[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26728-26731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, both colleagues have been gracious to 
those of us who are in opposition to this legislation. We will be 
taking some time to lay out our case against the legislation. Senator 
Hollings, of course, is one of the leading opponents. Because of the 
necessity to go back to his family experience of the real agony of 
having a home burned down, he needs to be away for this afternoon. A 
number of us will be here because a number of Senators want to speak. I 
will divide up my time and take about a half hour now, and I will be 
back this afternoon as other Senators speak.
  I have a letter that went out to Senators, signed by many African 
American religious leaders who oppose the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act and support the HOPE for Africa Act. That is the title.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

   African-American Religious Leaders Oppose the ``Africa Growth and 
   Opportunity Act'' (AGOA) and Support the ``HOPE for Africa Act'', 
                            October 20, 1999

       Dear Senator: We are a group of religious leaders who share 
     with other community leaders, scholars and activists, grave 
     concerns about the various proposed versions of the ``Africa 
     Growth and Opportunity Act'' (AGOA: H.R. 434, S. 1387, S. 
     666). We urge you to oppose the AGOA approach to U.S.-Africa 
     relations.
       We support an alternative legislative proposal, the ``HOPE 
     for Africa Act'' (HOPE meaning Human Rights, Opportunity, 
     Partnership and Empowerment) S. 1636 introduced by Senator 
     Russ Feingold (WI). The HOPE for Africa bill has been 
     developed with colleagues and other public interest 
     advocates, human rights and community groups in Africa and 
     the United States.
       We have been very clear about our opposition to H.R. 434, 
     the ``Africa Growth and Opportunity Act'' that has now come 
     over to the Senate. We view this controversial bill, which 
     was accurately dubbed the ``African Re-colonization Act'' 
     last year, as actually damaging to the interests of the 
     majority of African people.
       The AGOA's sponsors have refused to seriously address the 
     concerns of its prominent critics, such as TransAfrica 
     President Randall Robinson, Professor Ron Walters, President 
     Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Rev. William Campbell, Clergy 
     and Laity United for Economic Justice and Rep. Jesse Jackson 
     Jr., and many of his colleagues in the Congressional Black 
     Caucus including Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. John Lewis.
       Over the course of the last and current Congress, African 
     American leaders and organizations concerned about Africa 
     have carefully studied the actual provisions of the different 
     versions of the AGOA. Close analysis of the bills reveals 
     that although they are wrapped in rhetoric about helping 
     Africa, these bills are designed to secure U.S. business 
     interests, often at the expense of the interests and needs of 
     the majority of African people and at the expense of African 
     nations' sovereignty and self-determination. They have thus 
     been rightly designated as ``corporate bills'' rather than as 
     measures promoting justice or fair trade.
       Incredibly, the House version of AGOA, which its proponents 
     insist will be preserved in any House-Senate conference 
     process, imposes substantial burdens on the sub-Saharan 
     countries, burdens which are not imposed on other U.S. 
     trading partners. That the U.S. should condition trade with 
     African nations alone on demands that these countries 
     reorganize their domestic policies and priorities is 
     offensive. To add injury to insult, these burdens are in 
     exchange for meager trade benefits--two of the 48 sub-Saharan 
     countries would have quotas for textiles and apparel removed, 
     yet all such quotas expires when the Multifiber Agreement 
     sunsets in 2005.
       The Senate versions of the ``Africa Growth and Opportunity 
     Act'' effectively eliminate even the meager trade benefits 
     the House version of AGOA could provide African countries. 
     After all, it is highly unlikely that manufacturers will 
     assume the expense of shipping product to Africa (as opposed 
     to the Caribbean) just for the limited purpose of assembly, 
     as provided in the bill.
       The people of Africa must have our support as they strive 
     to build democracy and improve the standard of living in 
     their nations. Certainly it would be a travesty if U.S. 
     policy actually undermined the future prospects of most 
     Africans, which is why many on the continent oppose AGOE.
       Given our opposition to the AGOA approach and our strong 
     desire for a mutually beneficial U.S.-Africa policy, African 
     colleagues participated in crafting a proposal aimed at 
     promoting equitable, sustainable, sovereign African 
     development. The key elements of ``The HOPE for Africa Act'' 
     are the African priorities of debt relief and self-
     determination of those economic and social policies best 
     suited to meeting the needs of African people. These include 
     strengthening and diversifying Africa's economic production 
     capacity (for instance in the processing

