.: which is that AGOA's 
rules against transshipment through Africa from third countries like 
China are so weak that the 1.3 million U.S. workers in the textile and 
apparel

[[Page 16452]]

sector would face major job losses even as African workers obtain no 
benefits. No doubt that there would be a limited impact of the trade 
provisions of AGOA if what we were talking about was just African 
imports--but AGOA's transshipment rules--opposed by the U.S. and 
African textile and apparel unions and by the U.S. industry--are the 
same ones that failed in the island of Hong Kong with its small size 
and well-funded enforcement capacity. It is unnacceptible that U.S. 
textile and apparel workers--70% of whom are women and people of 
color--should lose their jobs while no new jobs are created in Africa 
because Chinese made goods are using the AGOA's trade benefits.
  The second thing the amendments this rule would keep out would do is 
add the vital missing elements to AGOA:
  You all know the list: AGOA simply fails to deal with the most basic 
issues that could make for a mutually beneficial U.S.-Africa policy:
  There's nothing binding HIV-AIDs, one of Africa greatest economic and 
social challenges.
  There is nothing binding to deal with the crushing $230 billion debt 
burden on the SSA countries.
  There are no basic labor, human rights, African-employment, 
environmental rules for corporations to meet in order to enjoy the 
special trade benefits--not even the pathetic NAFTA agreements.
  What is in AGOA and what is missing guarantees that passing this 
legislation on Africa is a worse outcome for most people in Africa than 
doing no U.S. legislation on Africa at this time. We all want to do 
something for Africa--but I doubt any of us want to do something bad to 
Africa.
  Make no mistake: what we do with this Africa legislation will be the 
U.S.-Africa policy for decades to come, there's not going to be some 
piecemeal approach where industry--satisfied by the new rights it has 
obtained over Africa's resources and economies--suddenly decide to 
independently push for debt relief, aid, AIDS-HIV policy. Come on 
folks, get real. We either do the right thing now, or we are 
responsible for inflicting damage in Africa to benefit some narrow 
special interests in the U.S. business world.
  We need to reject this rule and massive change AGOA. Absent that we 
need to defeat it. On behalf of the 72 Democrats cosponsoring the 
alternative approach to U.S.-Africa trade policy--the Human Rights 
Opportunity Partnership and Empowerment (HOPE) for Africa Act, I urge 
you to defeat this rule and keep hope alive.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, today Congress has before it 
legislation that will take a first step. Some would like it to be a 
giant step. Some say it is a baby step, but it is still a first step to 
a long standing inequality of U.S. trade policy with reference to 
Africa.
  The passage of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, will 
codify the first-ever trade policy with the nations of sub-Saharan 
Africa. It is a first step for sub-Saharan African nations who need a 
financial boost to their economies in order to improve the 
socioeconomic status of their citizens. It is a first step to trade 
with the most powerful economy in the world.
  It is a first step of American investment in Africa that will bring 
the same benefits it has brought to other developing nations, jobs, 
skill, training, and a degree of local sourcing and a transfer of 
technology and best practices that will benefit African business 
development.
  It is a shame that it has taken this long for a first step, but it is 
indeed a first step for the U.S. Trade policy toward other developing 
nations in Europe, Asia, and South America utilizing similar framework 
has led to significant economic development in those nations to the 
point where the GDP growth rate exceeded that of the U.S.
  To aid the development of Israel, the United States granted duty- and 
quota-free access for its textiles and apparel. It was the right thing 
to do for Israel; it is the right thing to do for Africa.
  In order to ensure that the African people are the major recipients 
of the benefits of this trade, this legislation contains the strongest 
anti-illegal transshipment language of any U.S. trade policy. The 
ambassadors from the African nations and the Organization of African 
Unity have endorsed this legislation.
  It is not for us to decide that they do not know what trade policy is 
best for their nations, just as we in America would not appreciate a 
foreign nation deciding what international policies are best for 
America.
  The sub-Saharan African nations that can participate in this trade 
policy need to be given the same opportunity and assistance to develop 
their economies that the U.S. has given to developing countries in 
Asia, Europe, and South America.
  Remember, we cannot have a second step without a first step.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is safe to 
say that everybody here wants to help Africa. Why is there a 
difference? It is because some do not want to do it on the backs of 
American workers, plain and simple. How could this be a good bill? 
Well, we could assure that there are no Asian transshipments. Can we 
accomplish that without U.S. Customs? Not with the track record 
currently.
  We could assure that the products were made in Africa. The agreement 
calls for 35 percent. Rule of origin. Can my colleagues imagine if we 
allowed Made in America, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), that say only 35 percent needs to be made here for them to 
have the label?

                              {time}  1145

  Clearly, we should look to increase our export opportunities to the 
African countries, but under this agreement, not a single item is 
required to have their tariffs lowered.
  I would challenge the Members, this is a trade bill, we will all 
agree. I think the name is the transshipment trade bill, but we have a 
trade bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my home State of 
Texas leads 15 other U.S. States in exporting goods to Africa, with an 
economic benefit totaling over $1 billion. So I rise in support of H.R. 
434, hoping that many of my colleagues will answer the call from 
African leaders, and specifically women.
  Women are very eager to possess the means to fully engage the global 
economy and become economically self-reliant. This bill helps the 
economic standing of women in Africa, as well as the U.S. Businesswomen 
in the Nigerian American community in my district are encouraging me to 
remind this body that H.R. 434 will help women in Africa to receive 
more entrepreneurial opportunities that are central to the eradication 
of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. This is why the African Association 
of Women Entrepreneurs supports this bill.
  Currently, women in Africa head about 40 percent of African 
households, and supply a significant percentage of the African work 
force. This is a great first step. They do not want a handout, they 
want trade. Vote for 434.
  Mr. Chairman, some opponents to H.R. 434 would have you believe that 
Democrats cannot think in terms of self-reliance or free-market 
opportunities in the context of helping individuals create a better way 
of life for themselves, domestically or abroad.
  However, I rise in support of H.R. 434, hoping that many of my 
colleagues will answer the call from African leaders, and specifically 
women who are eager to possess the means to fully engage the global 
economy, becoming economically self-reliant.
  This bill helps the economic standing of women in Africa and well as 
in the U.S.
  My home State of Texas leads 15 other U.S. states in exporting goods 
to Africa, with economic benefits totaling over $1 billion.
  Many of the women benefiting from this relationship between Texas and 
Africa are members of the large Nigerian-American community that I 
represent. They are committed to strengthening trading ties with their 
fellow sisters in Africa. Both sides want the passage of AGOA.
  Businesswoman in the Nigerian-American community in my district are 
encouraging me to remind this body that H.R. 434 will help women in 
Africa to receive more entrepreneurial opportunities that are central 
to the eradication of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.

[[Page 16453]]

  This is why the African Association of Women Entrepreneurs supports 
this bill.
  Currently, women in Africa head about 40% of African households and 
supply a significant percentage of the African workforce in the 
following industries: food processing, agricultural workforce, 
marketing and domestic food shortage.
  This shows that they are already proving their ability to work to 
take advantage of the benefits that would be provided by the passage of 
H.R. 434.
  Economic growth provided under AGOA also benefits women by generating 
increased resources for critical health care and educational needs.
  Therefore, as a nurse and businesswoman, I am acutely aware of the 
economic and health-related benefits that AGOA will create for women in 
Africa.
  I ask that my colleagues in this body not to deny women in Africa 
true empowerment, health access and economic rights. A vote against 
AGOA would do just that.
  During the debate on the 1964 civil rights bill in the Senate, a 
member of the body said of that legislation, ``There is nothing so 
profound as an idea whose time has come.''
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 434 is laden with great possibilities and is 
profound because it is an idea whose time has finally come. Women in 
Africa are waiting for us to turn this profound idea into law and give 
them the means to take control over their lives and livelihood.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill. Everyone in 
this room supports Africa and we want to do what is right for Africa, 
but by God, we do not have to do it at the expense of Uncle Sam.
  One of the previous speakers said this bill defines an African-made 
product as having 35 percent content. Look at our own laws on 
requirements for American-made products. I had an amendment before the 
Committee on Rules that said, make it 50 percent, in compliance with 
the Buy American Act of 1933, number 1; and number 2, require that 
those workers in Africa be African citizens.
  This is a blueprint for transshipment, quota-free, duty-free, 35 
percent content. For all of the Members who say that that is a smoke 
screen, the U.S. Customs Service has already cited six African nations 
for such transgressions.
  Here is the bottom line, Mr. Chairman. I represent the United States 
of America. We have a record trade deficit approaching a quarter of a 
trillion dollars a year. I am opposed to the bill because yes, it is 
good for Africa, it is bad for America. It is good for African 
industry, it is bad for American industry. It is good for African 
workers, it is bad for American workers. It is good for China, Asia, 
and the world, and it is bad for our Cotton Belt, it is bad for our 
Midwest, it is bad for our farmers, it is bad for our industry. It is 
bad for America.
  Let me say this, Congress will never help Africa, no matter how well-
intended, by ultimately hurting the United States of America. Mr. 
Chairman, I was elected to represent the interests of Uncle Sam. I 
believe Africa needs all the help we can give them, and we should, but 
we should not make it easy to continue to put our people in 
unemployment lines.
  The Democrat party had better look at the trade situation. They had 
better look at the trade situation, and they had better look at 
American jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of our efforts, but I oppose the 
substance and the mechanics of this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say at the outset, I am glad we are having 
this debate. We need to have more debates on this floor and in this 
Congress.
  I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from New York, for his 
concern and diligence on behalf of providing opportunities and jobs in 
an area that we have neglected for such a long time, and my friend, as 
well, from the State of New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Having said that, let me just say that I oppose this bill. If I could 
just address for a second why I oppose the bill, I want to talk about 
the workers in Africa. This bill I think in my heart patterns the 
mistakes that we made in Mexico.
  We were told when we did the North American Free Trade Agreement that 
not only would American workers benefit, but the Mexican worker would 
benefit. If we look at Mexico, the reality is that the wages since we 
passed that back in 1993 have gone down, from $1 an hour for the 
workers who belong to the maquilladora to 70 cents an hour.
  The reason that has happened, the reason the environment has been 
despoiled, the reason wages have gone down, the reason they have no 
rights to organize, work collectively, come together and bargain for 
their sweat and labor, is because the trade agreement did not ensure 
that. The trade agreement there ensured that we were protecting our 
intellectual property, we were protecting the corporate rights, but it 
did not protect the worker.
  I fear the same pattern here. I fear the same pattern here. Until we 
embody in these agreements the basic rights of working men and women, 
the same patterns will repeat themselves.
  We should be addressing that. We should be addressing the questions 
of medical emergency assistance on AIDS. We should be addressing the 
debt question, which would take an enormous burden, which would be 
dealing with Jubilee 2000. We should be reaching out and expressing our 
hope in that way.
  I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson) for bringing these issues up, bringing them to the floor, 
making us look at where we have been, where we are going, and what we 
are transplanting in terms of policy, and facing up to the reality that 
it is not just the corporations and the diplomats and the elite corps 
in these countries we ought to be concerned about, it is the working 
men and women who make the products who need to have the gains so their 
economies can flourish.
  I thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and I urge, I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I must oppose this bill. I oppose this bill 
because I am not simply talking about Africa as a business opportunity. 
I love Africa. I have spent 20 years of my life working on behalf of 
Africa. We cannot see this as a business opportunity, and one more way 
of sophisticatedly exploiting Africa.
  For those who love Africa as I do, help me stop Savimbi in Angola 
from running over dos Santos. They created Savimbi, the right wing did, 
along with Mobutu. They were the ones that supported de Klerk when we 
were trying to do something about getting rid of apartheid in South 
Africa.
  I am sitting, as the ranking member in the Subcommittee on Domestic 
and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, trying to do something about the IMF. Some of the 
same language from IMF and the World Bank on structural adjustment is 
in this bill, not wanting Africa to own its own infrastructure, wanting 
them to reduce its corporate taxes, wanting them basically not to be 
able to be in control of their railroads and their airports, because we 
want to have the ability to own it all when we come in on this trade 
bill.
  Yes, I am concerned about Africa. If Members love Africa as I do, 
help me make it a line item in the budget for foreign aid. Ensure that 
trade is not going to replace foreign aid. Do for Africa what we do for 
Israel. Do for Africa what we do for Russia. Give it most-favored-
nation status, the way we do China.
  I will tell Members how much they love Africa, they love it enough to 
want to give it to the corporations and allow them to do whatever they 
want

[[Page 16454]]

to do. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) loves Africa as 
I do, and he wants a good trade bill, but he has to amend it and make 
it right, I say to the gentleman from New York. This is not right.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me, and I appreciate the leadership the gentleman has shown in bringing 
this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
legislation. There is very little doubt that the Africa that we see 
today is vastly different from the Africa we knew of yesterday. It is 
truly remarkable that a continent that was once racked by the insidious 
evils of apartheid, of civil strife, of dependence and economic 
stagnation, is today on the eve and in the making of an economic 
renaissance.
  The engineers of this renaissance are not the Americans, they are not 
their former European colonial masters nor the Japanese. The engineers 
of this renaissance are the African themselves.
  Today there is a generation of leadership in sub-Saharan Africa, 
leadership dedicated not to the failed status development models of the 
past, but to market-based reforms and private sector growth. This new 
generation does not ask America for help, but for hope. They do not ask 
America for food, but for the tools to make their crops grow. They do 
not ask America for roads or schools or dams, but for the capital 
incentives to build their own.
  That is precisely what this bill would do. Through their actions, the 
African people have asked us to hear their call for hope, for 
opportunity, self-sufficiency, and sustainable economic growth. That is 
precisely what this bill would do. I urge my colleagues to heed this 
vote, to heed this call, and to vote yes on H.R. 434.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, because although it 
is well-intended, although it sounds good, it looks good, but in 
reality who does it really help? It really helps the multinational 
corporations that will slide into sub-Saharan Africa, pick up all of 
the goodies, put it in their pockets, in their wallets, and then move 
back. It has no protection for workers.
  I see nothing in this bill that says that companies must hire, train, 
upgrade citizens who are indigenous to the community. I commend all of 
those who worked on it, and I admit that it sounds good. I, too, love 
Africa. I am of African descent.
  But I can tell the Members, I do not want to help multinational 
corporations at the expense of the people in my district who have lost 
more than 130,000 jobs in the last 20 years, people who want to work, 
good people, but people who cannot find work because the jobs are gone.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let us talk about who is helped and who is hurt. Let me give some 
numbers consistent with what the gentleman just spoke of. He said 
130,000 jobs in 20 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported 
that the apparel and textile industries lost 134,000 jobs in 1 year, 
30,000 jobs in South Carolina in 12 months.
  This will be a national holiday in China when Members pass this bill. 
The Chinese are going to send through Africa material made in China, 
apparel goods made in China that we would not let exist 20 seconds over 
here with the work conditions.

                              {time}  1200

  There is going to be a stamp, ``Made in Africa'' but the slave labor 
comes from China, and it is going to put people from my district and 
the districts of my colleagues out of work. Sixty percent of the people 
in the textile industry and apparel industry are women, 35 percent are 
minorities, mostly African Americans. Where are they going to go to 
work?
  We are going to give China an opportunity to destroy our textile 
industry. The trade policies of both parties are absolutely abysmal. We 
are played for a fool. I would not let either parties trade my car.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, really, there are two themes here. One is 
the economic and one is the human. And sometimes we get confused with 
sort of the opinions on the economics and the facts on the economics.
  I am not going to get into the details because I disagree totally 
with some of the assumptions that have been made, that transshipments 
are going to deluge this country, it is going to open the doors to 
China. I do not think that is going to happen, but that is an opinion. 
We have the mechanisms to stop that.
  I think that regarding the question about textile jobs, if I were 
representing a textile State, I would probably be concerned, also. But 
when we take a look at the actual numbers and the impact this is going 
to have, it is not a big worry.
  I think as far as the human side, Sheila Sisulu, the Ambassador from 
South Africa, said this: If the first 5 years after apartheid were 
about ``nation-building, now it is about making hope a reality,'' and 
that is in terms of helping them economically.
  Frankly, if we cannot help Africa in this tiny little impact on this 
Nation, who can we help? I love Africa, but if everybody else loved 
Africa, why can they not support this bill?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill about China. 
Transshipments are illegal. This is a bill about trying to inject a 
measure of investment and opportunity into one of the most 
catastrophically depressed regions of the world.
  What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that our corporations, our 
workers cannot compete with this region? Clearly, that is a false 
assumption.
  This is a win for Africa, but it is also an important win for the 
United States. This is a region of 700 million people. U.S. agriculture 
exports into this area are a tiny fraction of that compared just to 
Europe alone. And the growth opportunity is extremely significant if we 
begin building the kinds of relationships that will flow from the trade 
that is established from this act.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for 
his leadership in advancing a bill that is going to offer a real 
measure of hope to a region of the world that so desperately needs it.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bad deal for Africans and 
Americans. It extends NAFTA. What can we expect if H.R. 434, ``NAFTA 
for Africa'', passes? We can expect even lower wages. If the experience 
of Africa is like that of Mexico, wages will fall. That is precisely 
what happened in Mexico where wages fell about 20 percent when NAFTA 
was enacted.
  We can expect even more powerful multinational corporations. Africa 
knows this well already. One oil company ferries troops to fire upon 
civilians who exercise their democratic rights to protest for a cleaner 
environment and higher wages.
  We can expect ever-higher trade deficits. Before NAFTA, the U.S. had 
a trade surplus with Mexico. After NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade deficit 
with Mexico. Why? Because NAFTA gave incentives to American companies 
to close their plants in America and reopen them in Mexico, then export 
from Mexico to the U.S. the goods they used to make in Michigan, 
Pennsylvania, and in my State, Ohio.
  Some say it is not for us to decide. Well, it is only the Congress 
who can decide. If this is a first step, it is a first step in the 
wrong direction.

[[Page 16455]]


  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 434, 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I have met with many of the 
presidents of Africa. I spoke with African ambassadors and diplomats, 
and all of them support the bill. I have not talked to one African 
representative that has been elected that did not support the bill and 
had a deep desire to increase foreign trade and investment.
  In addition, as an African American woman, I strongly endorse H.R. 
434 and believe that it is time that we pay attention to Africa and it 
is time that the United States and the world become color-blind to the 
continent and engage in trade with the Africans, just as we do with 
Asia and Latin America.
  Let us not forget that the Africans who were brought to this country 
unwillingly made a great contribution to the infrastructure of our 
country without a penny of reimbursements. We owe it to the African 
continent at least to have them as trading partners. It is about time 
we made a sea change in our perception of the African continent and do 
everything within our power as Members of Congress to promote a success 
for African people whose forefathers have given so much to this great 
country.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a Member who is new to the Subcommittee on 
Africa and has shown a great interest in the continent.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce) for yielding me this time. American workers are not 
impoverished by African nations that are impoverished themselves. 
American workers are not protected by having an impoverished African 
continent. American workers are not employed nor are their wages 
increased by businesses which are prevented from trading with Africa.
  There are those who apparently want to see the African continent and 
most of the nations hobbled by a socialistic enterprise that has really 
impeded their progress for many years. They want to see countries 
continue in this failed program of a government-controlled economy. 
This will not work. It has not worked. It will only lead to greater 
degradation of both the environment and the economic situation in 
Africa.
  There is another aspect of this, not just the economic consequences 
which I believe are positive for both American workers and African 
workers. With the end of the Cold War almost a decade ago, we are now 
faced with confronting a new war: a war on international terrorism. 
Likewise, Africa is a continent which can be welcomed by the United 
States or left alone, as some would have us do, and fall into the arms 
of terrorism, as we have seen these examples before in the past with 
the bombings of American embassies.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that with the passage of this bill 
we will eliminate the possibility of terrorist activities emanating out 
of Africa, but I am suggesting that it is a step in that direction. 
Because with the expansion of American exports in the way of trade and 
economies we are also exporting ideas. This is an extremely important 
point I think for our colleagues here to recognize.
  We are not only bolstering monetary gains for those involved, but we 
are helping to build up and strengthen the stability of a region in a 
world that is rampant with conflict and turmoil. It is time to take a 
stand, and I welcome the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa as trading 
partners.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), my good friend, for yielding me this time.
  I think it might be appropriate at this time to remind the gentleman 
of his promises that he made during the NAFTA debate that NAFTA would 
take this $3 billion trade surplus that we then enjoyed over Mexico and 
expand it. It has been expanded, but the wrong way. It has now gone 
into a $10 billion annual trade loss with Mexico, and all of those 
workers who were going to make enough money to go above that $1,000 per 
capita annual income to the point where they could order up American 
Kenmore washing machines and American-made Cadillacs, well, that has 
not come to fruition. In fact, their wages have gone down.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the point here. These free trade deals manifest 
a situation clearly in which the best of intentions end up with very 
bad results.
  I am impressed with the candor of the Chinese. It has been said on 
the floor that there are not going to be transshipments. Everybody 
seems to agree with that except the Chinese. This is a press release 
out of the Chinese Trade Ministry. 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'' and here is the Chinese Trade Ministry saying this, ``will 
allow us to circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese 
origin by European and American companies.''
  The Chinese are already laying out their blueprint for expanding 
their $40 billion trade surplus over the United States at the expense 
of American workers.
  Mr. Chairman, for those folks who think that African workers are 
going to partake in that, notice that they are not in this press 
release. They are not involved. This is going to be Chinese 
transshipment. It is going to accrue to the detriment of our trade 
balance.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their work on 
this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 434. The Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act offers us an opportunity to move forward our 
relationship with Africa.
  Right now, the African market is small, but it is destined to grow. 
We can lay the groundwork today for a stronger relationship in the 
future which will mean a stronger partnership in the future, especially 
when it comes to the issue of trade, when Africa becomes a vibrant and 
strong player in that market.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. I would prefer to see 
stronger provisions on the environment and on labor. But it needs to 
move forward. Partnership and progress are important elements in the 
U.S.-Africa relationship. 435 voting Members cannot in this House 
individually dictate the path and pace we will take to build that 
partnership and progress, especially as it relates to trade with 
Africa. But collectively we can send a message that we understand that 
in the future Africa will be an important trading partner with this 
country and move this measure forward and hope that in the future, when 
we have established that we are partners and friends with the African 
countries, that we deserve their trade and we deserve their business.
  I urge support for H.R. 434.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, Africa has long suffered from neglect and 
needs our help. But when it comes to trade in textiles and apparel, I 
am not at all convinced that this bill will help Africa, and neither 
are the sponsors. They insist that its impact on the textile and 
apparel industry in this country will be small, minimal. But it may 
hurt textiles and apparel workers in these industries in America 
without helping textile and apparel workers in Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, that is because by giving sub-Saharan countries duty-
free, quota-free access to our markets, this bill will invite textile 
and apparel manufacturers in Asia to make their goods in Asia but 
transship them through Africa and gain access to our markets

[[Page 16456]]

duty-free, quota-free, no restrictions whatsoever.
  Is this improbable? Not when we consider the volume of transshipment 
today. Customs estimates it is in the range of $6 billion to $12 
billion in textiles and apparel alone, and not when we consider the 
advantages. So if my colleagues want to help Africa but also help 
American workers, vote for the Bishop motion to recommit which will 
give Africa liberal treatment for access, but also protect our workers.
  The bill before us today may be well-intentioned, but it is deeply 
flawed. I urge you to consider some important facts before you vote.
  U.S. workers in the textile and apparel industry have lost their jobs 
faster than workers in any other industry over the past three years, 
and AGOA can only worsen the problem.
  These jobs have been lost faster, and in greater numbers, than jobs 
in the steel industry, which has been the beneficiary of strong 
bipartisan support in this session. Almost 700,000 jobs have been lost 
in the textile and apparel industry since 1981; 118,000 have been lost 
in the past 12 months. The steel industry has lost 16,700 jobs over the 
same period.
  If H.R. 434 becomes law, the U.S. textile and apparel industry--
staggering under a trade deficit that topped $65 billion last year--
will be hit even harder by imports coming in duty-free and quota-free 
from Africa. Neither Mexico under NAFTA, nor the Caribbean countries 
under CBI enjoy such access to our apparel markets. Even worse, these 
imports will not be made in Africa. They will be made in Asia and 
shipped through Africa and re-labeled to evade quotas and tariffs. Who 
will bear the brunt of these imports? 70% of U.S. apparel workers are 
women, and more than half are minorities, mostly African-American.
  Why have the jobs disappeared? A primary driver has been low-wage 
imports--in both fabrics and apparel--manufactured and assembled in 
nations where worker compensation and working conditions are 
deplorable. This fact, not blind protectionism, is the reason we 
continue to impose quotas and levy tariffs on imported textiles and 
apparel. This fact also drives our decision to keep tariffs in place 
even after quotas are phased out in 2005. H.R. 434, in contrast to this 
reasoned policy, would create half a continent's worth of cheap 
imports. It would also open up Africa as a massive platform for 
transshipment, because textile/apparel goods supposedly originating 
there could come to the U.S. duty-free and quota-free. In short, AGOA 
will speed the already alarming textile and apparel job losses here in 
the U.S.
  H.R. 434 will establish Sub-Saharan Africa as a massive platform for 
transshipment, accelerating these job losses.
  Eight countries in Africa have already been identified by the U.S. 
Customs Service as transit points for illegal shipments of Chinese 
textile and apparel goods. This abuse, known as transshipment, is taken 
to evade China's quotas. China exports $10 billion legally to the U.S., 
and Customs believes that China exports as much as $6 billion more to 
the U.S. illegally.
  H.R. 434 raised the reward for quota evasion by eliminating tariffs. 
Profits from transshipment will increase by the amount of tariffs 
evaded, which average 18% and run as high as 30%. The result: an 
explosion of transshipment through Africa, which will be all but 
impossible for Customs to police. Another result: rampant transshipment 
will take away the incentive for investment in African apparel 
production.
  Supporters of the Bishop-Myrick amendment are not asking that a wish 
list of legislative language be added to H.R. 434, as some today have 
suggested. We are asking, instead, that we take steps simply to keep 
the pace of these job losses to a level reasonably commensurate with 
the rate of new job creation. The language we have sought to add, would 
address this problem, and its absence makes this bill poison to 
hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans.
  I urge members to oppose H.R. 434.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am honored to say 
that, today, the vast majority of American civic, religious, and 
business leaders strongly support this bill. More importantly, all 43 
nations of sub-Saharan Africa have voiced unanimous support for this 
bold step towards stronger economic ties between the United States and 
Africa.
  We have also recognized that Africa's fragile democracies cannot 
sustain themselves without economic prosperity. We have turned our 
attention towards strengthening Africa economically through U.S.-Africa 
trade. The globalization of the economy marked by the integration of 
markets through the world has made Africa the new economic frontier for 
economic growth. Western Europe and Japan are aggressively pursuing new 
trade relations with African countries.
  This vast continent, with its enormous resources and human capacity, 
may become the world's economic engine well into the 21st Century.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act provides the United States with the mechanism to 
leverage stronger U.S.-African public and private partnerships while 
promoting African and American long-term economic interests.
  H.R. 434 is bipartisan. It provides a viable framework for 
modernizing Africa's trade infrastructure, strengthens relationships 
between the African and American private sectors, promotes African 
economic reform, and lays a foundation for future cooperation. H.R. 434 
is the beginning of an ongoing relationship between the United States 
and Africa.
  Much now has been said about the need for debt relief for Africa. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) has forcefully brought this point 
home to all of us. This bill does call for a deep debt relief for poor 
countries. We should, however, keep alive a discussion on this serious 
matter and seek to appropriately address the debt burden in an 
appropriate manner.
  However, today, we begin to build strong trade relations between the 
United States and Africa, as it is a critical part of Africa's economic 
recovery. And for that, I urge all of my colleagues for the passage of 
H.R. 434. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his 
leadership.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Subcommittee on Africa.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act. This bipartisan legislation is intended to 
fundamentally shift U.S. trade and investment policy toward sub-Saharan 
Africa, establishing as U.S. policy the creation of a transition path 
from development assistance to economic self-reliance for those 
countries in Africa truly committed to economic and political reform, 
market incentives, and private sector growth.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act helps not only those Nations 
in sub-Saharan Africa who have sought to improve their economies by 
adopting political and market reforms, it helps the United States, 
which will greatly benefit from expanded trade. Tearing down trade 
barriers and creating new markets for American products in Africa 
translates into more American jobs and opportunities right here at 
home.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa and an original cosponsor 
of this legislation, I want to commend all those who have worked so 
hard to bring the African Growth and Opportunity Act to the floor 
today. It is a well-crafted bill that deserves our overwhelming 
support. I urge an aye vote on this legislation.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have reflected on the 
debate that we have had this morning; and like many of my colleagues, I 
am gratified that the Halls of this Congress now raise their voices in 
a debate about Africa, acknowledging the fact that there is abject 
poverty in Africa but, as well, that there are energetic and active and 
enthusiastic business owners and women and those seeking employment who 
demand equality in the international trade world.

[[Page 16457]]

  The African Growth and Opportunity Act, with the leadership of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and now our guiding leader 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the leadership of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
combined together with Members recognizing that we must stand equal to 
the continent, or we will stand second to Europe.
  It is interesting to note that U.S. exports of sub-Saharan Africa are 
greater than Russia and the NIS and Eastern Europe, $6.7 billion. But 
the exports going that direction cannot be enhanced without the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act.
  As well, we cannot enhance the opportunity for businesses in Africa 
to trade with us. We then are treating them in a second-class manner.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is well knowledgeable 
that, as we ended World War II, it is very clear that the trade and 
investment helped rebuild Europe after World War II.
  Yes, I started traveling to Africa and visiting with Africans in the 
late 1960s and 1970s. There is abject poverty. But Africans today do 
not want us to define them with abject poverty.
  I want a debt relief. I want this Congress to have a debt relief 
vehicle. I am on a debt relief bill. But at the same time, we in 
America, acknowledging the fact that the cities of Greenville and 
Spartanburg and Anderson, South Carolina, exported $49 million to 
Africa, we in America cannot ignore $700 million.
  Therefore, it is important to pass the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act as, not only an opportunity for Africans, but an opportunity for us 
in America to be able to join and encourage small businesses, women, 
entrepreneurs, to develop capital infrastructure and provide the nexus 
of the engine of more jobs in America, in our urban and rural 
communities.
  There is something about doing business with people. In Africa, 
people want to do business. They want to be educated. They want to have 
good health care. They want to make sure they have good housing. Let us 
get them going and work with them in partnership. Let them tell China 
how to handle their business.
  I rise to support the passage of the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act. The time has come for this historic piece of legislation and the 
opportunities it presents, to become reality. The African Growth and 
Opportunity Act is good for America and good for Africa. For the first 
time, we will have a framework for using trade and investment as an 
economic development tool throughout Africa. Through this Act the 
United States seeks to facilitate market-led economics and as a 
consequence stimulate significant social and economic development 
within the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The Governments of Africa 
have articulated their eagerness to become fully integrated into the 
global marketplace, as a means to self-sufficiency and progression as 
the world moves into the next millennium.
  The Bill changes how America does business with Africa. It seeks to 
enhance U.S.-Africa policy to increased trade, investment, self-help 
and serious engagement. It seeks to move away from the paternalism 
which in the past characterized American's dealing with Africa. This 
bill encourages strategies to improve economic performance and requires 
high-level talks betwen the U.S. and African governments on trade and 
investment issues.
  The passage of this bill will begin a new era where Africans and 
Americans work together in a relationship of mutual respect as business 
partners providing for Africa a platform to integrate more fully into 
the global economy. The bill is not a substitute for our foreign aid. 
But it will allow our aid to Africa to be even more effective because 
it will be balanced with good fair trade policies and the positive 
results of foreign investments.
  Although this is the first such bill to specifically target the sub-
Saharan Africa, the market access provisions of this bill are not new 
to foreign policy. Developing countries around the world have 
traditionally relied on trade and investment centered development to 
stimulate growth and diversification of a competitive economic base.
  It is an approach that has been tested and proven by time. Trade and 
investment helped rebuild Europe after World War II. By opening U.S. 
market and encouraging receptive conditions for U.S. investments and 
exporters abroad, we were able to assist Asia in diversifying their 
export bases and by doing so become prosperous consumers of American 
products. It is time to apply these same incentives to the African 
marketplace.
  Why now? There are thousands of reasons Africa and the U.S. should 
work together for the 21st century. Obviously, Africa matters to 30 
million Americans who trace their roots there. But, Africa matters to 
all Americans. In volume terms, nearly 14 percent of U.S. crude oil 
imports come from Africa as compared to 17 percent from the Middle 
East. Despite areas of instability, Africa's economic trends generally 
remain positive. Africa has thus far weathered the global financial 
crisis, unlike many other developing economies.
  More than two-thirds of African nations continue to implement far 
reaching macroeconomic reforms, including liberalizing trade and 
investment regimes, reducing tariffs, rationalizing exchange rates 
ending subsidies, and stabilizing their currencies.
  U.S. exports of Sub-Saharan Africa rose 8.4% in 1998 to $6.7 billion. 
These exports support 133,000 U.S. jobs (based on the Department of 
Commerce estimates). U.S. exports to Africa are concentrated in high-
wage industries, such as aircraft and parts, construction machinery and 
equipment, computers, motor vehicles, and telecommunications equipment.
  Africa is an important market for U.S. farmers. In 1998, wheat and 
wheat flour was the 5th largest U.S. export product to sub-Saharan 
Africa with a value of $262 million.
  And with an estimated 700 million people, each a potential consumer, 
the African market is vast and ready for our products and services. 
Sub-Saharan Africa does matter, both economically and politically. We 
are part of a global community and Africa is certainly a member. It is 
time to allow Africa full membership!
  We must afford the same opportunities to Africa that we have already 
offered to other regions of the world. Africa has been a cooperative 
partner in addressing our concerns in combating such transnational 
security threats as crime, narcotics, terrorism and arms proliferation. 
The world can not find global solutions to the many issues without 
including Africa. We need a strong, economically stable continent that 
is our partner!
  Democratic countries that are at peace and enjoying prosperity make 
good partners. They abide by international law. They help respond to 
crisis. They protect their populations. They care about their 
environment.
  It is now, and always has been in our best interest to have our world 
made up of such countries. Some have stated that the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity act will undermine the sovereignty of African nations by 
imposing strict eligibility requirements on participating countries.
  In a press conference on July 9th, the African Diplomatic Corps took 
umbrage with this claim. Ambassador Edith Ssempala, ambassador from 
Uganda pointed out that ``it is poverty, not African Growth and 
Opportunity, which ``recolonizes'' Africa.
  The Africa Growth and Opportunity act does not undermine the 
sovereignty of any country because participation by Sub-Saharan 
countries in the Africa a trade initiative is entirely voluntary. A 
country can choose not to participate in the initiative if it believes 
compliance with the eligibly criteria is not in its interests. The 
ability of countries to make such decision is, in fact, a classic 
example of the exercise of sovereignty.
  Some cite labor rights abuses. There is a misconception that the bill 
fails to include strong labor preconditions for countries to gain 
eligibility for expanded trade benefits. The bill stipulates that 
eligible countries must also observe the existing statutory criterion 
on internationally recognized worker rights as a condition for 
eligibility for duty free benefits under the General System of 
Preferences (GSP) program.
  This includes 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.
  The African Growth and Opportunity act was developed in consultation 
with African leaders. It builds upon the economic reforms initiated by 
Africans for their countries.
  As stated by Roble Olhaye as Dean of the African Diplomatic Corps, 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act is an innovative bipartisan 
legislation designed to stimulate and strengthen the U.S.-Africa 
economic partnership

[[Page 16458]]

through ``incentives, trade liberalization, and [a] permanent forum for 
policy discussion and is of the utmost urgency''.
  I agree, as must we all--the time is now. Let's pass this bill!
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since 1995, 
over 375,000 American Textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. 
Many of these workers have been from the State of Georgia--a number of 
them from the Third District, which I represent. June headlines in 
Third District newspapers read, ``Thomaston Mills Drops Bombshell: 
Textile Firm will Close Local Plant, Leaving 145 Jobless'' and 
``Closing Will Affect All Taxpayers.'' In addition to closing its Third 
District facilities, Thomaston Mills simultaneously shut down factories 
and offices in a neighboring Georgia district and in Los Angeles and 
New York, costing another 555 Americans their jobs. Try to tell one of 
these 700 American citizens that it's a good idea to give more trade 
preferences to foreign textile producers without providing anything to 
American Producers in return. Thomaston Mills CEO Neil Hightower 
summarized the challenges textile mills are facing saying,

       We have been losing a lot of money on yarn and denim. The 
     Asian crisis has seriously devalued currencies there, and 
     they are being very aggressive in going after U.S. markets. 
     There is still a lot of denim used, but all the growth is 
     going to foreign suppliers.

  The workers, families, and communities of the Third District of 
Georgia are not ready to accept another trade deal that benefits 
foreign manufacturers and provides nothing for American workers.
  As textile manufacturers and many of my colleagues have argued for 
years, an African trade initiative that does not require beneficiaries 
to use U.S. yarn and cloth would seriously threaten domestic textiles 
producers by allowing massive transshipments of products through Africa 
from Asia. 807(a)-type ``yarn-forward'' and ``fabric-forward'' 
provisions would ensure first that U.S. textile workers and 
manufacturers would receive some benefit in exchange for trade 
advantages given to foreign producers. Additionally, such provisions 
ensure that African nations reap the benefits of increased trade, 
instead of trade predators such as China.
  Last year, the Africa trade bill faced considerable opposition in 
House floor votes on the rule, on the motion to recommit, and on final 
passage, because transshipping provisions in the bill were inadequate 
to prevent massive Chinese transshipments through sub-Saharan Africa. 
189 Members of the House (48 Republicans and 141 Democrats) opposed the 
rule last year. 192 Members (66 Republicans and 126 Democrats) 
supported the motion to recommit (which included 807(a)-type 
provisions). And, 185 Members (84 Republicans and 101 Democrats) 
opposed final passage of the bill. In spite of this broad opposition 
and in spite of the fact that this year's bill does not improve on the 
weak transshipping provisions from last year's effort, the Rules 
Committee chose not to allow floor consideration of an amendment that 
would have added yarn-forward and fabric-forward requirements to the 
bill.
  Expanding trading is very important to the American worker, but most 
workers understand that while the United States has aggressively 
lowered or eliminated many of its barriers to foreign products, most 
countries are still closed to U.S. products. Time and again, these 
workers have seen trade agreements result in lost jobs. I strongly 
support enhanced trade and economic development in sub-Saharan Africa, 
but not at the cost of American jobs. In representing the people of the 
Third District of Georgia, I must urge Members to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. I thank 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for his leadership, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce), and others who have worked diligently on this bill.
  As an African-American woman living in America, I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this legislation. Is it perfect? No, it is not. 
Is it a start? Yes, it is.
  There are over 750 million Africans living in sub-Saharan Africa who 
want this bill. The leadership corps here in Africa, the Ambassador 
Corps who sits here in our Chamber want this bill. The African 
presidents who are represented by their ambassadors want this bill.
  We have got a President for the first time in history of this country 
who has not only visited Africa but has put his support behind this 
bill.
  I am a member of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. For the 
first time in the history of this country, we will have an 
appropriation that begins to meet the needs of the African continent.
  The land is fertile. The people are ready. Its leadership is in 
place.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, when one only has 2 minutes, one can 
only say so much.
  But what I want to say here today, this is a first step. There has 
not been another before it. America is ripe for the building of Africa, 
and so are we as Africans in this country and Africans abroad.
  Let us support this bill. Let us work with the African Ambassador 
Corps and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs. Let me commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), our chairman, for having the sensitivity to increase the 
appropriation so that we can rise up and build on the African 
continent.
  I rise today in strong support of strengthening Africa's role in the 
international economic community. I rise today in strong support of the 
people of the second largest land mass on our planet. I rise today in 
strong support of the land of all of our biological origins. I rise 
today in strong support of economic self-sufficiency and sufficiency 
for Africa and her peoples. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 424, 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It is, indeed, long overdue for 
Africa to take her place at the international table of economic 
opportunity.
  On the pantheon of world history, Africa is a newborn. In the last 
decade, we saw the fall of one of the last old-line colonialist nations 
when apartheid ended in South Africa. The first African nation to gain 
a semblance of independence was the nation of Ghana in the mid 1950s 
under the late Kwame Nkrumah. Since then, many nations in sub-Saharan 
Africa have not struggled from outright colonialism, but the more 
surreptitious and sinister demon of neo-colonialism. What is neo-
colonialism? While many sub-Saharan African nations gained political 
independence, their economic purse strings were controlled by their 
former colonizers. This is neo-colonialism, something that we must 
never repeat in Africa or throughout the world. It is one of my goals, 
as a Member of Congress, to ensure that Africa becomes economically 
self-sufficient.
  I am proud and an original cosponsor of both AGOA and H.R. 772, the 
HOPE for Africa Act. It is my belief that these initiatives are not 
mutually exclusive, and I hope that some of the vital components of the 
HOPE for Africa are incorporated into AGOA to make it an even stronger 
bill.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act assists African nations in the 
often difficult transition from receiving developmental assistance to 
economic self-reliance through increased trade and investment 
opportunities. Economic development is promoted by establishing a new 
trade and investment partnership between the U.S. and the democracies 
of sub-Saharan Africa. There are many steps to promoting sustainable 
development. This initiative, which has strong bipartisan support, 
moves this process forward by promoting trade while supporting debt 
reduction and increased development aid for African countries.
  Let me point out some of the important and salient points regarding 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA):
  AGOA would increase U.S.-Africa high-level dialogue. AGOA creates a 
U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum to facilitate such 
high-level discussion on trade arrangements. The bill also improves 
private sector and non-governmental dialogue by encouraging U.S. 
private sector and NGOs to host annual meetings with their respective 
sub-Saharan Africa counterparts.
  AGOA supports debt relief by expressing the sense of Congress that 
the Administration should forgive concessional debt owed to the U.S. by 
the poorest sub-Saharan countries.
  AGOA expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation (OPIC), a corporation that I believe to be very 
effective in promoting exports,

[[Page 16459]]

should initiate more equity funds in support of sub-Saharan African 
countries, as well as revising the composition of the OPIC board of 
directors to require at least one of the eight presidentially-appointed 
directors to have extensive sub-Saharan Africa private sector 
experience.
  AGOA improves current workers rights. The trade benefits within this 
bill are extended under our Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), 
which contains workers protections. The GSP statute requires 
beneficiary countries to have taken or be taking steps to afford 
internationally recognized workers rights, defined as freedom of 
association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, 
prohibition against 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 health and safety.
  This bill expands trade opportunities by increasing access to the 
U.S. market for non-import sensitive goods and textiles. Of course, 
Africa must make continual progress toward achieving the bill's 
economic criteria, while maintaining the same requirements--as always--
for existing trade and aid benefits to Africa.
  I support trade and investment in Africa, and I hope you do too. I 
will be the first to acknowledge among my colleagues that while AGOA is 
not perfect, AGOA is a step in the right direction. For the first time 
in this century, Congress is taking real and positive steps toward 
ensuring that Africa is a fair trading partner with the United States. 
My colleague, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has a worthy bill, 
sections of which I hope can be incorporated within AGOA as it moves 
forward this Congress. I would personally like the canceling of even 
more African debt and requiring multinational companies in Africa to 
abide by U.S. environmental standards in Africa. I do believe, however, 
that AGOA is moving in the right direction by increasing the vital 
dialogue and interaction that is needed on all levels. This dialogue 
only helps the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa to learn about each other 
and mutually beneficial business practices and opportunities. It is 
time for Africa to move along the path to effective economic self-
sufficiency. H.R. 434 is a start on the path to true economic self-
sufficiency for Africa that can only improve the lives of her people.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of H.R. 434. The 
African Growth and Opportunity Act is a win-win for African and 
American workers.
  Africa is an untapped market of 700 million consumers for American 
goods and services. H.R. 434 will encourage African economic reforms, 
which will provide U.S. firms and workers with greater access to the 
growing economies of Africa.
  The U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa rose 8.4 percent in 1998 to 
$6.7 billion. These exports support over 100,000 U.S. jobs, based on 
the Department of Commerce estimates.
  Furthermore, U.S. exports to Africa are intensive in high-wage 
industries, such as aircraft and parts, construction machinery and 
equipment, computers, motor vehicles, and telecommunications equipment.
  Africa is also an important agricultural market for the United 
States. In 1998, wheat and wheat flour was the fifth largest U.S. 
export product to sub-Saharan Africa with a value of $262 million.
  This legislation requires the President to develop a plan to enter 
into free-trade agreements with sub-Saharan African countries and 
provides an opportunity for regular meetings with African officials to 
discuss trade liberalization.
  H.R. 434 expresses support for the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation's, OPIC's, creation of infrastructure and equity funds for 
projects in Africa.
  But this legislation also benefits the Africans themselves. For 
example, H.R. 434 establishes the U.S. trade policy with Africa.
  Again, I urge my colleagues' strong support for this legislation.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act. More so than ever before, we are 
seeing economic development in developing countries provide tremendous 
prosperity to folks for whom hope was once outside their grasp.
  This bill today will provide a very important tool to sub-Saharan 
African countries to help empower men and women and their communities 
to begin to support themselves and their families, begin to develop 
their own businesses.
  We spend a lot of time talking about how great our economy is, how 
good our ideas and values are, but we have got to go further. We have 
got to provide tools to countries so they can emulate our success. This 
bill is not just about a good idea. It is about a very important tool.
  There has been concern expressed about abuse and exploitation of 
workers. Those are valid concerns. We constantly balance those concerns 
as we foster our economy here. There are unions in these countries that 
will work to protect workers. There are important provisions in these 
bills.
  This bill will allow the President to decertify these preferences 
should there be abuses. This bill is balanced. We should support it. It 
will empower our friends in these very important countries.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of House Resolution 
434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I am an original sponsor of this bill. I traveled 
throughout Africa with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and others, and I spoke 
privately and individually to the leaders of Africa. They want this 
piece of legislation.
  We must realize there may be some other outside sources who may have 
some other benefits through the African Growth and Opportunity Act, but 
I say to my colleagues that there are not any that inherently have in 
them this investment in trade and arts, too, or any kind of 
development. The Rangel act has very sound policies in it, and there 
are things about it that will promote investment in Africa. Remember, 
this is the first time that this has been done. We have to take the 
first step.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this is a critical step. After we 
take this critical step, we can do some other things. But I ask my 
colleagues to please support the Rangel bill and challenge any notion 
that it is going to be bad for people. It is not going to be bad. There 
is only a 4 percent impact in the event this bill does pass.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and I would like to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership in 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  As we approach this next century, it is appropriate for us to atone 
for the mistakes and our failed commitment to adequately engage Africa 
in this century. As we move forward in the next century, it is 
important that we move legislation such as this which will allow us to 
expand trade and economic opportunities for Africans and Americans 
alike.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act would provide a foundation for 
economic growth and employment in sub-Saharan Africa by encouraging 
this economic engagement in expanded trade and investment. The African 
Growth and Opportunity Act is win-win legislation. It is a win for 
African nations struggling to move forward and integrate into the 
global economy. It is a win for the African people, who will benefit 
from the new jobs and economic growth that this legislation is certain 
to bring to their region. And it is a win for U.S. businesses and 
workers alike, who will benefit from a growing African economy and its 
increased purchasing power.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important 
legislation.