[[Page 26729]]

     of African natural resources and manufacturing), and fair 
     trade in sectors (unlike textiles and apparel) promising a 
     long term opportunity for African economic development.
       We urge you to support S. 1636, the forward-looking ``HOPE 
     for Africa Act,'' that would meet the needs and interests of 
     the people of both Africa and the United States, and to 
     oppose the various outstanding versions of the AGOA approach.
           Sincerely,
       Rev. William D. Smart, Phillips Temple CME Church, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Rev. Dr. Bennie D. Warner, Camden, AR.
       Rev. William Monroe Campbell, Second Baptist Church, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Rev. M. Andrew Robinson-Gaither, Faith United Methodist 
     Church, Los Angeles, CA.
       Rev. Richard (Meri Ka Ra) Byrd, Senior Minister Unity 
     Center of African Spirituality, President of the Los Angeles 
     Metropolitan Churches (LAM), CA.
       Pastor Leroy Brown, Wesley United Methodist Church, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Pastor William Brent, Evening Star Baptist Church, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Rev. E. Winford Bell, Mount Olive Second Missionary Baptist 
     Church, Los Angeles, CA.
       Rev. Al Cooke, Fort Mission Fruit of the Holy Spirit 
     Church, Los Angeles, CA.
       Pastor Wellton Pleasant, South LA Baptist Church, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Pastor Maris L. Davis Sr., New Bethel Baptist Church, 
     Venice, CA.
       Pastor Robert Arline, Bethesda Church, Los Angeles, CA.
       Reve. Joseph Curtis, United Gospel Outreach, Los Angeles, 
     CA.
       Rev. Eugene Williams, Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches, 
     Los Angeles, CA.
       Pastor Larry D. Morris, Mount Gilead Baptist Church, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Rev. W.K. Woods, President Progressive Baptist Convention 
     of CA.
       Pastor Kenneth B. Pitchford, Greater Hopewell Full Gospel 
     Baptist Church, Los Angeles, CA.
       Rev. J.C. Briggs, Christian Life Missionary Baptist Church, 
     Los Angeles, CA.
       Rev. Michael Pfleger, St. Sabina Church, Chicago, IL.
       Dr. Rev. Bennet Poage, Associate Regional Minister, 
     Christian Church Kentucky for Kentucky Appalachian Ministry.
       Rev. Dr. Curtis A. Jones, Madison Avenue Presbyterian 
     Church, Baltimore, MD.
       Rev. Clarence Philips, Nazareth Baptist Church, Menden 
     Hall, MS.
       Rev. David E. Womack, Mt. Olive Ministries, MS.
       Rev. Artis Fletcher, Mendall Bible Church, MS.
       Rev. Thomas Jenkins Sr., New Lake Church, MS.
       Rev. R.J. Walker, St. Matthew Baptist, MS.
       Pastor Tony Duckworth, Mount Olive Community Church, MS.
       Rev. John L. Willis, Disciples of Christ Inter-
     denomination, Menden Hall, MS.
       Pastor Neddie Winters, The Church of the City, MS.
       Rev. Phil Reed, Voice of Calvary Ministries, MS.
       D.L. Govan, Voice of Calvary Fellowship, MS.
       Rev. Edward Allen, Philemon Baptist Church, Newark, NJ.
       Bishop Alfred L. Norris, The United Methodist Church, 
     Northwest Texas--New Mexico Area.
       Reverend David Dyson, Pastor, Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian 
     Church, Brooklyn, NY.
       Rev. Daniel Mayfield, Knoxville, TN.
       Rev. Derek Simmons, First AME Zion Church, Knoxville, TN.
       Rev. Walter Shumpert, Houston St. Baptist Church, 
     Knoxville, TN.
       Rev. Brian Relford, Logan Temple AME Zion Church, 
     Knoxville, TN.
       Rev. Dr. Terrie E. Griffin, Founder & President of HEALAIDS 
     Inc., Richmond, VA.
       Dr. Jesse Gatling, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Rufus Adkins, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Joan Armstead, Richmond, VA.
       Dr. Charles Sr. Baugham, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Selwyn Q. Bachus, Richmond, VA.
       Dr. Louis R. Blakey, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Meredith J. Blow, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Delores O. Booker, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. J. Elisha Burke, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Gloria W. Flowers, Mechanicsville, VA.
       Rev. Dr. G.G. Campbell, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Marie G. Arrington, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Joseph A. Fleming, Richmond, VA.
       Dr. Samuel F., Jr. Williams, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Dr. B.S. Giles, Mechanicsville, VA.
       Rev. Dr. Terrie E. Griffin, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Queen Harris, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Barbara Ingram, Glen Allen, VA.
       Rev. William Jenkins, Sandston, VA.
       Rev. John E. Jr. Johnson, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. D. Wade Richmond, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Dr. Robert L. Taylor, Glen Allen, VA.
       Rev. Fernando, Sr. Temple, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Robert E. Sr. Williams, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. Lucille L. Carrington, Richmond, VA.
       Rev. William Moroney, Missionaries of Africa, Washington, 
     DC.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from 
Florida, given the remarks I am about to make, that I know when it 
comes to the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, 
although we have a number of trade bills that are lumped together right 
now--he is interested in one of the questions that I am going to be 
raising today and one of the reasons I oppose this. I certainly hope we 
can have some enforceable labor standards. I will talk about that in a 
moment.
  I want to say one of two things. Either the debate on S. 1387 and S. 
1389 is not the debate that we should be having now, or if we do move 
on to this legislation--I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If we go forward, I want to make the case that either 
we should not be considering this legislation, or if we go forward, a 
number of Senators are very anxious to have the opportunity to bring 
amendments to the floor that are all about our work and representation 
of the people in our States. In particular, I want to make the case 
that I have an amendment that I have said to the majority leader for 
the last 4 weeks--I have had to even put holds on other bills of some 
Senators, making the point that I am not opposed to your legislation. I 
don't want it going through by unanimous consent, and I only want an 
opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on this amendment that deals 
with the mergers and acquisitions that are taking place in agriculture.
  My view is we ought to have a moratorium on these mergers and 
acquisitions at least for the next 18 months. We ought to do that 
because, right now, this frightening concentration of power on the part 
of these packers and grain companies and on the part of these middle 
men, on the part of these exporters is driving our family farmers and 
producers off the land--that along with record low prices. The two are 
interrelated. I certainly, as I speak today--and probably this 
afternoon--will talk about that amendment and talk about why I believe 
so strongly that I should have the opportunity to--and I intend to--
bring that amendment out on this legislation if we go forward.
  I also want to say I don't think the debate on campaign finance 
reform should be over. It is too central an issue to politics and 
public life in America. I think it is the core problem. I think it is 
one of the major reasons why people are so disillusioned. I had an 
amendment that I brought to the floor, which basically went down when 
those who were opposed to campaign finance reform were able to block 
the legislation.
  The amendment I am focused on says, look, if we are not prepared to 
enact bold reform, then at least let's not get in the way of citizens 
around the country who, at the grassroots level, are making a 
difference. And if the people in Maine, Vermont, Missouri, 
Massachusetts, and other States are going to go forward with the clean 
money/clean election initiative, which is a way of getting the big, 
private interest money out and basically making sure the public 
financing means these elections belong to the people, they ought to be 
able to apply that to Federal races as well, the Senate races and House 
races. For any Senator or Representative, it would be voluntary on our 
part as to whether we want to be part of that system. But States ought 
to be able to pass legislation to present that option. I will have that 
amendment, and I will be ready to introduce that amendment to this 
legislation. I don't think the debate on campaign finance reform should 
be over. I hope other Senators will come out here with other amendments 
to deal with campaign finance reform.
  If we think this is such a central issue, if we think this is an 
issue perhaps of the same importance as the civil rights question and 
legislation that we passed in 1964 and 1965, we ought not to be 
abandoning this fight. And there are a number of us with amendments.
  For me, again, my answer on that is, first and foremost, the 
producers and the family farmers of my State are being driven off the 
land. I think the