[[Page 16460]]


  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this continent has a long 
history with the continent of Africa, and invariably it has been one of 
exploitation.
  Generations ago, we used the African people, brought them to this 
country and enslaved them. And even after emancipation was granted, we 
continued to enslave them through a legal system that discriminated 
against them. We continued to exploit them to subsidize our 
agricultural economy. And then we used the African nations as 
surrogates in our Cold War with Russia.
  Well, now, today, because of the initiative of indigenous leaders on 
the continent of Africa, we are finally saying, ``Look, you are on an 
equal basis with us. We need you. You need us. Let us work together on 
a level playing field.'' They have come into their own.
  This should have happened generations ago, but we should not miss 
this opportunity today. This legislation is not patronizing. It is not 
exploitative. It is the right thing to do. Let us pass it unanimously.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in wholehearted support of H.R. 434, the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act, a landmark piece of legislation that is 
long overdue.
  I also want to applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and all of the others who have worked so 
hard through several Congresses to bring us to this day.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has come to the aid of many 
countries, some of which have not made the strides in democracy we are 
seeing in many parts of the African continent. Today, with very little 
impact on jobs in the U.S., we can begin a process that has the 
potential to turn Sub-Saharan Africa into a model of economic progress. 
Through enacting this important piece of legislation, we will also see 
a win for this country in terms of increased trade and, thus, more 
jobs, not less, as the charts next to me support.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to strongly support amendments which will 
address what would be a major obstacle to the success we envision 
through H.R. 434, that of AIDS in Africa, a pandemic which is 
destroying families and decimating the populations of many of the 
countries we seek to help. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this 
bill and ask my colleagues to join us in the effort to bring affordable 
medication and health care to the people of Africa and the rest of the 
world.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to thank publicly the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) for his out standing efforts in allowing us the 
opportunity to offer some critique to the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act.
  I also want to make it very clear that many of my colleagues have 
stood here and said that this is a first step for Africa. Many of us 
have been trying to raise the bar in this Congress about what an 
appropriate first step would be. Not just a first step, we need to take 
``the step'', the step that frees Africa and allows Africa to be an 
equal partner. We cannot do that if we use crushing debt as a basis for 
negotiating more favorable terms for U.S. corporations to grease the 
market for foreign investment in Sub-Saharan Africa without our 
standards and our values. Not just our money, we must also export our 
values in this particular instance.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I will attempt to conclude this discussion by saying I really think 
this is one of the finest hours that we have had in the House.
  We have had serious differences of opinion, but I think the 
overwhelming thought is that it has been too long that we not recognize 
the great potential of our great friends in the continent of Africa.
  A lot has to be said about the leadership provided by the President 
of the United States, but of course we also have to recognize that the 
former Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, was one of the first to come 
before the Ways and Means, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer) and the subcommittee chairman of that committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  And together, in working with the committees headed by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the leadership that we have had on both 
sides, working with the representatives of the African countries to be 
affected, I do not really think that we have ever had a stronger 
coalition to begin this gigantic first step to bring some equity in the 
relationship that we would have with those that have been neglected 
morally and economically.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends and colleagues for their support.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also commend the leaders in this fight: the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson); the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce); and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for the work 
that they have done.
  But I also wish to acknowledge, quickly again, the ambassadors from 
Africa who are here, and with this chart demonstrate what they have 
said what they want. The ambassador from Djibouti, who says we are 
sovereign and we would like to continue to have the support of this 
bill; and Mrs. Sisulu from South Africa, who said their country 
supports the bill, even under the late president of the country. Our 
good friend, Mr. Mandela, and Mrs. Ssempala from Uganda talked about 
Africa is interested in doing business. This is what they have said.
  So what I am saying, as I last week went to the funeral of Joshua 
Nkomo, one of the freedom fighters in Zimbabwe, who fought against the 
white regime of Ian Smith; and while I was in Zimbabwe people were 
coming up and saying, we are glad finally to see this bill come. And I 
remember the freedom fighters of Jomo Kunyata, Patrice Lumumba and 
people who fought many years ago, Julius Nyere, those men who fought 
for independence of that great nation, of that great continent; and the 
new leaders today of Thabo Mbeki and Mr. Chissano in Mozambique; and we 
can move on and on through the continent.
  As they were trying to get it moving forward, then came the Cold War, 
and our policies destroyed many countries in Africa. Our policies were 
based on U.S. policy towards Russia. So now, after 50 years of 
independence, let us give African leaders an opportunity. Let us 
remember W.E.B. DuBois, who was the first panAfricanist, and Dellums 
and Diggs, or Gray and Dellums, who fought against apartheid, and the 
late Congressman Diggs, the first chairman of the African committee; 
and let us remember our friend, Mickey Leland, who lost his life saying 
that we should feed the children.
  So, finally, we are here. We have seen peace coming to Sierra Leon, 
and Nigeria electing a new president, Eritrea finally coming to some 
accord. We are seeing the fact that Africa now has the opportunity to 
move forward with growth and development and opportunity. Yes, there 
are many problems in the continent. We need clean water, we need to 
eradicate the guinea worm and deal with river blindness, we need to 
have inoculations, but we also need to have jobs for people.

[[Page 16461]]

  This is the first step. And people criticize and ask why it is such a 
little step. Everyone knows that a trip of a thousand miles has to 
begin with the first step. Let us start that step; let us support the 
bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
let me open by expressing my appreciation to all that have been 
involved in the advancement of what to me is one of the more 
significant pieces of legislation that we have had before this body in 
quite some time.
  I think, with regard to some of the arguments that we have heard on 
the negative side, that there are a couple of points that need to be 
stressed and perhaps put into a better perspective than we have heard 
today. And this especially has to do with the question of transshipment 
and the threat of transshipment. This bill has the strongest language 
ever that we have had in any trade legislation to protect against 
transshipment.
  And I think it is important to recognize also that the U.S. Customs 
Service has not found Africa to be a significant source of any 
transshipment at all in all of our trade relations worldwide. And the 
International Trade Commission examined Sub-Saharan Africa textile and 
apparel production capacity and found that the elimination of tariffs 
and quotas, as provided in this bill, would have a negligible effect on 
the U.S. economy. Furthermore, the ITC estimated that African exports 
would not grow over the next 10 years to account for more than 3 
percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports.
  The World Trade Organization agreement on textiles and apparels will 
eliminate all textile quotas worldwide by the year 2005. The bill's 
textile provisions are intended to provide Africa with a necessary 
transition period to develop its textile and apparel sector and to 
prepare for global competition. Without these provisions, Africa will 
be left behind.
  And Africa, in terms of our trade relations with that continent, has 
been left behind. This bill is designed to terminate that and to open 
up that door and that window and to create improved relations for not 
just the people in the African continent, it improves conditions for 
Americans, too. It is a win-win proposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999. This important legislation would 
encourage expanded trade and investment between American companies and 
manufacturers in sub-Saharan Africa, while also providing a strong 
foundation of economic growth and employment for some of the poorest 
countries in the world.
  This bipartisan legislation would make significant progress in 
opening markets in key-sub-Saharan African countries. It will encourage 
greater U.S. investment in Africa, resulting in new jobs for African 
workers, and more jobs for U.S. workers and producers of goods and 
services. The U.S. will benefit by helping to build a consumer market 
for 700 million people. As African incomes increase, we will see a 
dramatic increase in U.S. exports. Today, more than 100,000 Americans 
are employed as a result of our trade with sub-Saharan Africa, and 
eight states have exported more than a billion dollars worth of 
products to sub-Saharan Africa over the last five years.
  Enactment of the African Growth and Opportunity Act is important for 
U.S. businesses to compete with the already established European 
businesses in Africa. The U.S. has trade agreements with almost every 
country in the world--Asia, Europe, Israel and Mexico. Our European 
business competitors have long understood the importance of investment 
in sub-Saharan Africa. During the 1990's, British and French 
investments were 300 percent to 200 percent higher, respectively, than 
U.S. investment in Africa.
  The United States has an important interest in a stable and 
prosperous Africa. This bill encourages African countries to continue 
fundamental reform in return for greater trade benefits, while 
providing protections for worker rights. As a result, this legislation 
will bolster African democracies, increase political stability and 
minimize the need for international humanitarian and disaster relief. 
By encouraging reform, supporting investments and increasing 
opportunity for trade, this legislation will stimulate the growth of 
the African private sector. One of the important provisions of this 
bill is the creation of OPIC-supported equity and investment funds to 
assist African entrepreneurs develop private sector enterprises. These 
funds will assist American companies seeking to establish a presence in 
the region, which will lead to long-term U.S. exports to the region.
  This bill is clearly not enough to rescue Africa's poorest countries. 
We should go further by considering H.R. 1095, a bill which I have 
cosponsored to accelerate debt relief for highly indebted poor 
countries including those in sub-Saharan Africa. It is my hope the 
House will do so soon as a compliment to this free trade bill. In fact, 
few of these countries have the infrastructure to effectively compete 
in the global economy. But these countries need some hope of moving 
beyond aid dependency toward market-based economic development. This 
can best be achieved by expanding trade and investment opportunities 
for the nations in sub-Saharan Africa. This bill is a modest, but 
important first step toward achieving the goal of full African 
integration into the global economy, while assisting the U.S. to expand 
and diversify our exports, create new jobs and continue the longest, 
most stable growth period in our history.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and all those who have spent so much time moving 
this historic legislation.
  Let me also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and commend him 
for the fine job he has done in doing that.
  Let me just try to answer some of the concerns. As trade has 
expanded, unemployment in the United States has gone down appreciably. 
We have the highest employment numbers we have had in decades, and part 
of this is because of the trade and engagement we have had. Our trade 
exports to Africa have been going up by 8 percent a year. And yet, the 
United States only has 4 percent of that market, only 4 percent of that 
market.
  This gives us an opportunity for win-win. It creates new jobs in the 
United States, and it will create new jobs in sub-Saharan Africa. And 
at the same time, it gives us tough language to combat illegal 
transshipment, the strongest language that we have seen to date. If 
there are violators, that country can be pulled out of the program and 
those who do so are severely punished under this act, with severe 
penalties.
  In terms of Africa's sovereignty, that issue has been raised. Let me 
reiterate that the African countries themselves, every one, supports 
this bill. This bill limits eligible countries to those who make 
progress with market-oriented economic reforms.
  There is a human rights abuse screen that we have put in this bill, 
and we took care of some of the labor concerns with the amendment 
offered by the ranking member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Now, when it comes to China, if anything, this bill has the potential 
of harming the Chinese textile industry, not helping it. Early this 
year, Karen Fedorko executive vice president of MAST Industries, 
testified to the Committee on Ways and Means that the bottom line is 
that, under this bill, Africa would become significantly more 
competitive and producers we currently work with in East Asia would 
shift their orders away from Asian vendors and towards some of our new 
contacts in Africa. Frankly, Africa's gain is China's loss under this 
bill.
  Let me reiterate. 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.
  To reject this legislation is to say we do not have any room on the 
economic

[[Page 16462]]

map for Africa in the new century. I do not think my colleagues want to 
go that way.
  I ask for their support for this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
434, the so-called African Growth and Opportunity Act.

                           Africa Trade Bill

  I support the goals of this bill--to provide a foundation for a 
strong democracy and to create economic development in Africa.
  What cannot sanction, however, is legislation that promotes these 
goals at the expense of African workers, the very sector of society 
upon which future economic development rests.
  At the very least, we must promote an economic foundation for Africa 
which has as its cornerstone the provision of ample employment 
opportunities for the indigenous citizens and permanent residents.
  Unfortunately, this bill requires African countries to meet strict 
IMF-style austerity measures in order to receive limited trade 
benefits. Even after these conditions are met, there are few provisions 
to ensure that African citizens actually benefit from the duty-free, 
quota-free access to the U.S. market that the bill provides for garment 
manufacturers. Only 20 percent of a garment's value would need to be 
added in Africa.
  Further, the bill would allow foreign contract workers to be exported 
to Africa to make the trade-preferenced products.
  My colleagues say that the bill's provisions are stringent enough, 
that transshipment's not going to happen, that it is not possible, that 
the ocean is too far.
  Well, let me explain to my colleagues about the over $1 billion 
garment industry in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--a 
pacific island U.S. Territory that receives duty free, quota free 
access to the U.S. market.
  Chinese garment makers send to the U.S. duty free goods woven in 
China cut in China, and assembled in the Northern Marianas by Chinese 
workers. We see in the Northern Marianas a workforce that is totally 
controlled, that is indentured, that is bonded, where the young women 
are forced into abortions and into prostitution.
  It is a simple matter for the Chinese to do the same thing in Africa, 
because it is very clear why they would go there. In Africa, they can 
get there under the U.S. quota.
  Today, in the Northern Marianas, 98 percent of the private sector 
jobs are held by foreign contract workers. Obviously, local workers in 
the Northern Marianas aren't the true beneficiaries of access to the 
U.S. market, just as the workers in Africa wouldn't benefit if this 
bill passes.
  H.R. 434 represents the failed status quo model of trade that rewards 
multinational corporations but does little to protect workers or the 
environment.
  The bill would further accelerate the global race to the bottom with 
corporations seeking locales where they can pollute at will and pay 
workers pennies an hour.
  Forutnately, there is an alternative, that my colleagues, Rep. Jesse 
Jackson, Jr., has introduced. It contains many of the worker-protection 
provisions I planned to offer--but was not allowed to offer--when this 
bill was debated last year.
  Rep. Jackson's bill, the HOPE for Africa Act, provides a new model 
for trade that combines expanded trade with protections for workers an 
the environment. HOPE for Africa aims to raise living standards, foster 
capital accumulation in Africa, and prevent the types of abuses that 
are rampant in the Northern Marianas.
  In order to receive the bill's trade benefits, companies must employ 
80% African workers, add 60% of a product's value in Africa, and be at 
least 51% owned by African citizens. Labor and environmental standards 
must be followed as well.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 434 as a failed model of the past 
and to support Representative Jackson's vision for the future of trade.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, once again Congress demonstrates that it has 
no fundamental understanding of free trade or the best interests of the 
taxpayer. The Africa Growth & Opportunity Act is heavy-laden with the 
Development Assistance (foreign aid), debt forgiveness (so much for the 
balanced budget), OPIC expansion (thus putting the taxpayers further at 
risk), and of course a new international regulatory board to be funded 
with ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Additionally, the costs of this 
bill are paid by raising taxes on charity. Free trade, Washington 
style, is evidently not free for the taxpayer!
  So what exactly is ``free trade'' and how far removed from this 
principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade, 
in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent 
intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals 
are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade 
is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries, 
economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which 
governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of 
protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic 
industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention) 
expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the 
transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those out-
competed) from the exchange who might have benefitted by being a party 
to it who can be relied upon to engage in some coercive activity to 
prevent the transaction in the hopes that their trading position will 
become more favorable by ``default.''
  Because governments have for so long engaged in one variety of firm-
or-industry-benefitting protectionism or another, my ``trade free of 
intervention'' definition of free trade is currently quite out of favor 
with beltway-dominant pundits. Such wrongheaded thinking is not limited 
to government. In academia, a widely-used undergraduate economics text, 
authorized by David C. Colander, describes a ``free trade association'' 
as a ``group of countries that allows free trade among its members and 
puts up common barriers against all other countries' goods''--thus here 
we have free trade associations putting up barriers. (An economic 
textbook only Orwell could love.)
  An example of what now constitutes ``free trade'' Washington style 
can be found within the US ENGAGE Congressional Scorecard. It is 
insightful to consider what USA ENGAGE regards as pro-free trade 
against the backdrop of the non-interventionist notion of free trade 
outlined above.
  China Most Favored Nation (MFN), while politically charged, is 
perhaps the cleanest genuine free trade vote chosen by USA ENGAGE. The 
question posed by this legislation is whether tariffs (taxes on U.S. 
citizens purchasing goods imported from China) should be lower or 
higher. In other words, when American and Chinese citizens engage in 
voluntary exchanges, should Americans be taxed. Clearly the free trade 
position here is not to raise taxes on Americans and interfere with 
trade.
  The Vietnam Waiver vote classification as a pro-free trade position 
is particularly indicative, however, of what now constitutes free trade 
in the alleged minds of the beltway elite. When government forces 
through taxation, citizens to forego consumption of their own choosing 
(in other words forego voluntary exchanges) so that government can send 
money to foreign entities (i.e. trade promotion), this in the mind of 
Washington insiders constitutes ``free trade.'' In other words, when 
demand curves facing the corporate elite are less than those desired, 
government's help is then enlisted to shift the demand curve by forcing 
taxpayers to send money to various government and private entities 
whose spending patterns more favorably reflect those desired by those 
``engineering'' such ``free trade'' policies in Washington. Much like 
tax cuts being a ``cost to government'' and ``free trade associations'' 
whose purpose it is to erect barriers, free trade has become 
government-coerced, taxpayer-financed foreign aid designed to result in 
specific private spending and private gains.
  The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGE's Congressional 
scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but 
the free-trade arguments are most relevant and illustrative here. The 
fast-track procedure bill sets general international economic policy 
objectives, re-authorizes ``Trade Adjustment Assistance'' welfare for 
workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail (a gentler, 
kinder ``welfarist'' form of protectionism), and creates a new 
permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of 
the United States Trade Representative. Lastly, like today's 
legislative mishap, the bill ``pays'' the government's ``cost'' of free 
trade by increasing taxes on a set of taxpayers further removed from 
those corporatists who hope to gain by engineering favorable 
international trade agreements.
  Constitutional questions aside, like today's H.R. 434, the fast track 
bill contained provisions which would likely continue our country down 
the ugly path of internationally-engineered, ``managed trade'' rather 
than that of free trade. As explained by the late economist Murray N. 
Rothbard, Ph.D.:

       [Genuine free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its 
     deformed cousin, a `trade agreement'; NAFTA is called an 
     agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of 
     approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment 
     truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our 
     numerous tariff,

[[Page 16463]]

     import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed 
     restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign 
     maneuvering in necessary.

  In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of ``free trade'' 
fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine 
free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer 
(each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective 
of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big 
business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider 
exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in 
general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. The 
mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the 
expense of all consumers--be they domestic or foreign.
  Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can 
more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the 
interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in 
the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and 
central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their 
regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead 
taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from 
states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal 
government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority 
(like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the 
socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the 
super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced 
low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average 
or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of 
``fairness,'' a ``level playing field,'' and ``upward harmonization,'' 
so too will the international trade governors and commissions be 
empowered to ``upwardly harmonize,'' internationalize, and otherwise 
usurp laws of American state governments.
  The harmonization language in the last Congress' Food and Drug 
Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization 
language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary 
negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to 
unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill 
removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police 
powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same 
time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review 
medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be 
made up of ``objective'' industry experts appointed by national 
governments. Instead of the ``national'' variety, known as the 
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the ``good reason'' of 
protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, 
only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions 
to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the 
same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale 
soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical 
corporations.
  The late economist Ludwig von Mises argued there is a choice of only 
two economic systems--capitalism or socialism. Intervention, he would 
say, always begets more interventionism to address the negative 
consequences of the prior intervention: thus, necessarily leading to 
yet further intervention until complete socialism is the only possible 
outcome. This principle remains true even in the case of intervention 
and free trade.
  To the extent America is non-competitive, it is not because of a lack 
of innovation, ingenuity, or work ethic. Rather, it is largely a 
function of the overburdening of business and industry with excessive 
taxation and regulation. Large corporations, of course, greatly favor 
such regulation because it disadvantages their smaller competitors who 
either are not in a position to maintain the regulatory compliance 
department due to their limited size or, equally important, unable to 
``capture'' the federal regulatory agencies whose regulation will be 
written to favor the politically adept and disfavor the truly 
productive. The rub comes when other governments engage in more laissez 
faire approaches thus allowing firms operating within those 
jurisdictions to become more competitive. It will be the products of 
these less-taxed, less-regulated firms which will be the consumers' 
only hope to maintain their standard of living in a climate of domestic 
production burdened by regulation and taxation. The consumers' after-
tax income becomes lower and lower while relative prices of domestic 
goods become higher and higher. Free trade which provides the poor 
consumer an escape hatch, of course, is not the particular brand of 
``free trade'' espoused by the international trade organizations whose 
purpose it is to exclude the more efficient competitors internationally 
in the same way federal regulatory agencies have been created and 
captured to do the equivalent task domestically.
  Until policy makers can learn enough about trade and voluntary 
exchange to distinguish them from taxpayer-funded aid to bolster 
corporate revenues, OPIC, Export-Import funding, Market Access Program, 
and other forms of market intervention (each of which are quite the 
opposite of genuine free trade), the free trade discussion will remain 
at worst, a delusional discussion, and, at best, a hollow one.
  For these reasons and others, I oppose the so-called free-trade-
enhancing Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment.
  It has been a priority of mine and the rest of the Congressional 
Black Caucus to bring some of the many resources of this country and of 
the profits of our corporations to help fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS 
in Africa.
  In this regard I applaud my colleagues, Mrs. Jackson-Lee and also Mr. 
Olver for their amendments. I would be remiss not to also recognize our 
former distinguished colleague, Mr. Dellums for his leadership in this 
arena.
  Mr. Chairman, to date AIDS has killed more than 11 million people and 
continues to infect over 22 million of our brothers and sisters in sub-
Saharan Africa. Millions of children are orphaned and countless 
families are destroyed.
  In supporting this amendment, and asking for its passage, I take this 
opportunity to call on the administration, this Congress and our 
corporations to not only reach for our better selves, but into our very 
full pockets to help our fellow human beings who are in such great 
need.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by 
commending Mr. Olver for initiating this important and timely 
amendment.
  Africa is in crisis. The continent is home to one out of every ten 
people on the planet. Yet more than eight out of every ten deaths from 
AIDS have occurred in Africa. Health officials in Zimbabwe report over 
3,000 AIDS deaths each week. This is a country that has a population 
roughly the size of the State of Ohio. In Kenya, 200,000 people will 
die from AIDS in 1999.
  AIDS is destroying not only individual lives, but the social, 
political and economic fabric of the nations of Africa. In Zambia, more 
than half of the country's children have lost at least one parent to 
AIDS. How will these children survive? Africans between the ages of 15 
and 40 have the highest AIDS infection rate. Who will remain to support 
Africa's families and grow Africa's economies? Right now, AIDS is 
reported to be rampant in the militaries of Zimbabwe and other Southern 
African countries. How will the political stability of Africa be 
secured?
  This crisis demands the attention of the United States Congress. As 
we debate a bill that intends to strengthen our economic ties with the 
African continent, this is the right time and the right place for us to 
begin to think about the impact of AIDS on both the African people and 
our mutual long term interests.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act requires a lot of African 
countries. We need to hold up our end of the bargain. It is our 
responsibility to shine a spotlight on the issue of AIDS in Africa and 
to demonstrate our interest, not only in trade but in the long term 
stability of the nations of Africa and the health of her people.
  By making it a Sense of Congress that addressing the AIDS crisis be a 
central component of our foreign policy in Africa; by recognizing the 
importance of AIDS prevention and treatment to our long term trade 
relationship with Africa; and by acknowledging that the African AIDS 
crisis merits expanded efforts by both public and private institutions 
as well as Congress to address the issue, this amendment represents an 
important step.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver-
Pelosi-Foley Amendment to express the sense of Congress that addressing 
the AIDS crisis in sub-Sahara Africa must be a central component of 
U.S. foreign policy.
  Throughout Africa, AIDS is destroying entire families and 
communities. It is tearing apart the social, and economic foundations 
of the continent.
  In May, USA Today dedicated a series of articles focusing on the 
human face of this devastation--outcast children, dying infants, 
destroyed families. And the statistics alone are numbing. In all, 11.5 
million people have died in sub-Saharan Africa since the disease 
emerged in the early 1980's and 22.5 million now living with the HIV 
virus are expected to die in the next ten years. By the end of 1997, at 
least 7.8 million children in this area of Africa alone were left 
orphans by the age of 14 due to AIDS.

[[Page 16464]]

  This amendment addresses the tragedy and the urgency of this crisis 
and affirms that addressing the HIV/AIDs epidemic must be a central 
part of our foreign policy now and in the next century. We cannot 
expect to make progress on economic development in Africa unless our 
policies sufficiently address the catastrophe of AIDS. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Olver-Pelosi-Foley Amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, at this point, whether 
U.S. intervention in helping to rebuild the economy of the African 
continent is important is moot. Every thinking person recognizes the 
historic significance of rebuilding Europe and Japan after World War 
II. No one can or will dispute the prescience of the many plans 
currently on the table to rebuild war torn Yugoslavia. During the 
debate on NAFTA, member after member came down to the well of this body 
and sang the praises of strengthening the economies of our neighbors to 
our North and South.
  The intentions behind H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act are altruistic and well within the spirit of fostering growth and 
development among our international neighbors in the emerging global 
economy. However, as is the case in many situations, the road to hell 
is paved with good intentions, and H.R. 434 is simply another 
cobblestone on that ill-fated pathway.
  This legislation is fraught with missteps and although it is heralded 
as a new, innovative approach to bringing Africa, economically, onto a 
level playing field in the twentieth century, it clearly builds on many 
of the same blunders that have haunted U.S. trade policies in the past. 
This bill has been called the ``African Recolonization Act,'' ``NAFTA 
for Africa,'' and it is opposed by former South African President, 
Nelson Mandela. President Mandela even went so far as to say, that the 
bill is ``not acceptable to us.''
  With all of these red flags waving around, how can Congress forge 
ahead full speed with this legislation and with blatant disregard for 
people of Africa and the additional Americans who will lose their jobs 
as a result of this legislation? Jobs in the textile and apparel 
industry have been hit especially hard by failed American trade 
policies. Since 1981, almost 700,000 jobs in the textile and apparel 
industry have been lost to foreign countries; 118,000 in the last 12 
months alone.
  The majority of these textile workers, who currently find themselves 
unemployed are women and minorities. With that in mind, another 
situation that confuses me about this debate is why so many women and 
minority members have come down to the floor in support of this 
legislation.
  Africa is the cradle of human civilization--the birthplace for the 
entire world. For too long we have allowed this continent to be raped 
and plundered by the world's various interests, but finally the time 
has come to help our shared motherland stand on her own feet. The 
unfortunate truth about the time we have wasted debating this 
legislation today is that it will not do any of the things that need to 
be done in order to achieve the tasks so desperately needed to 
revitalize Africa.
  I challenge the members of this body to bring substantive legislation 
to the floor that will seriously address the problems facing Africa and 
restore the nobility and dignity of this magnificent continent.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, once again I have to vote against this bill 
despite the fact that I support its premise. Just last year Congress 
made almost the same mistakes on this important legislation that we are 
making this year. The result of the mistakes the House of 
Representatives made resulted in stalemate and the loss of an 
opportunity to benefit the people of Africa.
  I always prefer giving someone a hand up, rater than a hand-out. This 
is the point of this legislation. However, as this bill is written, I 
cannot vote for it. I will gladly vote for a motion to send it back to 
the committee of jurisdiction to amend it, because I know that there 
are simple ways for it to be improved.
  It is important that we do what we can to help these desperately poor 
nations develop economically. By helping them create industry and 
develop into mature trading partners, we would like reduce the overall 
need for direct foreign aid. The authors of this bill have chosen to 
ignore the very real problem of trans-shipment of goods produced 
outside Africa. There is ample evidence that certain countries and 
companies around the world will exploit the ability to ship goods 
through the Africa continent to avoid duties and quotas that they would 
otherwise face. This is not fair, and I want to ensure that we address 
the issue in a way that protects our industries and workers. Not only 
is it unfair to our workers, it is unfair to the very countries this 
bill hopes to assist. Their domestic industries would not develop if 
other nations are using the provisions of this bill to circumvent 
internationally recognized rules of fair trade.
  I hope that the Senate will generate a similar bill--but take the 
needed steps to safeguard the intent of the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this Bill, because, I 
believe, we can help people abroad without hurting people at home.
  This bill will hurt people at home.
  I want to commend our colleagues who offer this legislation, for 
seeking to provide economic growth and development in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. I support that.
  But, this Bill does not do that.
  It is important to establish factories in Africa, to train its 
workers, to initiate production there.
  But, this Bill does not do that.
  It is equally important to save factories in America, to retrain our 
workers and to continue production here.
  This Bill does not do that.
  The economy in America is booming, but textile and apparel production 
is slumping.
  No other industry is suffering like the textile and apparel industry.
  Some 700,000 jobs have been lost since 1981; 118,000 have been lost 
in the past 12 months alone.
  And, while this Bill could cause the further loss of jobs, it will 
not result in the gain of jobs to Africa.
  What it will do is make it easier and cheaper for other nations to 
conduct illegal transshipments through Africa.
  And, that will hurt Africa and hurt America.
  Our colleague, Mr. Bishop, proposed perfecting language to this Bill, 
but the Rule offered and passed does not permit its consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, let's help workers in Africa.
  But, in so doing, let's not hurt workers in America.
  Oppose this Bill.
  It has the right aim, but the wrong focus.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
misguided bill and ask for my friends and colleagues to really consider 
what we are doing here. Once again I find myself having to protect my 
cotton farmers and textile workers against trade policies that have 
left many in my district with their heads spinning from the loss of 
jobs.
  I do support fostering economic development in Africa and crating an 
economic partnership between those nations, but not at the expense of 
American cotton farmers and textile workers. The textile and apparel 
provisions of this bill will not promote jobs and economic growth in 
Africa; they will instead promote massive transshipments from China 
into this country. The bill will unnecessarily cost thousands of U.S. 
jobs in the cotton and textile industries while providing limited 
incentive for increased manufacturing capacity in the Sub-Saharan.
  The bill, as is, opens the door for Asian textile and apparel 
manufacturers to use Africa merely as an export platform for sending 
their own textile and apparel products to the U.S. Incredibly, only 35 
percent of the value must be added on the ground in Africa to qualify 
for quota free and duty free access. That doesn't sound like its going 
to benefit Africa, but China instead. When you remove tariffs on these 
imported products, you exponentially increase the incentive for both 
illegal and legal transshipment. Under this legislation, it would be 
totally legal for the Chinese to use their own yarn, fabric and 
possibly even imported Chinese labor to comply with 35 percent final 
value threshold. Once again, good for China, bad for American workers 
and Africa.
  What makes me angry though is that we had a way of making this bill 
acceptable for those who want to promote Africa's growth, and for those 
of us who want to protect our textile workers and farmers, but that was 
denied by the Rules Committee. This legislation will create a trade 
policy that's going to hurt my cotton farmers and my textile workers so 
the Chinese can import more goods through Africa into the U.S. I urge 
all members to vote no on this misguided legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 434, the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act. This measure is long overdue, and 
will help strengthen the economies of the world's poorest continent. 
This bill presents very little threat to American industries in the 
short run, and holds a huge upside potential for American jobs and 
profits to increase in the long run.
  The most important part of this bill is that it will make a huge 
difference for the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa by giving them 
tariff reductions under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), as 
long as they are cooperating with international labor and transshipment 
standards.
  At a time when military action is something to be avoided and there 
are real questions about what economic assistance we should

[[Page 16465]]

provide around the world, this bill allows us to directly participate 
with and help strengthen other countries through global trade. I 
believe it will ultimately be the best long-term investment for the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will for the first time 
focus the attention of the U.S. government on a comprehensive trade 
strategy towards Africa. We have neglected this continent too long only 
to the benefit of their former European colonial powers. With the 
anemic growth in our exports because of the economic crisis affecting 
Asia, Russia, and Brazil, the U.S. needs to look at every possible 
market opportunity to improve trade relations.
  Many may be surprised to learn that U.S. exports to Africa have been 
growing at a steady rate. Exports from Illinois to South Africa grew 
from $269 million in 1995 to $413 million in 1998--a 54 percent 
increase? Illinois exports more to South Africa than it does to Spain 
or India.
  The specific African trade picture for Rockford is even better. 
Exports from Rockford to all of Africa more than doubled, going from 
$2.9 million in 1995 to $6.2 million in 1997. Some of these exports 
came from companies like Etnyree of Oregon, which sold asphalt making 
equipment to the Ivory Coast and Kenya; Newell's International Division 
in Rockford, which sold office and home products to Zimbabwe and South 
Africa; Wahl Clipper of Sterling, which sold barbershop hair clippers 
to South Africa and Nigeria; and Taylor of Rockton, which sold soft ice 
cream machines to South Africa and Nigeria.
  African trade also extends to McHenry County--RITA Chemical of 
Woodstock sold industrial inorganic chemicals for the cosmetic industry 
in South Africa and Motorola of Harvard, a manufacturer of cellular 
phones that are used even in the remotest parts of Africa.
  This represents the tip of the iceberg of what can happen if we build 
better trade relationships with the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. 
All these companies agree that if there is a more active effort on the 
part of the U.S. government to help develop and open the markets in 
Africa, they would benefit through increased sales.
  While this bill is not a cure-all for our trade deficit or for 
solving all of Africa's problems, it represents one beginning step in 
the right direction. It has the support of our exporting community. It 
has the support of all--I repeat--all of the sub-Saharan African 
countries. It's a win-win for all sides. I urge you to join them in 
supporting this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2489 as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule 
which, without objection, is considered read.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2489

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that it is in the mutual economic 
     interest of the United States and sub-Saharan Africa to 
     promote stable and sustainable economic growth and 
     development in sub-Saharan Africa and that sustained economic 
     growth in sub-Saharan Africa depends in large measure upon 
     the development of a receptive environment for trade and 
     investment. To that end, the United States seeks to 
     facilitate market-led economic growth in, and thereby the 
     social and economic development of, the countries of sub-
     Saharan Africa. In particular, the United States seeks to 
     assist sub-Saharan African countries, and the private sector 
     in those countries, to achieve economic self-reliance by--
       (1) strengthening and expanding the private sector in sub-
     Saharan Africa, especially women-owned businesses;
       (2) encouraging increased trade and investment between the 
     United States and sub-Saharan Africa;
       (3) reducing tariff and nontariff barriers and other trade 
     obstacles;
       (4) expanding United States assistance to sub-Saharan 
     Africa's regional integration efforts;
       (5) negotiating free trade areas;
       (6) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade 
     and Investment Partnership;
       (7) focusing on countries committed to accountable 
     government, economic reform, and the eradication of poverty;
       (8) establishing a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa 
     Economic Cooperation Forum; and
       (9) continuing to support development assistance for those 
     countries in sub-Saharan Africa attempting to build civil 
     societies.

     SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       The Congress supports economic self-reliance for sub-
     Saharan African countries, particularly those committed to--
       (1) economic and political reform;
       (2) market incentives and private sector growth;
       (3) the eradication of poverty; and
       (4) the importance of women to economic growth and 
     development.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--A sub-Saharan African country shall be 
     eligible to participate in programs, projects, or activities, 
     or receive assistance or other benefits under this Act if the 
     President determines that the country does not engage in 
     gross violations of internationally recognized human rights 
     and has established, or is making continual progress toward 
     establishing, a market-based economy, such as the 
     establishment and enforcement of appropriate policies 
     relating to--
       (1) promoting free movement of goods and services between 
     the United States and sub-Saharan Africa and among countries 
     in sub-Saharan Africa;
       (2) promoting the expansion of the production base and the 
     transformation of commodities and nontraditional products for 
     exports through joint venture projects between African and 
     foreign investors;
       (3) trade issues, such as protection of intellectual 
     property rights, improvements in standards, testing, labeling 
     and certification, and government procurement;
       (4) the protection of property rights, such as protection 
     against expropriation and a functioning and fair judicial 
     system;
       (5) the protection of internationally recognized worker 
     rights, including 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;
       (6) appropriate fiscal systems, such as reducing high 
     import and corporate taxes, controlling government 
     consumption, participation in bilateral investment treaties, 
     and the harmonization of such treaties to avoid double 
     taxation;
       (7) foreign investment issues, such as the provision of 
     national treatment for foreign investors, removing 
     restrictions on investment, and other measures to create an 
     environment conducive to domestic and foreign investment;
       (8) supporting the growth of regional markets within a free 
     trade area framework;
       (9) governance issues, such as eliminating government 
     corruption, minimizing government intervention in the market 
     such as price controls and subsidies, and streamlining the 
     business license process;
       (10) supporting the growth of the private sector, in 
     particular by promoting the emergence of a new generation of 
     African entrepreneurs;
       (11) encouraging the private ownership of government-
     controlled economic enterprises through divestiture programs; 
     and
       (12) observing the rule of law, including equal protection 
     under the law and the right to due process and a fair trial.
       (b) Additional Factors.--In determining whether a sub-
     Saharan African country is eligible under subsection (a), the 
     President shall take into account the following factors:
       (1) An expression by such country of its desire to be an 
     eligible country under subsection (a).
       (2) The extent to which such country has made substantial 
     progress toward--
       (A) reducing tariff levels;
       (B) binding its tariffs in the World Trade Organization and 
     assuming meaningful binding obligations in other sectors of 
     trade; and
       (C) eliminating nontariff barriers to trade.
       (3) Whether such country, if not already a member of the 
     World Trade Organization, is actively pursuing membership in 
     that Organization.
       (4) The extent to which such country has a recognizable 
     commitment to reducing poverty, increasing the availability 
     of health care and educational opportunities, the expansion 
     of physical infrastructure in a manner designed to maximize 
     accessibility, increased access to market and credit 
     facilities for small farmers and producers, and improved 
     economic opportunities for women as entrepreneurs and 
     employees, and promoting and enabling the formation of 
     capital to support the establishment and operation of micro-
     enterprises.
       (5) Whether or not such country engages in activities that 
     undermine United States national security or foreign policy 
     interests.
       (c) Continuing Compliance.--
       (1) Monitoring and review of certain countries.--The 
     President shall monitor and review the progress of sub-
     Saharan African countries in order to determine their current 
     or potential eligibility under subsection (a). Such 
     determinations shall be based on quantitative factors to the 
     fullest extent possible and shall be included in the annual 
     report required by section 15.
       (2) Ineligibility of certain countries.--A sub-Saharan 
     African country described in paragraph (1) that has not made 
     continual progress in meeting the requirements with

[[Page 16466]]

     which it is not in compliance shall be ineligible to 
     participate in programs, projects, or activities, or receive 
     assistance or other benefits, under this Act.

     SEC. 5. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA TRADE AND ECONOMIC 
                   COOPERATION FORUM.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--The President shall convene 
     annual high-level meetings between appropriate officials of 
     the United States Government and officials of the governments 
     of sub-Saharan African countries in order to foster close 
     economic ties between the United States and sub-Saharan 
     Africa.
       (b) Establishment.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the President, after consulting 
     with Congress and the governments concerned, shall establish 
     a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic 
     Cooperation Forum (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     the ``Forum'').
       (c) Requirements.--In creating the Forum, the President 
     shall meet the following requirements:
       (1) The President shall direct the Secretary of Commerce, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and 
     the United States Trade Representative to host the first 
     annual meeting with the counterparts of such Secretaries from 
     the governments of sub-Saharan African countries eligible 
     under section 4, the Secretary General of the Organization of 
     African Unity, and government officials from other 
     appropriate countries in Africa, to discuss expanding trade 
     and investment relations between the United States and sub-
     Saharan Africa and the implementation of this Act including 
     encouraging joint ventures between small and large 
     businesses.
       (2)(A) The President, in consultation with the Congress, 
     shall encourage United States nongovernmental organizations 
     to host annual meetings with nongovernmental organizations 
     from sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with the annual 
     meetings of the Forum for the purpose of discussing the 
     issues described in paragraph (1).
       (B) The President, in consultation with the Congress, shall 
     encourage United States representatives of the private sector 
     to host annual meetings with representatives of the private 
     sector from sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with the annual 
     meetings of the Forum for the purpose of discussing the 
     issues described in paragraph (1).
       (3) The President shall, to the extent practicable, meet 
     with the heads of governments of sub-Saharan African 
     countries eligible under section 4 not less than once every 
     two years for the purpose of discussing the issues described 
     in paragraph (1). The first such meeting should take place 
     not later than twelve months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (d) Dissemination of Information by USIA.--In order to 
     assist in carrying out the purposes of the Forum, the United 
     States Information Agency shall disseminate regularly, 
     through multiple media, economic information in support of 
     the free market economic reforms described in this Act.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (f) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     authorized under this section may be used to create or 
     support any nongovernmental organization for the purpose of 
     expanding or facilitating trade between the United States and 
     sub-Saharan Africa.

     SEC. 6. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA FREE TRADE AREA.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--The Congress declares that a 
     United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Free Trade Area should be 
     established, or free trade agreements should be entered into, 
     in order to serve as the catalyst for increasing trade 
     between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa and 
     increasing private sector development in sub-Saharan Africa.
       (b) Plan Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The President, taking into account the 
     provisions of the treaty establishing the African Economic 
     Community and the willingness of the governments of sub-
     Saharan African countries to engage in negotiations to enter 
     into free trade agreements, shall develop a plan for the 
     purpose of entering into one or more trade agreements with 
     sub-Saharan African countries eligible under section 4 in 
     order to establish a United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Free 
     Trade Area (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Free Trade Area'').
       (2) Elements of plan.--The plan shall include the 
     following:
       (A) The specific objectives of the United States with 
     respect to the establishment of the Free Trade Area and a 
     suggested timetable for achieving those objectives.
       (B) The benefits to both the United States and sub-Saharan 
     Africa with respect to the Free Trade Area.
       (C) A mutually agreed-upon timetable for establishing the 
     Free Trade Area.
       (D) The implications for and the role of regional and sub-
     regional organizations in sub-Saharan Africa with respect to 
     the Free Trade Area.
       (E) Subject matter anticipated to be covered by the 
     agreement for establishing the Free Trade Area and United 
     States laws, programs, and policies, as well as the laws of 
     participating eligible African countries and existing 
     bilateral and multilateral and economic cooperation and trade 
     agreements, that may be affected by the agreement or 
     agreements.
       (F) Procedures to ensure the following:
       (i) Adequate consultation with the Congress and the private 
     sector during the negotiation of the agreement or agreements 
     for establishing the Free Trade Area.
       (ii) Consultation with the Congress regarding all matters 
     relating to implementation of the agreement or agreements.
       (iii) Approval by the Congress of the agreement or 
     agreements.
       (iv) Adequate consultations with the relevant African 
     governments and African regional and subregional 
     intergovernmental organizations during the negotiations of 
     the agreement or agreements.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 12 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     prepare and transmit to the Congress a report containing the 
     plan developed pursuant to subsection (b).

     SEC. 7. ELIMINATING TRADE BARRIERS AND ENCOURAGING EXPORTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The lack of competitiveness of sub-Saharan Africa in 
     the global market, especially in the manufacturing sector, 
     make it a limited threat to market disruption and no threat 
     to United States jobs.
       (2) Annual textile and apparel exports to the United States 
     from sub-Saharan Africa represent less than 1 percent of all 
     textile and apparel exports to the United States, which 
     totaled $54,001,863,000 in 1997.
       (3) Sub-Saharan Africa has limited textile manufacturing 
     capacity. During 1999 and the succeeding 4 years, this 
     limited capacity to manufacture textiles and apparel is 
     projected to grow at a modest rate. Given this limited 
     capacity to export textiles and apparel, it will be very 
     difficult for these exports from sub-Saharan Africa, during 
     1999 and the succeeding 9 years, to exceed 3 percent annually 
     of total imports of textile and apparel to the United States. 
     If these exports from sub-Saharan Africa remain around 3 
     percent of total imports, they will not represent a threat to 
     United States workers, consumers, or manufacturers.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) it would be to the mutual benefit of the countries in 
     sub-Saharan Africa and the United States to ensure that the 
     commitments of the World Trade Organization and associated 
     agreements are faithfully implemented in each of the member 
     countries, so as to lay the groundwork for sustained growth 
     in textile and apparel exports and trade under agreed rules 
     and disciplines;
       (2) reform of trade policies in sub-Saharan Africa with the 
     objective of removing structural impediments to trade, 
     consistent with obligations under the World Trade 
     Organization, can assist the countries of the region in 
     achieving greater and greater diversification of textile and 
     apparel export commodities and products and export markets; 
     and
       (3) the President should support textile and apparel trade 
     reform in sub-Saharan Africa by, among other measures, 
     providing technical assistance, sharing of information to 
     expand basic knowledge of how to trade with the United 
     States, and encouraging business-to-business contacts with 
     the region.
       (c) Treatment of Quotas.--
       (1) Kenya and mauritius.--Pursuant to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing, the United States shall eliminate the 
     existing quotas on textile and apparel exports to the United 
     States--
       (A) from Kenya within 30 days after that country adopts an 
     efficient visa system to guard against unlawful transshipment 
     of textile and apparel goods and the use of counterfeit 
     documents; and
       (B) from Mauritius within 30 days after that country adopts 
     such a visa system.

     The Customs Service shall provide the necessary technical 
     assistance to Kenya and Mauritius in the development and 
     implementation of those visa systems.
       (2) Other sub-saharan countries.--The President shall 
     continue the existing no quota policy for countries in sub-
     Saharan Africa. The President shall submit to the Congress, 
     not later than March 31 of each year, a report on the growth 
     in textiles and apparel exports to the United States from 
     countries in sub-Saharan Africa in order to protect United 
     States consumers, workers, and textile manufacturers from 
     economic injury on account of the no quota policy.
       (d) Customs Procedures and Enforcement.--
       (1) Actions by countries against transshipment and 
     circumvention.--The President should ensure that any country 
     in sub-Saharan Africa that intends to export textile and 
     apparel goods to the United States--
       (A) has in place a functioning and effective visa system 
     and domestic laws and enforcement procedures to guard against 
     unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel goods and the 
     use of counterfeit documents; and
       (B) will cooperate fully with the United States to address 
     and take action necessary

[[Page 16467]]

     to prevent circumvention, as provided in Article 5 of the 
     Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
       (2) Penalties against exporters.--If the President 
     determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter 
     has willfully falsified information regarding the country of 
     origin, manufacture, processing, or assembly of a textile or 
     apparel article for which duty-free treatment under section 
     503(a)(1)(C) of the Trade Act of 1974 is claimed, then the 
     President shall deny to such exporter, and any successors of 
     such exporter, for a period of 2 years, duty-free treatment 
     under such section for textile and apparel articles.
       (3) Applicability of united states laws and procedures.--
     All provisions of the laws, regulations, and procedures of 
     the United States relating to the denial of entry of articles 
     or penalties against individuals or entities for engaging in 
     illegal transshipment, fraud, or other violations of the 
     customs laws shall apply to imports from Sub-Saharan 
     countries.
       (4) Monitoring and reports to congress.--The Customs 
     Service shall monitor and the Commissioner of Customs shall 
     submit to the Congress, not later than March 31 of each year, 
     a report on the effectiveness of the visa systems described 
     in subsection (c)(1) and paragraph (1) of this subsection and 
     on measures taken by countries in Sub-Saharan Africa which 
     export textiles or apparel to the United States to prevent 
     circumvention as described in Article 5 of the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing.
       (e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

     SEC. 8. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

       (a) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
     Section 503(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--The 
     President may provide duty-free treatment for any article set 
     forth in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) that is the growth, 
     product, or manufacture of an eligible country in sub-Saharan 
     Africa that is a beneficiary developing country, if, after 
     receiving the advice of the International Trade Commission in 
     accordance with subsection (e), the President determines that 
     such article is not import-sensitive in the context of 
     imports from eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This 
     subparagraph shall not affect the designation of eligible 
     articles under subparagraph (B).''.
       (b) Rules of Origin.--Section 503(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--For 
     purposes of determining the percentage referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) in the case of an article of an eligible 
     country in sub-Saharan Africa that is a beneficiary 
     developing country--
       ``(i) if the cost or value of materials produced in the 
     customs territory of the United States is included with 
     respect to that article, an amount not to exceed 15 percent 
     of the appraised value of the article at the time it is 
     entered that is attributed to such United States cost or 
     value may be applied toward determining the percentage 
     referred to in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the cost or value of the materials included with 
     respect to that article that are produced in any beneficiary 
     developing country that is an eligible country in sub-Saharan 
     Africa shall be applied in determining such percentage.''.
       (c) Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation.--Section 
     503(c)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(c)(2)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) Least-developed beneficiary developing countries and 
     eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to any least-developed beneficiary developing 
     country or any eligible country in sub-Saharan Africa.''.
       (d) Extension of Program.--Section 505 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 505. DATE OF TERMINATION.

       ``(a) Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.--No duty-free 
     treatment provided under this title shall remain in effect 
     after June 30, 2009, with respect to beneficiary developing 
     countries that are eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
       ``(b) Other Countries.--No duty-free treatment provided 
     under this title shall remain in effect after June 30, 1999, 
     with respect to beneficiary developing countries other than 
     those provided for in subsection (a).''.
       (e) Definition.--Section 507 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2467) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Eligible country in sub-saharan africa.--The terms 
     `eligible country in sub-Saharan Africa' and `eligible 
     countries in sub-Saharan Africa' mean a country or countries 
     that the President has determined to be eligible under 
     section 4 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on July 1, 1999.

     SEC. 9. INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) Better Mechanisms To Further Goals for Sub-Saharan 
     Africa.--It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary 
     of the Treasury should instruct the United States Executive 
     Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the African 
     Development Bank to use the voice and votes of the Executive 
     Directors to encourage vigorously their respective 
     institutions to develop enhanced mechanisms which further the 
     following goals in eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa:
       (1) Strengthening and expanding the private sector, 
     especially among women-owned businesses.
       (2) Reducing tariffs, nontariff barriers, and other trade 
     obstacles, and increasing economic integration.
       (3) Supporting countries committed to accountable 
     government, economic reform, the eradication of poverty, and 
     the building of civil societies.
       (4) Supporting deep debt reduction at the earliest possible 
     date with the greatest amount of relief for eligible poorest 
     countries under the ``Heavily Indebted Poor Countries'' 
     (HIPC) debt initiative.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that relief provided to countries in sub-Saharan Africa which 
     qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt 
     initiative should primarily be made through grants rather 
     than through extended-term debt, and that interim relief or 
     interim financing should be provided for eligible countries 
     that establish a strong record of macroeconomic reform.

     SEC. 10. EXECUTIVE BRANCH INITIATIVES.

       (a) Statement of Congress.--The Congress recognizes that 
     the stated policy of the executive branch in 1997, the 
     ``Partnership for Growth and Opportunity in Africa'' 
     initiative, is a step toward the establishment of a 
     comprehensive trade and development policy for sub-Saharan 
     Africa. It is the sense of the Congress that this Partnership 
     is a companion to the policy goals set forth in this Act.
       (b) Technical Assistance To Promote Economic Reforms and 
     Development.--In addition to continuing bilateral and 
     multilateral economic and development assistance, the 
     President shall target technical assistance toward--
       (1) developing relationships between United States firms 
     and firms in sub-Saharan Africa through a variety of business 
     associations and networks;
       (2) providing assistance to the governments of sub-Saharan 
     African countries to--
       (A) liberalize trade and promote exports;
       (B) bring their legal regimes into compliance with the 
     standards of the World Trade Organization in conjunction with 
     membership in that Organization;
       (C) make financial and fiscal reforms; and
       (D) promote greater agribusiness linkages;
       (3) addressing such critical agricultural policy issues as 
     market liberalization, agricultural export development, and 
     agribusiness investment in processing and transporting 
     agricultural commodities;
       (4) increasing the number of reverse trade missions to 
     growth-oriented countries in sub-Saharan Africa;
       (5) increasing trade in services; and
       (6) encouraging greater sub-Saharan participation in future 
     negotiations in the World Trade Organization on services and 
     making further commitments in their schedules to the General 
     Agreement on Trade in Services in order to encourage the 
     removal of tariff and nontariff barriers.

     SEC. 11. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.

       (a) Initiation of Funds.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation should 
     exercise the authorities it has to initiate an equity fund or 
     equity funds in support of projects in the countries in sub-
     Saharan Africa, in addition to the existing equity fund for 
     sub-Saharan Africa created by the Corporation.
       (b) Structure and Types of Funds.--
       (1) Structure.--Each fund initiated under subsection (a) 
     should be structured as a partnership managed by professional 
     private sector fund managers and monitored on a continuing 
     basis by the Corporation.
       (2) Capitalization.--Each fund should be capitalized with a 
     combination of private equity capital, which is not 
     guaranteed by the Corporation, and debt for which the 
     Corporation provides guaranties.
       (3) Infrastructure fund.--One or more of the funds, with 
     combined assets of up to $500,000,000, should be used in 
     support of infrastructure projects in countries of sub-
     Saharan Africa.
       (4) Emphasis.--The Corporation shall ensure that the funds 
     are used to provide support in particular to women 
     entrepreneurs and to innovative investments that expand 
     opportunities for women and maximize employment opportunities 
     for poor individuals.

     SEC. 12. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND EXPORT-
                   IMPORT BANK INITIATIVES.

       (a) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--

[[Page 16468]]

       (1) Advisory committee.--Section 233 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Advisory Committee.--The Board shall take prompt 
     measures to increase the loan, guarantee, and insurance 
     programs, and financial commitments, of the Corporation in 
     sub-Saharan Africa, including through the use of an advisory 
     committee to assist the Board in developing and implementing 
     policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to 
     sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the advisory committee shall 
     make recommendations to the Board on how the Corporation can 
     facilitate greater support by the United States for trade and 
     investment with and in sub-Saharan Africa. The advisory 
     committee shall terminate 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.''.
       (2) Reports to the congress.--Within 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually for each of 
     the 4 years thereafter, the Board of Directors of the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the steps that the Board has taken to 
     implement section 233(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (as added by paragraph (1)) and any recommendations of 
     the advisory board established pursuant to such section.
       (b) Export-Import Bank.--
       (1) Advisory committee for sub-saharan africa.--Section 
     2(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)) 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13)(A) The Board of Directors of the Bank shall take 
     prompt measures, consistent with the credit standards 
     otherwise required by law, to promote the expansion of the 
     Bank's financial commitments in sub-Saharan Africa under the 
     loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the Bank.
       ``(B)(i) The Board of Directors shall establish and use an 
     advisory committee to advise the Board of Directors on the 
     development and implementation of policies and programs 
     designed to support the expansion described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(ii) The advisory committee shall make recommendations to 
     the Board of Directors on how the Bank can facilitate greater 
     support by United States commercial banks for trade with sub-
     Saharan Africa.
       ``(iii) The advisory committee shall terminate 4 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
       (2) Reports to the congress.--Within 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually for each of 
     the 4 years thereafter, the Board of Directors of the Export-
     Import Bank of the United States shall submit to the Congress 
     a report on the steps that the Board has taken to implement 
     section 2(b)(13)(B) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (as 
     added by paragraph (1)) and any recommendations of the 
     advisory committee established pursuant to such section.

     SEC. 13. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE FOR 
                   SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the position of Assistant United States Trade 
     Representative for African Affairs is integral to the United 
     States commitment to increasing United States--sub-Saharan 
     African trade and investment.
       (b) Maintenance of Position.--The President shall maintain 
     a position of Assistant United States Trade Representative 
     for African Affairs within the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative to direct and coordinate interagency 
     activities on United States-Africa trade policy and 
     investment matters and serve as--
       (1) a primary point of contact in the executive branch for 
     those persons engaged in trade between the United States and 
     sub-Saharan Africa; and
       (2) the chief advisor to the United States Trade 
     Representative on issues of trade with Africa.
       (c) Funding and Staff.--The President shall ensure that the 
     Assistant United States Trade Representative for African 
     Affairs has adequate funding and staff to carry out the 
     duties described in subsection (b), subject to the 
     availability of appropriations.

     SEC. 14. EXPANSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN 
                   COMMERCIAL SERVICE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and Foreign Commercial Service 
     (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Commercial 
     Service'') plays an important role in helping United States 
     businesses identify export opportunities and develop reliable 
     sources of information on commercial prospects in foreign 
     countries.
       (2) During the 1980s, the presence of the Commercial 
     Service in sub-Saharan Africa consisted of 14 professionals 
     providing services in eight countries. By early 1997, that 
     presence had been reduced by half to seven, in only four 
     countries.
       (3) Since 1997, the Department of Commerce has slowly begun 
     to increase the presence of the Commercial Service in sub-
     Saharan Africa, adding five full-time officers to established 
     posts.
       (4) Although the Commercial Service Officers in these 
     countries have regional responsibilities, this kind of 
     coverage does not adequately service the needs of United 
     States businesses attempting to do business in sub-Saharan 
     Africa.
       (5) The Congress has, on several occasions, encouraged the 
     Commercial Service to focus its resources and efforts in 
     countries or regions in Europe or Asia to promote greater 
     United States export activity in those markets.
       (6) Because market information is not widely available in 
     many sub-Saharan African countries, the presence of 
     additional Commercial Service Officers and resources can play 
     a significant role in assisting United States businesses in 
     markets in those countries.
       (b) Appointments.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, by not later than December 31, 2000, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary 
     of Commerce and Director General of the United States and 
     Foreign Commercial Service, shall take steps to ensure that--
       (1) at least 20 full-time Commercial Service employees are 
     stationed in sub-Saharan Africa; and
       (2) full-time Commercial Service employees are stationed in 
     not less than ten different sub-Saharan African countries.
       (c) Commercial Service Initiative for Sub-Saharan Africa.--
     In order to encourage the export of United States goods and 
     services to sub-Saharan African countries, the Commercial 
     Service shall make a special effort to--
       (1) identify United States goods and services which are not 
     being exported to sub-Saharan African countries but which are 
     being exported to those countries by competitor nations;
       (2) identify, where appropriate, trade barriers and 
     noncompetitive actions, including violations of intellectual 
     property rights, that are preventing or hindering sales of 
     United States goods and services to, or the operation of 
     United States companies in, sub-Saharan Africa;
       (3) present, periodically, a list of the goods and services 
     identified under paragraph (1), and any trade barriers or 
     noncompetitive actions identified under paragraph (2), to 
     appropriate authorities in sub-Saharan African countries with 
     a view to securing increased market access for United States 
     exporters of goods and services;
       (4) facilitate the entrance by United States businesses 
     into the markets identified under paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       (5) monitor and evaluate the results of efforts to increase 
     the sales of goods and services in such markets.
       (d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter 
     for five years, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall report to the Congress on 
     actions taken to carry out subsections (b) and (c). Each 
     report shall specify--
       (1) in what countries full-time Commercial Service Officers 
     are stationed, and the number of such officers placed in each 
     such country;
       (2) the effectiveness of the presence of the additional 
     Commercial Service Officers in increasing United States 
     exports to sub-Saharan African countries; and
       (3) the specific actions taken by Commercial Service 
     Officers, both in sub-Saharan African countries and in the 
     United States, to carry out subsection (c), including 
     identifying a list of targeted export sectors and countries.

     SEC. 15. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       The President shall submit to the Congress, not later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not 
     later than the end of each of the next 6 1-year periods 
     thereafter, a comprehensive report on the trade and 
     investment policy of the United States for sub-Saharan 
     Africa, and on the implementation of this Act. The last 
     report required by section 134(b) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3554(b)) shall be consolidated and 
     submitted with the first report required by this section.

     SEC. 16. DONATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT TO 
                   ELIGIBLE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, to the extent 
     appropriate, the United States Government should make every 
     effort to donate to governments of sub-Saharan African 
     countries (determined to be eligible under section 4 of this 
     Act) air traffic control equipment that is no longer in use, 
     including appropriate related reimbursable technical 
     assistance.

     SEC. 17. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES AND INCREASED FLEXIBILITY TO 
                   PROVIDE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT FUND 
                   FOR AFRICA.

       (a) Use of Sustainable Development Assistance To Support 
     Further Economic Growth.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that sustained economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa depends 
     in large measure upon the development of a receptive 
     environment for trade and investment, and that to achieve 
     this objective the United States Agency for International 
     Development should continue to support programs which help to 
     create this environment. Investments in human resources, 
     development, and implementation of free market policies, 
     including policies to liberalize agricultural markets and 
     improve food security, and the support for the rule of

[[Page 16469]]

     law and democratic governance should continue to be 
     encouraged and enhanced on a bilateral and regional basis.
       (b) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress makes the 
     following declarations:
       (1) The Development Fund for Africa established under 
     chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2293 et seq.) has been an effective tool in 
     providing development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa since 
     1988.
       (2) The Development Fund for Africa will complement the 
     other provisions of this Act and lay a foundation for 
     increased trade and investment opportunities between the 
     United States and sub-Saharan Africa.
       (3) Assistance provided through the Development Fund for 
     Africa will continue to support programs and activities that 
     promote the long term economic development of sub-Saharan 
     Africa, such as programs and activities relating to the 
     following:
       (A) Strengthening primary and vocational education systems, 
     especially the acquisition of middle-level technical skills 
     for operating modern private businesses and the introduction 
     of college level business education, including the study of 
     international business, finance, and stock exchanges.
       (B) Strengthening health care systems.
       (C) Supporting democratization, good governance and civil 
     society and conflict resolution efforts.
       (D) Increasing food security by promoting the expansion of 
     agricultural and agriculture-based industrial production and 
     productivity and increasing real incomes for poor 
     individuals.
       (E) Promoting an enabling environment for private sector-
     led growth through sustained economic reform, privatization 
     programs, and market-led economic activities.
       (F) Promoting decentralization and local participation in 
     the development process, especially linking the rural 
     production sectors and the industrial and market centers 
     throughout Africa.
       (G) Increasing the technical and managerial capacity of 
     sub-Saharan African individuals to manage the economy of sub-
     Saharan Africa.
       (H) Ensuring sustainable economic growth through 
     environmental protection.
       (4) The African Development Foundation has a unique 
     congressional mandate to empower the poor to participate 
     fully in development and to increase opportunities for 
     gainful employment, poverty alleviation, and more equitable 
     income distribution in sub-Saharan Africa. The African 
     Development Foundation has worked successfully to enhance the 
     role of women as agents of change, strengthen the informal 
     sector with an emphasis on supporting micro and small sized 
     enterprises, indigenous technologies, and mobilizing local 
     financing. The African Development Foundation should develop 
     and implement strategies for promoting participation in the 
     socioeconomic development process of grassroots and informal 
     sector groups such as nongovernmental organizations, 
     cooperatives, artisans, and traders into the programs and 
     initiatives established under this Act.
       (c) Additional Authorities.--
       (1) In general.--Section 496(h) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2293(h)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Democratization and conflict resolution 
     capabilities.--Assistance under this section may also include 
     program assistance--
       ``(A) to promote democratization, good governance, and 
     strong civil societies in sub-Saharan Africa; and
       ``(B) to strengthen conflict resolution capabilities of 
     governmental, intergovernmental, and nongovernmental entities 
     in sub-Saharan 
     Africa.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 496(h)(4) of such Act, 
     as amended by paragraph (1), is further amended by striking 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''.

     SEC. 18. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA DEFINED.

       For purposes of this Act, the terms ``sub-Saharan Africa'', 
     ``sub-Saharan African country'', ``country in sub-Saharan 
     Africa'', and ``countries in sub-Saharan Africa'' refer to 
     the following or any successor political entities:
       Republic of Angola (Angola)
       Republic of Botswana (Botswana)
       Republic of Burundi (Burundi)
       Republic of Cape Verde (Cape Verde)
       Republic of Chad (Chad)
       Democratic Republic of Congo
       Republic of the Congo (Congo)
       Republic of Djibouti (Djibouti)
       State of Eritrea (Eritrea)
       Gabonese Republic (Gabon)
       Republic of Ghana (Ghana)
       Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Guinea-Bissau)
       Kingdom of Lesotho (Lesotho)
       Republic of Madagascar (Madagascar)
       Republic of Mali (Mali)
       Republic of Mauritius (Mauritius)
       Republic of Namibia (Namibia)
       Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria)
       Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome and 
     Principe)
       Republic of Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone)
       Somalia
       Kingdom of Swaziland (Swaziland)
       Republic of Togo (Togo)
       Republic of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)
       Republic of Benin (Benin)
       Burkina Faso (Burkina)
       Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon)
       Central African Republic
       Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros (Comoros)
       Republic of Cote d'Ivoire (Cote d'Ivoire)
       Republic of Equatorial Guinea (Equatorial Guinea)
       Ethiopia
       Republic of the Gambia (Gambia)
       Republic of Guinea (Guinea)
       Republic of Kenya (Kenya)
       Republic of Liberia (Liberia)
       Republic of Malawi (Malawi)
       Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania)
       Republic of Mozambique (Mozambique)
       Republic of Niger (Niger)
       Republic of Rwanda (Rwanda)
       Republic of Senegal (Senegal)
       Republic of Seychelles (Seychelles)
       Republic of South Africa (South Africa)
       Republic of Sudan (Sudan)
       United Republic of Tanzania (Tanzania)
       Republic of Uganda (Uganda)
       Republic of Zambia (Zambia)

     SEC. 19. LIMITATION ON USE OF NON-ACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD 
                   OF ACCOUNTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 448(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for services) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``in fields described in paragraph 
     (2)(A)'' after ``services by such person'', and
       (2) by inserting ``certain personal'' before ``services'' 
     in the heading.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to 
     change its method of accounting for its first taxable year 
     ending after the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the 
     taxpayer,
       (B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
       (C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken 
     into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account 
     over a period (not greater than 4 taxable years) beginning 
     with such first taxable year.

     SEC. 20. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN VACCINES AGAINST STREPTOCOCCUS 
                   PNEUMONIAE TO LIST OF TAXABLE VACCINES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4132(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining taxable vaccine) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(L) Any conjugate vaccine against streptococcus 
     pneumoniae.''
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) Sales.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
     to vaccine sales beginning on the day after the date on which 
     the Centers for Disease Control makes a final recommendation 
     for routine administration to children of any conjugate 
     vaccine against streptococcus pneumoniae.
       (2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in the case 
     of sales on or before the date described in such paragraph 
     for which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date 
     shall be considered the sale date.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall prepare and submit a report to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate on the operation of the 
     Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund and on the adequacy of 
     such Fund to meet future claims made under the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Program.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except 
those printed in House Report 106-236. 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 read, 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 Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 106-236.

[[Page 16470]]




          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 3, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 3, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 3, after line 8, add the following:
       (10) encouraging the establishment and development of small 
     businesses in sub-Saharan Africa and encouraging trade 
     between United States small businesses and these newly-
     established small businesses in sub-Saharan Africa.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of economic activity in Africa comes 
from small entrepreneurs. I just wanted to express my support for the 
thoughtful amendment offered by the gentlewoman because it recognizes 
that fact and encourages trade between small businesses.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that small businesses are the backbone of 
America. As we hold up a map of the United States, I am very proud to 
say that we are noting that 15 States export at least $100 million or 
did export it in sub-Saharan Africa in 1998. But if we look at this 
colorful map, we will see that America does business with sub-Saharan 
Africa.
  What I want to have happen today is a vote on an amendment that says 
small businesses will do business with sub-Saharan Africa and, as our 
amendment said, to encourage the creation and development of small 
businesses in sub-Saharan Africa for them to likewise do business with 
our business community. The language is an attempt to eliminate, or at 
least minimize, the intimidation that typically goes along with the 
business of international trade.
  Succinctly, the bill helps gun-shy businesses make overseas ventures 
that will grow our economy well into the next millennium. This 
amendment will assist in our ensuring that all viable businesses may 
access the tremendous trade opportunity created by this bill. 
Specifically, it will target small businesses that up until now have 
little incentive to go abroad in their search for steady streams of 
income.
  Mr. Chairman, what it says to all the advocates of this bill is that 
we have an extra responsibility with the larger corporate community to 
insist on the participation of the small businesses; we have the 
responsibility to promote in the Department of Commerce the Ron Brown 
Center in South Africa that works very hard to put American businesses 
together with African businesses. This amendment is to emphasize that 
importance.
  For those unconvinced that small businesses drive our economy, I 
would like to share with them some statistics. Small businesses in the 
United States represent 99.7 percent of all employers, a truly dramatic 
number. Fifty-three percent of the private workforce in the United 
States is employed by small business.
  For those unwilling to concede that small businesses must play a role 
in our trade overseas, please take note that small businesses represent 
fully 96 percent of all exporters.
  Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand about 10 pages that show how many 
different cities do business with sub-Saharan Africa: Gary, Indiana; 
Green Bay, Wisconsin; Harrisburg, Lebanon, Carlysle, Pennsylvania; 
Hickory, Morgantown, North Carolina; Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; 
Jackson, Mississippi; Kansas City, Missouri; Knoxville, Tennessee. 
Incorporated in all these cities, of course, are small businesses.
  There are a great number of Africans that want to help themselves. I 
have met with them. I have met with the ambassador core. I have seen 
the small businesses in Africa. They are ready and waiting. I have seen 
the flour packing factory. I have seen the fish packing factory. These 
employees in Africa want to work, and more of them want to access 
capital to ensure that they can provide and have the opportunity to 
construct their businesses.
  Small businesses in the United States are a principal source of our 
new domestic jobs. I want to see small businesses in sub-Saharan Africa 
being the principal source of jobs as well in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Small firms hire a larger proportion of employees who are younger 
workers, older workers, women workers; and that is what we expect in 
sub-Saharan Africa with the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Let me also acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that OPIC is committed to 
helping small business. OPIC has indicated that 1999 is the year of 
small businesses at OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 
This represents dollars for small businesses.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I hope my colleagues will 
vote for this amendment. How can we turn our backs on small businesses 
when we are opening the opportunity and the doors for trade with 
Africa?
  Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 434, the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999. This amendment encourages 
and recognizes the need for U.S. and African small business 
opportunities and investments in Sub-Saharan Africa through the 
mechanisms provided by the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
  H.R. 434 is embedded with clearly written language in an effort to 
restore stability and promote trade between the United States and Sub-
Saharan Africa. That language is an attempt to eliminate, or at least 
minimize, the intimidation that typically goes along with the business 
of international trade. Succinctly said, the bill helps gun-shy 
businesses make overseas ventures that will grow our economy well into 
the next millennium.
  This amendment will assist in our ensuring that all viable businesses 
may access the tremendous trade opportunities created by this bill. 
Specifically, it targets small businesses that up until now, have had 
little incentive to go abroad in their search for steady streams of 
income. As a result, the amendment ensures that the gains brought about 
by this bill are spread generously to all segments of our economy--and 
the economy of Sub-Saharan Africa as well.
  For those unconvinced that small business drives our economy, I would 
like to share with you some statistics. Small businesses in the United 
States represent 99.7 percent of all employers--a truly dramatic 
number. Fifty-three (53) percent of the private work force in the U.S. 
is employed by small business. For those unwilling to concede that 
small businesses must play a role in our trade overseas, please take 
note that small businesses represent fully 96 percent of all U.S. 
exporters. Furthermore, I have little doubt that our encouragement of 
the development and enhancement of African small businesses can yield 
similar economic statistics within Sub-Sahara Africa. They need that 
growth, and frankly, so do we if we are to expand and diversify our 
economy.
  There are a great number of Africans that want to help themselves, 
and we would be remiss if they would be locked-out of the benefits of 
increased trade with the United States. Countries like Botswana, 
Nigeria and South Africa have experienced a great deal of success 
fostering small businesses within their bounds, and they do so partly 
because it benefits their economy. In light of this fact, we must 
realize that the best way to assist these countries is to encourage 
them to continue with these successful practices.
  The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act must make clear: our U.S. small 
businesses are welcomed and indeed encouraged to participate in trade 
with Africa--and specifically, in trade with South African small 
businesses.
  Small businesses in the United States are our principal source of new 
domestic jobs. Because there are approximately 23 million small 
businesses in the U.S. they are able to provide virtually all of the 
new jobs added to the

[[Page 16471]]

economy. In 1997, the U.S. economy created nearly 3 million new jobs. 
Six our of ten of the industries adding those new jobs were small 
business dominated industries. Being an integral part of the African 
trade relationship will ensure small businesses continue to play a 
vital role in the economics of the United States.
  Small firms hire a larger proportion of employees who are younger 
workers, older workers, women or workers who prefer to work part time. 
They provide nearly 55 percent of the innovations that drive our 
economy. These businesses are an asset to our country, and we cannot 
leave them out of the fold with this bill!
  It makes good business sense to ensure that our small businesses have 
no doubt that they are welcomed and encouraged to seek the 
opportunities created by the African Growth and Opportunity Act. They 
must take advantage of the provisions giving them access to the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). They must know about 
lowered tariffs on goods. These are things to be taken advantage of for 
the betterment of our economy, let us make sure that everyone, 
therefore, can take advantage of them.
  This amendment is but a start, I will admit. And we must follow up on 
this issue if we are to ensure that our goal will be achieved. We must 
ask the Department of Commerce to emphasize and utilize the newly 
opened Ron Brown Investment Center located in Johannesburg, South 
Africa.
  We must ask trade associations that represent small businesses to 
establish and encourage foreign investment through use of this bill. 
Those associations should additionally assist and provide technical 
assistance for those small businesses that seek the aid of OPIC, the 
Department of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration so that 
they can enter into ventures overseas easily and successfully.
  I truly believe that we will be making history today. Let us make 
sure that when that history is reviewed, that small businesses can be 
found in the main body of the text, and not in a footnote. I therefore 
respectfully urge you to vote aye on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
in opposition to the amendment, although I support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will 
control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It will encourage the 
development of small business in Africa. It reiterates what this bill 
is trying to accomplish by promoting trade and investment.
  I have had the opportunity to travel to Africa with the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). We together had the opportunity to see 
small businesses across the continent at work. Small businesses in 
Africa are thriving. And we are building partnerships with small 
businesses in the United States. And this bill, improved with this 
amendment, will advance these goals.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), a very distinguished member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed that some U.S. 
corporations trading in Africa have blood on their hands.
  On May 27, a group of Nigerian citizens filed an action against 
Chevron in a U.S. District Court. They accuse Chevron of assisting 
Nigerian security forces to commit murder, injure protesters, and 
ransack and burn villages of the indigenous Nigerians. These protesters 
were objecting to the destruction of their environment and the 
plundering of their resources.
  Unfortunately, evidence gathered by a number of highly respected 
international human rights and environmental groups support these 
claims.
  These types of allegations are a part of a growing list of crimes 
being committed against the underprivileged peoples of the world.
  The most serious offenders are the giant oil companies who are hungry 
to take advantage of the rich oil and mineral resources in Africa. 
Incredibly, these corporations now deny responsibility for their 
actions.
  Our corporations should be required to conduct themselves according 
to a strict corporate code of conduct that ensures our U.S. 
corporations become good corporate citizens of the world.
  I support this amendment because it encourages the development of 
small business opportunity in Africa and, therefore, protects Africa 
from the bad elements of corporate America.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Let me say that I think that small business, whether it is here or 
abroad, is really the wave of the future. In this Nation, small 
business comprises 85 percent of employment in this country.
  Most of the new jobs created today are small business. Whether they 
are high-tech, whether they deal with intellectual properties, most of 
these are done with small businesses. And so, in order to move this 
Nation, this continent, forward in the area of entrepreneurship, small 
business is where it ought to be.
  We also should support the micro-economics, some of the very, very 
small businesses that women in Africa are in charge of. Women are the 
main driving force in many villages, as they are the barterers and they 
are the deal makers. And so, it is keenly important that we not only 
connect small business people on the Continent of Africa but in this 
Nation of small business people, minority women, minority-owned 
businesses.
  I think this is a great connection. I think that the Continent of 
Africa is looking for partnerships or looking for people to work as 
equals together.
  I believe that the historic 12-day, 6-country tour that President 
Clinton made last year sent a message that the U.S. is ready to stand 
up, stand forward to create the climate that is necessary to see this 
continent finally in the new millennium take its rightful place in the 
world.
  I am very encouraged by this amendment. I think we should all urge 
the House to adopt this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, on the small 
business amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to publicly 
thank the gentlewoman from Texas for all of the work that she has done 
for the people on the continent of Africa as well as to improve the 
economy of those of us in the United States of America. She not only 
has worked hard in the committee and in the subcommittees to make 
certain that small businesses were the beneficiaries but she has 
actually gone around the world, especially on the continent, to get a 
better understanding of the problems and then be able to come forth 
with the solution to those problems. She has gained the support and the 
friendship of the people of both sides of the aisle. She is to be 
congratulated. I support the amendment.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and ask unanimous consent that 
she be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to 
congratulate the outstanding leadership that the gentlewoman from Texas 
is providing for not only the women here in America but for the women 
of Africa. It is so important that we have the nexus between the 
businesses here and businesses in Africa. We recognize that women make 
up the majority of businesses, especially microenterprises in

[[Page 16472]]

Africa, and it is indeed important that we begin to move the agenda for 
those women so that they can provide the type of support for their 
families.
  I am excited to be here as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Empowerment of the Committee on Small Business to support this 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. First let me thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Africa of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to remind those individuals who have listened to this debate, 
my colleagues, that we would not let this bill proceed without 
embracing the backbone of America. As I indicated, 99.7 percent of the 
new jobs and jobs created in America in this very good economy have 
been created by small businesses. I think it is important to note that 
there is not one State in the United States that does not have a 
coloration to indicate that they are not doing business in Africa. I 
think it is also important when we begin to analyze this bill that we 
see Africa in multicolors. It would almost be like taking a portrait 
that our very esteemed African-American artist John Biggers paints, he 
paints with a lot of colors, going in and looking at the painting and 
saying, ``It looks like there is all blue.''
  We realize that there is poverty in Africa, that there is need for 
education, health care, running water and electricity. When we speak to 
the heads of government, they are prepared to engage internationally to 
secure those particular needs of their people. Why can we not as we 
recognize how much we do with Africa provide the forum and the vehicle 
for not only the large corporations but our small businesses? I hope 
that the large corporations, I hope that OPIC, the Department of 
Commerce, the Small Business Administration, are listening. Just for 
information, let me note that OPIC has a small business advocacy team, 
a small business hotline, a web page, how-to materials only for small 
businesses to do business in Africa.
  I believe that if we really pay attention to what is going on, we 
will see the numbers of pages of the many cities throughout America 
that are reflected in this map that shows that there is not one country 
left out. Let us not take a second step to Europe. I would ask that we 
pass this amendment and support the idea of small businesses having a 
piece of the pie of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 106-236.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
       Page 24, strike line 13 and all that follows through line 
     18 on page 25 and insert the following:

     SEC. 11. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA EQUITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS.

       (a) Initiation of Funds.--The Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall, not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, exercise the authorities it has to 
     initiate 1 or more equity funds in support of projects in the 
     countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in addition to any existing 
     equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the 
     Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Structure and Types of Funds.--
       (1) Structure.--Each fund initiated under subsection (a) 
     shall be structured as a partnership managed by professional 
     private sector fund managers and monitored on a continuing 
     basis by the Corporation.
       (2) Capitalization.--Each fund shall be capitalized with a 
     combination of private equity capital, which is not 
     guaranteed by the Corporation, and debt for which the 
     Corporation provides guaranties.
       (3) Types of funds.--One or more of the funds, with 
     combined assets of up to $500,000,000, shall be used in 
     support of infrastructure projects in countries of sub-
     Saharan Africa, including basic health services (including 
     AIDS prevention and treatment), including hospitals, potable 
     water, sanitation, schools, electrification of rural areas, 
     and publicly-accessible transportation in sub-Saharan African 
     countries.
       (c) Additional Requirements.--The Corporation shall ensure 
     that--
       (1) not less than 70 percent of trade financing and 
     investment insurance provided through the equity funds 
     established under subsection (a), and through any existing 
     equity fund for sub-Saharan Africa established by the 
     Corporation before the date of the enactment of this Act, are 
     allocated to small, women- and minority-owned businesses--
       (A) of which not less than 60 percent of the ownership is 
     comprised of citizens of sub-Saharan African countries and 40 
     percent of the ownership is comprised of citizens of the 
     United States; and
       (B) that have assets of not more than $1,000,000; and
       (2) not less than 50 percent of the funds allocated to 
     energy projects are used for renewal or alternative energy 
     projects.
       Page 25, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 6 
     on page 28 and insert the following:

     SEC. 12. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND EXPORT-
                   IMPORT BANK INITIATIVES.

       (a) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--Section 233 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(e) Advisory Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Board shall establish and work 
     with an advisory committee to assist the Board in developing 
     and implementing policies, programs, and financial 
     instruments with respect to sub-Saharan Africa, including 
     with respect to equity and infrastructure funds established 
     under section 11 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The advisory committee established under 
     paragraph (1) shall consist of 15 members, of which 7 members 
     shall be employees of the United States Government and 8 
     members shall be representatives of the private sector.
       ``(B) Appointment.--The members of the advisory committee 
     shall be appointed as follows:
       ``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives 
     of the private sector and 1 member who is an employee of the 
     United States Government.
       ``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are 
     employees of the United States Government.
       ``(C) Additional requirements.--Of the 8 members of 
     advisory committee who are representatives of the private 
     sector--
       ``(i) at least 4 members shall be representatives of not-
     for-profit public interest organizations;
       ``(ii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in development issues;
       ``(iii) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in human rights issues;
       ``(iv) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in environmental issues; and
       ``(v) at least 1 member shall be a representative of an 
     organization with expertise in international labor rights.
       ``(D) Terms.--Each member of the advisory committee shall 
     be appointed for a term of 2 years.
       ``(3) Meetings.--
       ``(A) Open to public.--Meetings of the advisory committee 
     shall be open to the public.
       ``(B) Advance notice.--The advisory committee shall provide 
     advance notice in the Federal Register of any meeting of the 
     committee, shall provide notice of all proposals or projects 
     to be considered by the committee at the meeting, and shall 
     solicit written comments from the public relating to such 
     proposals or projects.
       ``(C) Decisions.--Any decision of the advisory committee 
     relating to a proposal or project shall be published in the 
     Federal Register with an explanation of the extent to which 
     the committee considered public comments received with 
     respect to the proposal or project, if any.
       ``(4) Environmental impact assessments.--The Corporation 
     shall carry out environmental impact assessments with respect 
     to any proposal or project not later than 120 days before the 
     advisory committee, or the Board, considers such proposal or 
     project, whichever occurs earlier.''.
       (b) Export-Import Bank Initiative.--Section 2(b)(9) of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(9)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(9) For purposes of the funds allocated by the Bank for 
     projects in countries in sub-Saharan Africa (as defined in 
     section 17 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act):
       ``(A) The Bank shall establish an advisory committee to 
     work with and assist the Board in developing and implementing 
     policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to 
     such countries.

[[Page 16473]]

       ``(B) The members of the advisory committee shall be 
     appointed as follows:
       ``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall each appoint 2 members who are representatives 
     of the private sector and 1 member who is an officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government.
       ``(ii) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate shall jointly appoint the remaining 3 members who are 
     officers or employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(C)(i) At least half of the members of the advisory 
     committee who are representatives of the private sector shall 
     be representatives of not-for-profit public interest 
     organizations.
       ``(ii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall be a representative of an organization with expertise 
     in development issues.
       ``(iii) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall be a representative of an organization with expertise 
     in human rights.
       ``(iv) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall be a representative of an organization with expertise 
     in environmental issues.
       ``(v) At least 1 of such private sector representatives 
     shall have expertise in international labor rights.
       ``(D) Each member of the advisory committee shall serve for 
     a term of 2 years.
       ``(E)(i) Members of the advisory committee who are 
     representatives of the private sector shall not receive 
     compensation by reason of their service on the advisory 
     committee.
       ``(ii) Members of the advisory committee who are officers 
     or employees of the Federal Government may not receive 
     additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their 
     service on the advisory committee.
       ``(F) Meetings of the advisory committee shall be open to 
     the public.
       ``(G) The advisory committee shall give timely advance 
     notice of each meeting of the advisory committee, including a 
     description of any matters to be considered at the meeting, 
     shall establish a public docket, shall solicit written 
     comments in advance on each proposal, and shall make each 
     decision in writing with an explanation of disposition of the 
     public comments.
       ``(H) The Bank shall complete and release to the public an 
     environmental impact assessment with respect to a proposal or 
     project with potential environmental effects, not later than 
     120 days before the advisory committee, or the Board, 
     considers the proposal or project, whichever occurs earlier.
       ``(I) Section 14(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act shall not apply to the advisory committee.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the primary barriers to investment in Africa is 
the lack of physical infrastructure; unnavigable roads, lack of 
electricity and no access to hospitals. These are just some of the 
examples of underdevelopment that make Africa less welcoming to 
investors. Support for investment projects in Africa must grapple with 
these fundamental barriers.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act includes Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation financing in the amount of $500 million for 
projects in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there is no guarantee that 
this money will be used for projects that improve the standard of 
living for Africans in ways such as increased access to education, 
health care facilities, potable water and sanitation services. There is 
also no guarantee that African firms themselves will benefit from the 
financing. The fact that the gentlewoman from Texas had to offer an 
amendment for small firms is a good indication of where the present 
emphasis of the bill is left out and who is not included.
  I, therefore, offer this amendment to improve the OPIC provisions in 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It authorizes the same amount 
for OPIC funds, $500 million, but ensures that this financing benefits 
partnerships. The amendment would also target the financing and 
insurance to small firms. Multinational corporations do not need 
another handout. This amendment would make OPIC relevant to smaller 
firms in the U.S. and Africa that really need the investment support.
  The amendment would also ensure that projects supported by OPIC 
respect the environment and the local community. In the past, foreign 
investment in Africa has often led to development projects that drive 
people off their land and destroy the environment and the livelihoods 
of local residents. The African Growth and Opportunity Act should shoot 
higher for Africa. Infrastructure should be targeted for existing 
initiatives aimed at increasing citizens' access to schools, hospitals, 
electricity and potable water. This amendment will thus change the 
structure of OPIC and Export-Import Bank advisory boards to make OPIC 
funding accountable to these goals. The advisory boards will include 
experts in human rights, the environment, labor rights and development 
issues. This oversight will increase the likelihood that U.S. support 
for investment overseas will contribute to overall development 
objectives, facilitate business development in Africa, be responsive to 
local communities and respect the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his 
concern for enhancing the infrastructure for sub-Saharan Africa, but I 
do regret that I must oppose his amendment. It would impose 
unrealistic, unworkable requirements on the OPIC investment fund that 
would be the centerpiece of U.S. efforts to help the African private 
sector and would encourage free market economies.
  This amendment imposes specific quotas for U.S.-led investment and 
restrictions on the types of investment. It would prevent African 
entrepreneurs from making their own decisions about how best to utilize 
the investment encouraged by H.R. 434.
  In addition, the Jackson amendment imposes additional, burdensome 
requirements on the creation of new advisory panels to OPIC and to the 
Export-Import Bank. The Congress and our Committee on International 
Relations as well as other committees already have adequate tools for 
proper oversight of these institutions. The proposed additional 
requirements would ultimately reduce their proven effectiveness.
  Although I do not question the good intentions of the gentleman from 
Illinois in presenting this amendment, I must vigorously oppose its 
passage and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson 
amendment which promotes small business development and protects 
affirmative action by providing that 70 percent of trade financing and 
investment insurance provided by OPIC be allocated to small women and 
minority-owned businesses having at least 60 percent African ownership. 
This amendment would ensure that, at the very least, a majority of our 
OPIC funds in Africa would be used for the benefit of the African 
people.
  I commend the gentleman for this amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson 
amendment because it is unrealistic in the light of how OPIC funds work 
and in the light of what we are trying to do here with this $500 
million infrastructure fund.
  The expectation is that there will be large amounts of investments, 
perhaps $35 million each at a minimum, to invest in telecommunications, 
in banking, in transport infrastructure, in large infrastructure 
projects. There is no reason to tie the hands of these private fund 
managers as they try and bring Africa to the global economy in

[[Page 16474]]

these areas which require huge investments. Frankly, the $500 million 
investment figure for this fund is fairly modest considering the 
investment needs of Africa and the lack of investment capital flowing 
into the country. So to say that this must be undertaken by small 
businesses only and undertaken by minority businesses only is to put 
Africa at a disadvantage in trying to develop its economy.
  In so many cases the gentleman from Illinois has said that the bill 
is too modest and understates its promises to Africa. In this case his 
amendment is too modest. It takes into account things that cannot work 
in Africa because they are too small-minded to work under the situation 
where we are looking for capital investment in major investment 
projects, in infrastructure. It limits the Africans too much. I really 
think that he has not thought it through well enough. I therefore 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
can he can respond to any provision in the bill that specifically 
facilitates with economic incentives small business investment or 
participation in partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa?
  Mr. JEFFERSON. OPIC itself as the gentlewoman from Texas just talked 
about at some great length is focused on small business investment and 
development. It has not done that before. It is focused on it now to a 
great extent. The bill calls for women-owned businesses to be enhanced. 
In fact, that is where most of the empowerment provisions are. So I do 
not think that is a problem.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman is referring to sense of 
Congress provisions in the bill that have no binding implication.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is really where the rubber hits the 
road. Whenever we talk about real dollars and real investment, 
everybody can find reasons why it cannot be done. A sense of Congress 
is not an amendment. It is not something that has any teeth. We tried 
on this bill before as we wished to have done in the Committee on Rules 
to have some substantive amendments that would ensure that there would 
be business opportunities not only for Africans but for those small 
businesspersons who want to couple with Africans as we move forward to 
trade.
  Here as we look at this amendment and we talk about and direct ways 
by which we can help the infrastructure and AIDS, not a sense of 
Congress on AIDS but real money that could be used to deal with AIDS, 
again we find reasons why it cannot be done.
  I want to tell my colleagues, no matter what happens with this bill, 
I want the same Members, particularly on that side of the aisle, to 
help me make aid for Africa a line item in the budget of the United 
States of America and increase the aid to Africa that they care so much 
about.
  I rise in support of this amendment and I think everybody should 
support it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on 
Tax, Finance, and Exports.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson 
amendment propounded by my good friend from Illinois. The problem with 
the Jackson amendment is that it does not understand or address the 
true nature of what OPIC is. OPIC is not foreign aid. It is not 
government money. It is American money as to which there is a 
guarantee, and insurance premiums are paid for that guarantee. That is 
the very nature of it.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, because it is private money, if we have all the strings 
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) wants to attach to it, 
we will not have any investors, and therefore the very countries in 
Africa that Mr. Jackson is trying to help, he will end up hindering.
  Now what does it do on small businesses? In Illinois, for example, in 
the district I represent there is Ed Myers, there is Wall Clipper 
Sterling, there is Taylor of Rockton, Rita Chemicals of McHenry. These 
are all small to medium sized companies in Illinois that are being 
directly impacted by OPIC guarantees to Africa, and I would encourage 
the Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Jackson amendment. 
While well-intended, it imposes a quota system on OPIC projects in 
Africa.
  Seventy percent of the investments made by OPIC's Africa fund must go 
to small, women- and minority-owned businesses. In addition, 60 percent 
of such investments must go to businesses owned by Africans. Finally, 
all such businesses must not have assets greater than $1 million.
  In the opinion of OPIC, it is impossible to dictate ownership 
requirements on a privately managed fund. It would also be impossible 
to raise $500 million in capital for a fund that makes investments in 
companies with no more than $1 million in assets.
  If the Jackson quota amendment is adopted, there will be no private 
sector interest in OPIC's Africa fund. Without private sector 
partnership, this amendment simply means: no new U.S. jobs, no new U.S. 
exports to Africa, no new African jobs and expose OPIC and the taxpayer 
to potential lawsuits.
  Support the underlying bill that encourages the existing OPIC Africa 
development fund that will: create 1,000 U.S. jobs, increase U.S. 
exports to Africa by $500 million over five years, create 9,700 Africa 
jobs; and operate at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
  Defeat the Jackson amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as 
I might consume.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 40 
seconds.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the biggest criticism of the 
Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is 
that overwhelmingly these loans, as well as the insurance that is 
provided by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation only goes to 
very large multi national conglomerates in the United States. The 
Jackson amendment specifically makes it possible for Ex-Im to lend 
money to small businesses under $1 million and ensures the minority 
part of a partnership with Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
funds in order of establishment of a partnership between sub-Saharan 
Africans and Americans might indeed be initiated, and so the use of Ex-
Im and OPIC in this particular instance is appropriate.
  I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to add that I did because I find it 
somewhat humorous that the many amendments that I offered, the only 
amendment that I offered to this was accepted was this particular 
amendment, and I received a letter early this morning as well as a 
phone call.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. May I have an additional 15 seconds? This is 
actually in support of the gentleman's point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for 
an additional 15 seconds on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 
seconds.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I received a letter very early 
this morning from the Vice President of Congressional Affairs at the 
Export-Import Bank who indicated in her letter that Ex-Im Bank is 
officially opposed to the Jackson amendment, and I just take great 
umbrage with that particular letter because the Vice President of 
Congressional Affairs just happens to be my wife, Sandy, and so when I 
go home this evening as a result of the vote on this amendment, one 
Jackson is going to be extremely proud and one is going to be extremely 
sad.
  So I want all of my colleagues to know they will not disappoint me 
one way or the other.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)

[[Page 16475]]

has expired, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to comment on the 
amendment of my friend, and I much admire him, and I do not like to get 
in between him and his wife, but his wife, I think, is right on this 
one, and let me express why.
  When I was in the foreign aid agency in the Carter years, an 
assistant administrator, we wrestled with this issue of how to make 
real these, not these, but the AID projects in Africa and other places 
and not have them simply go for a lot of infrastructure that was 
unrelated to the basic needs of the people in the country, and I think 
that is what the gentleman from Illinois is trying to say here. The 
problem is that the way OPIC is structured this would not work, and 
also I think, and we need to work on this, is restructure these 
amendments. We have to be sure that we are not taking away the 
prerogatives of the country in whose domain the project is.
  Now a lot of these infrastructure projects that are insured through 
OPIC have to get the permits, the approvals, in one form or another 
from within the country, and I think the impact of the gentleman's 
amendment really is for us to dictate further than we want to what 
African nations think is something useful for themselves.
  Also, these 40 percent, and I will not call them quotas; I think what 
the gentleman is trying to do is to get it down to the grass roots. I 
think it is a good purpose, but with these stringent numbers and 
percentages I think we are going to tie up investments the gentleman 
would not. So I think the better course is not to pass this amendment, 
but to work together to try to make sure OPIC funds go where they 
should.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 106-236.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 38, after line 7, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 18. ASSISTANCE FROM UNITED STATES PRIVATE SECTOR TO 
                   PREVENT AND REDUCE HIV/AIDS IN SUB-SAHARAN 
                   AFRICA.

       It is the sense of the Congress that United States 
     businesses should be encouraged to provide assistance to sub-
     Saharan African countries to prevent and reduce the incidence 
     of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. In providing such 
     assistance, United States businesses should be encourage to 
     consider the establishment of an HIV/AIDS Response Fund in 
     order to provide for coordination among such businesses in 
     the collection and distribution of the assistance to sub-
     Saharan African countries.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I started out in debate earlier this morning 
acknowledging how much I appreciated the fact that we are debating 
Africa on the floor of the House in the context of what Africa has to 
offer and what it has to offer its people, in particular, sub-Sahara 
Africa, and I might just draw the attention of my colleagues to the 
face of Africa, a young child, young and bright and energetic and ready 
to be educated, to have potable water, to have electricity, to be able 
to have access to capitol, to grow up and to be able to be part of a 
thriving economy in the 48 States, 48 nations, that comprise sub-Sahara 
Africa.
  But juxtaposed against that face is a startling number, that by the 
start of 1998 8.2 million children had lost their mothers to AIDS, and 
many had lost their fathers as well, more than 9 out of 10 children 
often by AIDS or in sub-Sahara Africa where the burden of care is 
straining extended families and communities to breaking point in many 
places.
  We must declare a war on HIV AIDS.
  I am very delighted to have had the opportunity to join the esteemed 
Member from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the esteemed Member/colleague 
from California (Ms. Lee) on a presidential mission solely dedicated to 
studying and determining what we could do about HIV AIDS in sub-Sahara 
Africa.
  This amendment does as much as I believe in a trade bill we can 
stretch on the question of HIV AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, I have said I am a supporter of debt relief, the E-8 is 
a supporter of debt relief. We hope the IMF will come to its senses and 
be a supporter of debt relief because we cannot take the money that is 
being used to subsidize to bring down or to service debt and not be 
able to shift it to more important resources and needs.
  But this amendment speaks to the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
for what it is, a trade bill with major multi nationals who will be 
engaged in trade in Africa, and it calls upon the establishment of a 
HIV response fund, the collaboration of resources with the multi 
nationals to be able to shift those particular resources over to the 
need for fighting AIDS. This is an HIV AIDS response which will allow 
moneys from creditors to be able to use along with the corporate 
community. In particular this is dealing with the corporate community 
to supplement or to be able to utilize for prevention and treatment and 
other desires of the sovereign nation as it relates to treating HIV 
AIDS.
  It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we can team up with 
already the leadership in sub-Sahara Africa on the question of HIV 
AIDS. We can team up with Uganda, team up with Zimbabwe, we can work 
with South Africa and Zambia, and now we know we can work even more 
because the New York Times has said we have found a $4 treatment for 
AIDS that can be given to the woman to prevent the transmission of such 
to the child.
  We have a light at the end of the tunnel, and I would hope my 
colleagues would support this amendment for what it is. It is an 
acknowledgment and a recognition that we can do more than just talk 
about AIDS, but we can begin to put the structures in place to take 
private sector dollars to help us with a response fund that will fight 
fight fight and win the war against AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 434, the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999. This amendment expresses 
the sense of Congress that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is a threat to the 
success of this trade bill and that there must be a concerted effort in 
order to properly and sufficiently address this threat.
  My amendment encourages U.S. business to assist sub-Saharan Africa 
with the HIV/AIDS problem and consider the establishment of a HIV/AIDS 
Response Fund to coordinate and fund those assistance efforts.
  HIV/AIDS is a global problem touching virtually every country and 
every family around the world. More than 95 percent of the people with 
HIV live in the developing world. It is estimated that by the year 
2020, HIV/AIDS will be responsible for 37 percent of all adult deaths 
form infectious diseases in the developing world.
  There are 33 million cases of HIV/AIDS infections worldwide. Of 
those, over 22 million of them or 66 percent, occur in sub-Saharan 
Africa. As we debate trade and economic development for Africa, we must 
acknowledge the fact that unless there are serious efforts to contain 
the AIDS epidemic, and to reduce the number of those newly infected in 
Africa, the development goals we seek for Sub-Saharan Africa will not 
and cannot become reality.
  AIDS is wiping out decades of progress on a variety of development 
fronts in sub-Saharan Africa. In Tanzania, the World Bank predicts that 
its gross national product (GNP) will

[[Page 16476]]

be 15 to 25 percent lower as a result of AIDS. South Africa alone 
estimates that AIDS will cost the country 1 percent of its GNP each 
year.
  Professionals are being particularly hard hit in Sub-Saharan Africa 
as 34 percent of those with post-secondary education having been 
diagnosed as HIV positive. As a comparison, those holding elementary-
level educations comprise but 18 percent of the HIV infected 
population.
  Business entities, critical to a successful trade policy, also are 
witnesses to the devastation of HIV/AIDS. Uganda Railways has lost 
5,600 employees to AIDS and has a labor turn over rate of 15 percent 
annually, simply due to AIDS. Barclay Bank is now hiring two employees 
for every one skilled job, assuming that one of those employees will 
die of AIDS.
  Economic growth can not happen without human resources. The sub-
Saharan workforce is being quietly eroded due to the rapid spread of 
HIV/AIDS and its crippling effects. In 1994, the Indeni Petroleum 
Refinery in Zambia spent more on AIDS-related costs than it declared in 
profits. A study in South Africa found that at current levels of 
benefits per employee, the total costs of benefits would rise from 7 
percent of salaries in 1995 to 19 percent by 2005, once again, simply 
due to AIDS.
  HIV/AIDS is now threatening development gains that local and donor 
governments, citizens, NGOs and international agencies have worked for 
decades to achieve. By the year 2010, life expectancy in some sub-
Saharan countries could decrease by 30 years or more. True economic 
development can not survive such a statistic.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act is a bill designed to quickly 
bring sub-Saharan Africa into the global marketplace. U.S. business 
will be primary benefactors of the rewards from this bill. However, 
HIV/AIDS, if not handled correctly, will be an unexpected barrier to 
growth and opportunity. U.S. business must be encouraged to recognize 
the problem and join us in addressing it.
  We have federal agencies now addressing the HIV/AIDS issue 
internationally. The Department of State, Agency for International 
Development, U.S. Information Agency, the U.S. Peace Corps, the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Department of 
Commerce, and the Defense Department each has addressed a component of 
the HIV/AIDS problems of sub-Saharan Africa. But they cannot do it 
alone.
  There are some corporate and international efforts to tackle this 
problem. They are good efforts. But we need our business community to 
also recognize this issue and join us as partner in the war on HIV/AIDS 
in sub-Saharan Africa. They must realize that they cannot gain the full 
benefit of this bill unless Africa is strong.
  We need those corporations who will benefit the most from the passage 
of this bill to ante up. Corporations like Chevron, Mobil, Bank of 
America, Oracle, SBC Communications, Eastman Kodak, Ford and Boeing--
all of whom support the passage of this bill, to do something for the 
benefit of those upon whose shoulders they will find growth. I would, 
like my amendment denotes, encourage them, together, to establish a 
Reponse Fund. I would encourage them to work with African authorities 
to educate their workforce and their children about the dangers of HIV.
  Simply said, the onus of the responsibility should be on those who 
will bear the fruit of this bill. Corporate America--I call you by 
name. McDonalds, Motorola, Enron, General Electric--we need you to band 
together, to use your resources to cement Africa's greatest resource, 
it's people. Many corporate groups interested in this bill, like the 
Constituency for Africa and the Africa Trade Council, list HIV/AIDS as 
one of their top agenda items. That is encouraging, but we want more 
than a list. We want a response--a Response Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, we have before us a tremendous opportunity to work with 
the private sector to harvest immediate and substantial resources to 
aid those who are fighting HIV or AIDS. Let us not waste it. Let us 
pass this amendment. I ask you each for your support on this issue, and 
for your support in passing this Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following news article for printing in the 
Record:

                [From the New York Times, July 15, 1999]

          New Means Found for Reducing H.I.V. Passed to Child

                        (By Lawrence K. Altman)

       In an advancement that promises to significantly reduce the 
     incidence of AIDS in children in developing countries, 
     American and Ugandan scientists have found a simple new way 
     to prevent mother-to child transmission of the AIDS virus 
     that also is less costly and markedly more effective than the 
     standard therapy in the third world.
       The more practical therapy comes from substituting one 
     marketed drug, nevirapine, for the standard drug, AZT. The 
     cost for the two doses of nevirapine was $4, compared with 
     $268 for the AZT regimen now used in developing countries and 
     $815 for the much longer and more complicated course used in 
     the United States and other developed countries, Federal 
     health officials said in releasing the finding yesterday.
       The new treatment calls for both a mother and her infant to 
     take nevirapine just one time--a mother takes a pill once 
     during labor, and her baby is fed the drug as a syrup once 
     during the first three days of life.
       Nevirapine, a drug used in combination ``cocktail'' 
     treatments, has been marketed since 1996 in the United States 
     for treatment of H.I.V., the AIDS virus, and it was 
     remarkably safe in the study that was conducted by American 
     and Ugandan researchers. As babies reached 3 months of age, 
     nevirapine had cut the risk of mother-to-child transmission 
     of H.I.V. to 13 percent from the 25 percent for the standard 
     course of AZT in developing countries, or a reduction of 47 
     percent, United States and Ugandan health officials said.
       Monitoring will continue for 18 months to determine adverse 
     effects that might show up later in infancy. The monitoring 
     will also help to determine how many babies will still become 
     infected through breast-feeding in the first months of life, 
     when such transmission is highest.
       H.I.V. can be transmitted during pregnancy or during 
     delivery when bleeding occurs. Nevirapine is believed to be 
     able to block transmission of H.I.V. during the delivery, and 
     further studies will be needed to determine if transmission 
     can be stopped during breast-feeding.
       Nevirapine targets the same enzyme in H.I.V. as AZT, but it 
     is a different class of drug.
       The low cost of nevirapine makes it feasible or wide-scale 
     use in many developing countries, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who 
     heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
     Diseases, predicted in an interview. His Federal Agency paid 
     for the study.
       Dr. Peter Piot, who heads the United Nations AIDS program 
     in Geneva, said the nevirapine study was ``a major gain'' 
     because it ``approaches ideal prevention therapy'' for 
     developing countries, where 95 percent of the H.I.V.-infected 
     people live.
       But Dr. Piot said it was ``unrealistic to introduce it on a 
     large scale in developing countries without first using pilot 
     programs'' because drug therapy is only one part of a complex 
     effort to prevent H.I.V. Such pilot studies will begin soon 
     in developing countries, he said.
       Most women in developing countries do not know that they 
     are H.I.V.-infected because testing programs are scarce. ``It 
     is still a logistical, economic and cultural challenge to 
     develop programs to encourage H.I.V. testing, counseling and 
     baby formula as a substitute for breast-feeding for infected 
     mothers,'' Dr. Piot said in an interview.
       American and Ugandan scientists plan another study to see 
     if it would be more effective to give nevirapine to mother 
     and infant for longer periods. Also, a continuing study in 
     the United States and Europe aims to determine if adding 
     nevirapine to standard regimens will further lower the 
     transmission rate of H.I.V. from mother to child. Dr. Fauci 
     said there was no need to change the United States 
     recommendations until more studies are completed.
       The United Nations AIDS group estimates that 1,800 babies 
     are born H.I.V.-infected every day in developing countries 
     where most women do not receive prenatal care. In some areas 
     of Africa, up to 40 percent of pregnant women are H.I.V. 
     infected, and from 25 percent to 35 percent of their infants 
     will be born infected if therapy is not provided.
       Wide-scale use of nevirapine in developing countries 
     ``could potentially prevent 300,000 to 400,000 newborns each 
     year from beginning life infected with H.I.V.,'' Dr. Fauci 
     said.
       AZT and other anti-H.I.V. drugs have drastically reduced 
     mother-to-child transmission of the infection in the United 
     States since 1994, when a federally sponsored study showed 
     that AZT, taken for several weeks, could stop mother-to-child 
     transmission of H.I.V. The American regimen calls for the 
     pregnant woman to take AZT five times a day beginning as 
     early as the 14th week of pregnancy and continuing until 
     labor, when an intravenous injection of AZT is given. At 
     birth, the baby takes AZT four times a day for six weeks.
       Because the American regimen was impractical and too costly 
     for third world countries, scientists sought a more 
     affordable therapy.
       Researchers initially intended to enroll 1,500 women in the 
     study, conducted at Mulago Hospital and Makerere University 
     in Kampala, Uganda, beginning in November 1997. One part of 
     the study was dropped in February 1998 after another United 
     States-financed study conducted in Thailand found that AZT 
     used for a shorter period than in the United States was 
     effective in preventing mother-to-child transmission of 
     H.I.V.
       The Ugandan study then involved 618 women in their ninth 
     month of pregnancy who had not taken anti-H.I.V. drugs and 
     their 631 infants. Of the 618 women, 308 took AZT and 310 
     took nevirapine. Enrollment stopped at the end of last April.

[[Page 16477]]

       The women agreed to accept by random selection either of 
     two drug regimens. One regimen was single dose nevirapine 
     therapy for mother and infant. The other regimen involved 
     taking two AZT pills at the onset of labor and then one pill 
     every three hours until delivery. Infants born to mothers who 
     took AZT were given AZT twice a day during the first week of 
     life.
       After two months, 59 infants born to mothers who took AZT 
     and 35 infants born to mothers took nevirapine were infected. 
     Statistical tests projected the 25 percent and 13 percent 
     infection rates, respectively.
       The three deaths that occurred among mothers who took AZT 
     were due to AIDS and not the drug, the researchers said. No 
     deaths occurred among the mothers who took nevirapine.
       Infection was the most common cause of adverse effects and 
     death among the infants whose mothers took the two drugs. The 
     adverse effects and deaths were not deemed drug related.
       Scientists learned the findings on Monday at a meeting of a 
     committee that oversees the safety and effectiveness of such 
     studies.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition?
  Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important for us to understand what we 
do when we talk about a sense of Congress as opposed to actions that 
are actually taken that would create public policy or appropriate 
money. It is a good thing to be able to have language that says 
something nice, and we do that from time to time. But I want to make 
sure that everybody understands that this sense of Congress neither 
appropriates money nor does it create public policy. We cannot play 
around with this AIDS problem in Africa.
  Since 1983, 85 percent of all of the debts in sub-Saharan Africa is 
related to AIDS. We have only seen 1 percent of the medicine that they 
need in this area. Seven out of 10 in sub-Saharan Africa, infected with 
HIV or AIDS.
  So I think it is nice to at least mention it in this trade bill, but 
my colleagues have got to understand it means nothing to talk about 
trade. Where are the workers going to come from if we do not have the 
medicine, if we do not have the resources, if we do not have a real 
commitment by this country to deal with AIDS?
  I know the pharmaceuticals, the companies are all up in arms because 
they do not want their patent stolen. They do not want people 
replicating without their permission. They do not want them purchasing. 
We see that fight going on now, and it is a fight that must go on.
  But the fact of the matter is while colleagues are focused, while 
colleagues are focused and we are saying nice things, we are sitting 
over in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International 
Monetary Policy in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, we 
are trying to fashion AIDS as a factor in debt relief. We do debt 
relief. We are going to get some debt relief for Africa this year. It 
will not be done in anyplace else other than the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services. We do not want to send a message that we are 
taking care of AIDS in the trade bill and not get the opportunity to 
leverage what we are doing so that we can truly do something about 
AIDS; so, know it for what it is, and again, it is all right to say 
something nice and to try and encourage people, but when I come back to 
my colleagues with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others on 
debt relief where we are factoring in AIDS in order to increase debt 
relief, and they are going to be those who will be opposed to it, I do 
not want them to forget and think, oh, we have already done something 
because my colleagues do nothing today when they support this sense of 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of us are deceiving 
ourselves that we are dealing with the AIDS crisis in this legislation. 
I also think there is nothing wrong with reminding the corporate world 
they have got a responsibility.

                              {time}  1330

  Bristol-Myers Squibb has committed $100 million to Africa. That is an 
important start. It is a significant action. Other companies ought to 
take the same kinds of action.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for bringing this amendment up. I think the more we 
talk about AIDS, whether it is here or in sub-Saharan Africa, is 
positive. I cannot believe that we would say that a sense of the 
Congress, saying that we need to do something about it, is not the 
first step.
  Ten years ago we could not get a leader in Africa to admit that AIDS 
was a problem. I have met with presidents and they said no, we do not 
have that problem. I think we have to start with education. Just to 
mention the word AIDS in some of these circles is a step in the right 
direction. I compliment the gentlewoman and urge Members to support 
this resolution.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is titled the Africa Growth and Opportunity 
Act, but the single largest barrier to growth and opportunity on the 
continent of Africa is the overwhelming AIDS epidemic that the U.S. 
Surgeon General has compared to the plague of the 14th century.
  Wherever Members are on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, 
passing or not passing, and all of us have various positions with 
respect to this bill, including the process this bill has gone through 
for amendments, we had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that 
specifically prohibited the United States government from bringing 
action against sub-Saharan countries that are attempting to buy drugs 
cheaper or even produce generic drugs.
  That amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules, apparently 
overwhelmingly, but what was accepted was another AIDS amendment that 
gives a sense of the Congress that we want to do something about it; 
just a sense of the Congress, nothing binding, no appropriation, no 
money.
  Certainly there is going to be a problem for any U.S. investment in 
sub-Saharan Africa that does not provide for relief in terms of 
pharmaceuticals and drugs for sub-Saharan people. Again, regardless of 
Members' position on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, we need a 
commitment from the majority to advance the debt relief bills of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach). It helps towards the AIDS crisis.
  We need a commitment on more appropriations to make more funding 
available to address the continent's most devastating disease. We need 
a commitment toward AIDS education on the continent. With more than 
1,500 languages, it is difficult to explain to many different people in 
many different languages how devastating the disease is.
  In Durbin, South Africa, Mr. Chairman, we just received a newspaper 
article about a horrible rumor, a horrible rumor that if you have sex 
with a virgin, that is the cure to AIDS. We have to fight this kind of 
ignorance on the continent, and that will only come from more money, 
more money and more appropriations.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for having the guts, really, to stand 
up today and claim opposition to this amendment.

[[Page 16478]]



                  [From CNN Interactive, May 19, 1999]

      In South Africa, Doctors, Courts Fight Brutal AIDS ``Cure''

                      (By Charlayne Hunter-Gault)

       Durban, South Africa (CNN)--South Africa's northeastern 
     province of Kwazulu-Natal is blessed with a lush landscape--
     and cursed with the country's highest AIDS rate.
       The rolling hills and fertile valleys in the province of 
     8.5 million have spawned a myth of a terrible folk ``cure''--
     a story that says having sex with a virgin will rid sufferers 
     of the disease. The widespread belief has left parents, 
     children, doctors and the courts struggling with a wave of 
     rapes, frequently of young girls.
       Skhumbuza Mthembu, a 15-year-old peer counselor at a 
     village primary school in Mpophomeni, says he has heard of 
     the so-called cure from local men and boys. And he often 
     hears firsthand about the results.
       Those who have been victims tell horror stories about being 
     raped by a teacher, or a brother, an uncle or even a father. 
     They tell of being assaulted in restrooms, in the forest or 
     the bush, or in bed while they were sleeping.
       More and more stories like this are being told by younger 
     and younger children across this province and elsewhere. But 
     many, many more stories are not being told until it's too 
     late.
       Dr. Gillian Key treats sexually abused children at the 
     Addington Children's Hospital in Durban, the harbor port of 
     Kwazulu-Natal.
       ``Unless you see the children within an hour or one or two 
     days, you're unlikely to find anything,'' Key said. ``It's a 
     pitiful thing.''
       Some of the children receive good news--that they test 
     negative for HIV. For another family, the news wasn't good.
       One such child key treated was raped when she was 2: She 
     tested HIV-positive and now is developing full-blown AIDS.
       ``It's hard every day,'' said her mother, who asked that 
     her family remain anonymous our of fear that her daughter 
     would be stigmatized. ``It's hard not knowing that one day 
     she might not grow up.''
       In Durban, authorities have set up a special court to deal 
     with child abuse cases. It's difficult to establish which 
     rapes are connected to the cure myth, but prosecutors and 
     other say the abuse of younger children since it began 
     circulating has ``skyrocketed.''
       Court officials try to ease the process for young victims 
     who must testify. They provide separate rooms for them to 
     testify on videotape so they don't have to face their 
     abusers. But the fact that there are so many of them, coupled 
     with their increasingly younger ages, makes it difficult to 
     obtain convictions.
       ``The youngest we can put a child on the stand is three 
     years and if we look for an actual trial date, it will be 
     something like six months away,'' said Durban prosecutor Val 
     Melis. ``You can't count on a child to remember details like 
     that that far down the line.''
       Meanwhile, back in Mpophomeni, teen counselor Mtembu holds 
     another session to help youngsters cope with the trauma of 
     rape--and to teach them ways they can protect themselves.
       But when asked what about that, one young girl answered: 
     ``We just have to cry loudly and hope someone will hear us.''

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 30 
seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Detroit, Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I strongly stand here to support the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). A sense of 
the Congress is just that, that we sense that we ought to take an 
action. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I want to 
report that our subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), recognizes this, and we are going to and 
have on the subcommittee the appropriations for HIV-AIDS in Africa.
  It is a tremendous problem, but we are working on it. The sense of 
the Congress is the first step. The action to get it done is the next, 
and we are moving on that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify for a moment 
that this is a sense of Congress that brings about a rapid response 
fund that will be contributed to by corporations involved in the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act, private sector investment.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Jackson-Lee amendment encouraging assistance of the American Business 
Community to deal with the HIV/AIDS problem in Sub-Saharan Africa and 
to consider the establishment of an HIV/AIDS response fund.
  Anyone familiar with the HIV/AIDS problem knows of its tremendously 
negative impact on life in Sub-Saharan Africa and how it is rampaging 
throughout the area bringing death and destruction. Mr. Chairman, I've 
been told that those to whom much is given, much is expected in return. 
Therefore, many of our businesses and pharmaceutical companies are in a 
great position to provide help and resources to those with the greatest 
need in our world.
  This is a great opportunity to give the greatest of all gifts, the 
gift of life.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for introducing this amendment and 
urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 106-236.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Olver

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 106-236 offered by 
     Mr. Olver:
       Page 38, after line 7, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO HIV/AIDS CRISIS IN 
                   SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Sustained economic development in sub-Saharan Africa 
     depends in large measure upon successful trade with and 
     foreign assistance to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
       (2) The HIV/AIDS crisis has reached epidemic proportions in 
     sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 21,000,000 men, women, 
     and children are infected with HIV.
       (3) 83 percent of the estimated 11,700,000 deaths from HIV/
     AIDS worldwide have been in sub-Saharan Africa.
       (4) The HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is weakening 
     the structure of families and societies.
       (5)(A) The HIV/AIDS crisis threatens the future of the 
     workforce in sub-Saharan Africa.
       (B) Studies show that HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa most 
     severely affects individuals between the ages of 15 and 49--
     the age group that provides the most support for the 
     economies of sub-Saharan Africa countries.
       (6) Clear evidence demonstrates that HIV/AIDS is 
     destructive to the economies of sub-Saharan Africa countries.
       (7) Sustained economic development is critical to creating 
     the public and private sector resources in sub-Saharan Africa 
     necessary to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa 
     should be a central component of United States foreign policy 
     with respect to sub-Saharan Africa;
       (2) significant progress needs to be made in preventing and 
     treating HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa in order to sustain a 
     mutually beneficial trade relationship between the United 
     States and sub-Saharan Africa countries; and
       (3) the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is a global 
     threat that merits further attention through greatly expanded 
     public, private, and joint public-private efforts, and 
     through appropriate United States legislation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 250, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, sustained economic growth is desperately needed 
throughout Africa. Expanded trade between African nations and the 
United States, which is the goal of the legislation before us today, 
must be a major part of sustained economic growth.
  But sub-Saharan Africa is under siege from the HIV-AIDS epidemic. 
Twelve million people have already died, and 20-plus million are HIV-
AIDS infected. I would just ask Members to look at this quickly, at 
these maps, and imagine first that in 1977 a map like this up here 
shows not a single case of AIDS identified in the continent of Africa.
  In this map for 1987 we can see the growth of AIDS, and for 1997 we 
can see

[[Page 16479]]

the further growth, with a group of countries in the very dark red 
where the average AIDS infection rate for people in the working force, 
between 15 and 49, is average 25 percent, and for all these dark orange 
countries it is in the range of 15 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, if we think of that map, that is the very age group 
that is necessary to build any economy anywhere in this world. So the 
sense of Congress in our amendment simply states that solving the AIDS 
crisis should be central to our foreign policy in sub-Saharan Africa; 
number two, that this crisis is a global threat that warrants greatly 
expanded effort at all levels, government, private, private-public 
partnerships, including appropriate legislation by this Congress; and 
number 3, that progress must be made on prevention and treatment for 
HIV-AIDS if there is to be any real hope for sustained economic growth 
or any mutually beneficial trading relationship with the nations in 
sub-Saharan Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I will 
claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I would like to urge my colleagues to support the Olver-Foley-
Pelosi-Horn-Lewis amendment to H.R. 434.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 434, and I appreciate the hard work of the 
bill's chief cosponsors, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Both of my colleagues have 
worked diligently to create a balance on a very difficult issue, laying 
the groundwork for much needed trade policy with Africa.
  This amendment is very relevant to the future success of our trade in 
the sub-Saharan Africa and to economic growth in that region.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about HIV and AIDS in 
Africa. Twelve million Africans have perished from HIV-AIDS, and 22.5 
million are currently living with HIV. At this rate, the HIV-AIDS 
epidemic will leave a path of destruction in sub-Saharan Africa, 
destroying families, societies, and economies.
  Individuals between the ages of 15 and 40 are hit hardest by HIV and 
AIDS. That is the cross-section of the population responsible for 
supporting the economy. As a member of the International AIDS Task 
Force, I believe this epidemic is too powerful to ignore if we are 
serious about expanding economic opportunity in Africa.
  This is a nonbinding sense of the Congress amendment. I think it is 
an essential part of the trade policy we are developing. I pledge my 
support for H.R. 434, and think we can make this an even better piece 
of legislation by passing this amendment to show the Congress 
recognizes the force of HIV and AIDS to Africa.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
AIDS is an affliction which has had a fundamental and far-reaching 
effect on the well-being of many nations, and I think this amendment 
signifies the importance of our strong national commitment in 
combatting this disease, not only for this Nation's benefit, but for 
the benefit of all humanity.
  Though we continue to struggle in our efforts to understand AIDS and 
to cure it, it seems to me entirely consistent with this Nation's 
character, which teaches us to reach out to the weak and the sick, to 
engage in this dilemma in an active and direct manner.
  This amendment is reflective of this sort of approach, and it is my 
hope that it will serve as a stepping stone for future congressional 
action.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a severe problem, as has been pointed out. This 
costs millions of lives. AIDS has cost millions of lives in Africa. It 
does threaten economic development of the continent. Members of the 
House, including the coauthors of this particular amendment, are 
working on this problem. I support this amendment. This amendment will 
bolster our efforts on AIDS in Africa.
  Let me also point out that the underlying bill will support sub-
Saharan nations' efforts to strengthen their economies, to promote 
their strong growth, to promote job creation, and improve the standards 
of living there. In these ways, the bill will strengthen the ability of 
sub-Saharan countries to fight AIDS.
  Already growth and economic reforms have helped to generate resources 
for drug access programs. For example, Cote d'Ivoire has established a 
$1 million solidarity fund from corporate contributions and nonprofit 
insurance systems.
  But this amendment will help us do more. I thank the authors for 
offering this amendment, which we will support.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is also the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and thank him for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the 
floor. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to borrow his chart to show the tragedy of the 
spread of AIDS from 1987 to 1997. Much of this could have been 
prevented. We cannot talk about commerce and the economic situation in 
Africa without talking about HIV and AIDS.
  As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs for years I have urged the 
administration to address the issue of AIDS in the developing world.
  I thank gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has worked on 
this issue from the perspective of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services to make the AIDS issue a top item on the G-7 and G-8 
agenda. If they are dealing with the economies of the developing world, 
they must deal with the issue of AIDS.
  There have been success stories in Africa. Uganda is one of them. So 
we must cooperate with Africa on the AIDS issue. We will do so in the 
spirit of this sense of the Congress. I wish this could be a stronger 
amendment and have the power of law. We must make it have the force of 
law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to add my voice to those who are seeking 
to find a solution, those who are seeking to bring resources, seeking 
to bring progress to one of the greatest needs that exists on the face 
of this Earth.

                              {time}  1345

  We can give to Sub-Saharan Africa because we can give the greatest 
gift of all, and that is the gift of life. We can do it through sound 
trade policy, and we can do it through direct aid.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say any U.S. policy toward Africa must 
recognize that not only is HIV and AIDS a health issue, but it is an 
epidemic of enormous social and economic dimensions. Not only are there 
humanitarian concerns which we must morally embrace, we must attack 
this disease on a global basis, just as we did with polio and smallpox. 
It is in our national interest to do so. Diseases know no boundaries. 
This sense of the Congress resolution is an excellent first start, but 
we must put our money where our mouth is.

[[Page 16480]]


  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Olver amendment addressing the 
HIV/AIDS crisis. Addressing this crisis should be a central component 
of America's policy with respect to Sub-Saharan Africa, if we are going 
to have significant trade relations. This amendment speaks specifically 
to the needs of African women who are the epicenter of the worldwide 
AIDS epidemic. African women are the backbone of the vital informal and 
microenterprise sectors that make up so much of African economies.
  Mr. Chairman, this epidemic is decimating the pool of skilled 
workers. I express my support to further bring attention to this 
crisis.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
granted 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) will each control 1 additional 
minute.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the work he has done on 
this amendment. It has taken a lot of hard work, and I rise in support 
of it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment 
brought by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) which focuses 
on what poses the biggest threat to what we are trying to do through 
H.R. 434. HIV/AIDS has killed more than 11 million people and continues 
to infect more than 22 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  Today, while we try to meet our obligation to help Africa 
economically, we must not lose sight of this pandemic which is killing 
and affecting individuals in the prime of their life. I urge passage of 
this amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver-
Foley-Pelosi amendment. This amendment simply expresses the sense of 
the Congress that addressing HIV/AIDS should be a central component of 
our policy in sub-Saharan Africa.
  There are approximately 750 million people in sub-Saharan Africa--
almost 500 million more people than live in the United States. It is 
critical that the legislation we are considering, the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act includes language dealing with HIV/AIDS which are now 
rampant throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Southern Africa is facing an 
unprecedented emergency as the numbers of people becoming infected with 
HIV continue to climb at alarming rates in many countries of the 
region. This year, 1.4 million people between the ages of 15 and 49 
were infected in nine countries of southern Africa.
  In the four worst-affected countries of the region--Botswana, 
Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe--between 20% and 26% of adults in this 
age group are now estimated to be living with HIV or AIDS, and other 
countries are catching up fast. Zimbabwe is especially hard-hit. In 23 
HIV surveillance sites out of a total of 25, between 25% and 50% of all 
pregnant women were found to be infected with HIV. At least a third are 
likely to pass the infection on to their babies.
  Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United National 
Programme on HIV/AIDS has said that ``we now know that despite these 
already very high levels of HIV infection the worst is still to come in 
southern Africa. The region is facing human disaster on a scale it has 
never seen before.''
  Mr. Chairman, the wealthiest of nations would be financially 
overwhelmed by the prospect of dealing with an AIDS crisis of this 
magnitude. For sub-Saharan African nations, many with per capita 
incomes of less than $500 per year and crushing debt service payments 
monopolizing their budgets, the likelihood that they will be able to 
provide adequate treatment to the exploding number of AIDS patients is 
bleak. Without international cooperation in providing overall AIDS 
education, prevention and treatment, future generations in sub-Saharan 
Africa will face short, often agonizing lives.
  The impact on society of this type of epidemic is so obvious. How can 
we even think of passing legislation to increase trade and investment 
in Sub-Saharan Africa without including this sense of the Congress 
amendment that acknowledges the impact that HIV/AIDS has on 
establishing stable trade and true economic growth? This amendment 
should be an integral part of any equation when dealing with the 
overall economic policy of this region. This amendment takes the first 
step in acknowledging and expressing concern about the criticality of 
treating and preventing the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I rise to support our 
amendment to recognize the HIV/AIDS dilemma in Africa. This amendment 
does not interfere with the trade provisions of the bill. It is 
bipartisan and sensible. While this amendment is limited to non-binding 
``sense of the Congress'' language, I think it is an essential part of 
the trade policy we are constructing in this bill.
  It is time to develop a new trade relationship with Africa. For U.S. 
businesses and for the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the passage of 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act will provide the safeguards and 
incentives required for meaningful investments and partnerships. The 
bill is good for America and Africa. However, something is lacking in 
this legislation. Over 12 million Africans have died from AIDS and 
currently over 22 million in sub-Saharan Africa are living with HIV. 
Over 50% of the new HIV infections in Africa occur in women. Women also 
carry the main burden of care of family members with HIV/AIDS. 
Approximately 6 million women in sub-Saharan Africa are HIV positive. 
Our Growth and Opportunity trade bill seeks to uplift the women 
entrepreneurs and provide business and employment opportunities that 
will guarantee a better quality of life. HIV/AIDS is a barrier to our 
goals.
  In 1998, sub-Saharan African experienced four million new HIV 
infections. AIDS death tolls are rapidly rising. Sub-Saharan Africa 
experiences an estimated 5,500 funerals per day.
  The HIV/AIDS epidemic is leaving a path of destruction in sub-Saharan 
African that is impacting all aspects of life. This is why it is 
important as we consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act, we 
include our concern about the HIV/AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. 
This region can not achieve economic prosperity or fully meet the 
objectives of our bill, if the population is dying. The workforce will 
not be available to staff the many new and developing businesses. The 
cost of employee benefits will off set corporate profits and make any 
economic growth less than stellar.
  This amendment gives members the opportunity to voice their concerns 
about HIV/AIDS and it calls upon the House to consider future 
legislation addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis. I am pleased to offer this 
amendment with my colleagues, Mr. Olver of Massachusetts, Mr. Foley of 
Florida, Ms. Pelosi of California, Mr. Horn of California, and Mr. 
Lewis of Georgia.
  I know that the African Growth and Opportunity Act will be a better 
bill with inclusion of this amendment, because this amendment will help 
to ensure that the goals of the bill are achieved. The HIV/AIDS 
epidemic is too threatening to ignore if we are serious about expanding 
economic opportunity in Africa.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 434) to 
authorize a new trade and investment policy for Sub-Saharan Africa, 
pursuant to House Resolution 250, he reported the bill back to the 
House

[[Page 16481]]

with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bishop

  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Bishop moves to recommit the bill H.R. 434 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike section 7 and insert the following:

     SEC. 7. SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR APPAREL ARTICLES FROM 
                   ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES.

       (a) Special Access Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--The President, in consultation with 
     representatives of the domestic textile and apparel industry 
     and with representatives of countries in sub-Saharan Africa 
     that are eligible under section 4 and after providing an 
     opportunity for public comment, shall establish a special 
     access program for imports of eligible apparel articles from 
     such eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa under which 
     imports of such eligible apparel articles are not subject to 
     duties or quotas.
       (2) Program modeled on existing program.--The program under 
     paragraph (1) should be modeled on the existing program 
     providing for preferential tariff and quota treatment on 
     apparel articles originating in Mexico, consistent with the 
     international obligations of the United States under the 
     Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and other trade 
     agreements.
       (b) Eligible Goods.--
       (1) In general.--Apparel articles are eligible for the 
     special access program established under subsection (a) only 
     if the articles are--
       (A) apparel articles classified under chapter 61 or 62 of 
     the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that are 
     assembled in an eligible sub-Saharan African country from 
     fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States, from 
     yarns wholly formed in the United States, and sewn with 
     thread formed in the United States, whether or not such 
     articles were subjected to stone-washing, enzyme-washing, 
     acid-washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, bleaching, 
     garment-dyeing, embroidery, or other similar processes; or
       (B) handloomed, handmade, or folklore articles of an 
     eligible sub-Saharan African country that are identified 
     under paragraph (2) and are certified as such by the 
     competent authority of that country.
       (2) Determination of handloomed, handmade, or folklore 
     goods.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the President, 
     after consultation with the eligible sub-Saharan African 
     country concerned, shall determine which, if any, particular 
     apparel goods of the country shall be treated as being 
     handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described 
     in section 2.3(a), (b), or (c) or Appendix 3.1.B.11 of Annex 
     300-B of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
       (3) Actions by president to prevent market disruption.--The 
     President may impose the normal trade relations rates of 
     duty, restrict the quantity of imports, or both, with respect 
     to imports of eligible goods under this subsection from any 
     eligible sub-Saharan African country if the President 
     determines that such action is necessary to prevent market 
     disruption or the threat thereof.
       (c) Report.--The President shall include as part of the 
     first annual report under section 16 a report on the 
     establishment of the special access program under subsection 
     (a) and shall report to the Congress annually thereafter on 
     the implementation of the program and its effect on the 
     textile and apparel industry in the United States.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Agreement on Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

     SEC. 8. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS INVOLVING 
                   APPAREL GOODS.

       (a) Penalties.--Section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1592) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Penalties Involving Apparel Goods.--
       ``(1) Fraud.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the civil 
     penalty for a fraudulent violation of subsection (a) based on 
     a claim that apparel goods are eligible products of countries 
     in sub-Saharan Africa--
       ``(A) shall, subject to subparagraph (B), be double the 
     amount that would otherwise apply under subsection (c)(1); 
     and
       ``(B) shall be an amount not to exceed 300 percent of the 
     declared value in the United States of the merchandise if the 
     violation has the effect of circumventing any quota on 
     apparel goods.
       ``(2) Gross negligence.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), 
     the civil penalty for a grossly negligent violation of 
     subsection (a) based on a claim that apparel goods are 
     eligible products of countries in sub-Saharan Africa--
       ``(A) shall, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), be 
     double the amount that would otherwise apply under subsection 
     (c)(2);
       ``(B) shall, if the violation has the effect of 
     circumventing any quota of the United States on apparel 
     goods, and subject to subparagraph (C), be 200 percent of the 
     declared value of the merchandise; and
       ``(C) shall, if the violation is a third or subsequent 
     offense occurring within 3 years, be the penalty for a 
     fraudulent violation under paragraph (1) (A) or (B), 
     whichever is applicable.
       ``(3) Negligence.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the 
     civil penalty for a negligent violation of subsection (a) 
     based on a claim that apparel goods are eligible products of 
     countries in sub-Saharan Africa--
       ``(A) shall, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), be 
     double the amount that would otherwise apply under subsection 
     (a)(3);
       ``(B) shall, if the violation has the effect of 
     circumventing any quota of the United States on apparel 
     goods, and subject to subparagraph (C), be 100 percent of the 
     declared value of the merchandise; and
       ``(C) shall, if the violation is a third or subsequent 
     offense occurring within 3 years, be the penalty for a 
     grossly negligent violation under paragraph (2) (A) or (B), 
     whichever is applicable.''.
       (b) Mitigation.--Section 618 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1618) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Whenever'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Mitigation Rules Relating to Apparel Goods.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Treasury may remit or mitigate any 
     fine or penalty imposed pursuant to section 592 based on a 
     claim that apparel goods are eligible products of countries 
     in sub-Saharan Africa only if--
       ``(A) in the case of a first offense, the violation is due 
     to either negligence or gross negligence; and
       ``(B) in the case of a second or subsequent offense, prior 
     disclosure (as defined in section 592(c)(4)) is made within 
     180 days after the entry of the goods.
       ``(2) Special rule for prior disclosures after 180 days.--
     In the case of a second or subsequent offense where prior 
     disclosure (as defined in section 592(c)(4)) is made after 
     180 days after the entry of the goods, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury may remit or mitigate not more than 50 percent of 
     such fines or penalties.''.
       (c) Seizure and Forfeiture.--Section 596(c)(2) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
       ``(G) it consists of apparel goods that are claimed to be 
     eligible products of countries in sub-Saharan Africa 
     introduced into the United States for entry, transit, or 
     exportation, and
       ``(i) the merchandise or its container bears false or 
     fraudulent markings with respect to the country of origin, 
     unless the importer of the merchandise demonstrates that the 
     markings were made in order to comply with the rules of 
     origin of the country that is the final destination of the 
     merchandise, or
       ``(ii) the merchandise or its container is introduced or 
     attempted to be introduced into the United States by means 
     of, or such introduction or attempt is aided or facilitated 
     by means of, a material false statement, act, or omission 
     with the intention or effect of--

       ``(I) circumventing any quota that applies to the 
     merchandise, or
       ``(II) undervaluing the merchandise.''.

       (d) Certificates of Origin.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all importations of apparel goods that are 
     claimed to be eligible products of countries in sub-Saharan 
     Africa shall be accompanied by--
       (1)(A) the name and address of the manufacturer or producer 
     of the goods, and any other information with respect to the 
     manufacturer or producer that the Customs Service may 
     require; and
       (B) if there is more than one manufacturer or producer, or 
     there is a contractor or subcontractor of the manufacturer or 
     producer with respect to the manufacture or production of the 
     goods, the information required under subparagraph (A) with 
     respect to each

[[Page 16482]]

     such manufacturer, producer, contractor, or subcontractor, 
     including a description of the process performed by each such 
     entity;
       (2) a certification by the importer that the importer has 
     exercised reasonable care to ascertain the true country of 
     origin of the apparel goods and the accuracy of all other 
     information provided on the documentation accompanying the 
     imported goods, as well as a certification of the specific 
     action taken by the importer to ensure reasonable care for 
     purposes of this paragraph; and
       (3) a certification by the importer that the goods being 
     entered do not violate applicable trademark, copyright, or 
     patent laws.

     Information provided under this subsection shall be 
     sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the United States 
     rules of origin for textile and apparel goods.
       Redesignate succeeding sections, and references thereto, 
     accordingly.
       Page 18, line 19, insert after ``(b)'' the following: 
     ``(other than apparel articles described in paragraph (1)(A) 
     of subsection (b))''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit. I want this House to 
know that I would like to see us pass an Africa trade bill. I want 
everyone to know that we believe that we ought to pass an Africa trade 
bill, but it ought to be a good Africa trade bill, and it ought to 
promote economic growth and the well-being of the people of Sub-Saharan 
Africa, but not at expense of the people of America.
  I am offering this motion to recommit so that we can send this bill 
back to the committee and perfect it and do in the House what we expect 
the Senate is going to do when it sees this bill. This bill will not 
offer labor protections, it will not protect us against transshipped 
textiles from China, it will not protect American jobs. Mr. Speaker, we 
ought to do for Africa what we did for Europe. We need an African 
Marshall Plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, we are from Congress, we are here to help. 
That is great. Let us help the American textile worker and family for a 
change. Help Africa, of course, but not at the expense of American men 
and women who depend on textiles for their livelihood.
  For those who believe that the Sub-Saharan trade bill represents free 
and fair trade, I invite them down to the 8th District of North 
Carolina. I invite them to meet the most decent and hard-working people 
in this great Nation. And I invite them to stand at the mill gate and 
explain to them how wonderful this legislation will make their lives. 
They have heard it before. They remember clearly the promises made to 
them during negotiations of NAFTA and GATT, and they now know these 
promises were hollow.
  Mr. Speaker, we in rural, textile-rich America no longer have faith 
in trade agreements which so obviously disregard the health of our 
proud industry. We can fix this. All we have to do is vote to recommit 
and support the Bishop-Myrick amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, as it is now written, without a textile provision, no 
one in Africa is helped by the massive transshipment industry created 
for the Chinese. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) read their 
press release, their game plan. Their plan is clear as a bell. Let the 
transshipments begin. The only person helped may be someone selling 
aviation fuel for the planes which will bring the foreign goods to bury 
our textile industry and the men and women who depend on it. My 
colleagues will complete the destruction of this industry, its jobs and 
especially its people by allowing this bill to pass without the Bishop-
Myrick amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we saw fit to acknowledge the crisis in our steel 
industry. I supported this measure. I did not support it because I have 
a lot of steel manufacturers in my district, I supported it because it 
was the right thing to do.
  While the plight of the steel industry is serious, the plight of the 
textile industry has been nothing short of tragic. While the steel 
industry lost 17,000 jobs, the textile industry has lost 180,000 during 
the same time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support American people, support 
a true American industry, vote to recommit and fix this bill which, in 
its present form, only serves to hurt African-Americans and others in 
the U.S.A., taking their jobs. Help Africa, but help America first.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, since 1995, 
over 375,000 American textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. 
Many of these workers have been from the State of Georgia, a number of 
them from the Third District of Georgia.
  In June of 1999, headlines in the Third District newspapers read, and 
I quote: ``Thomaston Mills Drops Bombshell: Textile Firm will Close 
Local Plant, Leaving 145 Jobless.'' That may not seem like many jobs, 
but that is the second largest employer in this particular community, 
which was big to them.
  And another headline: ``Closing will Affect All Taxpayers,'' meaning 
a loss to the property digest in this county which is a great loss. In 
addition to closing this plant, Thomaston Mills simultaneously shut 
down factories in other neighboring counties and also offices in Los 
Angeles and New York costing another 555 jobs.
  Workers, their families, and the communities of the Third District of 
Georgia are not ready to accept another trade deal that exports jobs 
rather than goods, so I urge my colleagues, vote for the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to close 
this out by simply saying that if we recommit, if we pass this motion 
to recommit, we will then be in a position to perfect this bill and to 
truly have a bill that would be beneficial for the people in Africa and 
for the people in America, workers in the United States.
  If we fail to pass this motion to recommit, then we will have to 
depend upon the other body to do what we should have done ourselves 
here in this body. It will not pass on the other side without the 
provisions that we are trying to get in to protect both Africa and 
American workers.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), our distinguished ranking minority member on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit. It does not say that the African countries cannot export any 
clothing to the United States. It does not say that. It merely says 
that the clothing has to be assembled only with United States of 
America fabric, only with United States of America yarn and only with 
United States of America thread.
  I really think that this is repugnant to everything that we think of 
when we talk about trade. So manufacturers of clothes ship it across 
the Atlantic, let them stitch up our fabric and yarn and thread, and 
they will ship it back and try to sell it for a profit.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, transportation costs 
involved with shipping fabric from the U.S. to Africa are prohibitively 
high, and shippers rarely service African ports. Even if a U.S. fabric 
requirement were economically feasible, it would discourage investment 
in African fabric production which would prohibit Africa from ever 
being able to compete in that sector. A U.S. fabric requirement is a 
gutting proposal which will stifle African economic growth and 
discourage job creation in America, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

[[Page 16483]]

  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. 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 234, 
nays 163, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               YEAS--234

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--163

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hilleary
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gordon
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Istook
     John
     Largent
     Latham
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Ortiz
     Peterson (PA)
     Shadegg
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Thurman
     Wicker
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1419

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No 307, I was unavoidably 
detained, by traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

                          ____________________