[[Page 26730]]

farm policy is a miserable failure. I think we have to make some 
changes. I am hoping people on both sides of the aisle will agree. I am 
not interested in pointing fingers and saying you cast the wrong vote X 
number of years ago; you are wrong, and you are wrong. I am interested 
in making some modifications and changes to get farm prices up and farm 
income up to give our producers a fair shake. That is what I am 
interested in. I certainly am interested in this whole question of 
campaign finance reform.
  I also want to say to colleagues that I certainly hope we consider an 
amendment on raising the minimum wage. We have been trying to get this 
amendment up for some time now.
  Senators should have an up-or-down vote. If Senators are opposed to 
raising the minimum wage $1 over 2 years, then Senators can come out 
here and say they are opposed and make their case. I think that is the 
way it should be. I am sure I will hear some good arguments on the 
other side of the aisle, or maybe even among some Democrats. I don't 
know why they oppose raising the minimum wage. I think some of them 
will be forceful arguments. But the point is, we ought to be 
accountable. The point is, we ought to be willing to have an up-or-down 
vote. I am assuming there will be Senators who will want to have an 
amendment on raising the minimum wage, Senator Kennedy being the leader 
of this effort with any number of us joining in.
  Finally, before I get to the substance of this bill, I want to bring 
up another topic which I am sure some of my colleagues are tired of. 
This will be the fourth round where I have been making the appeal that 
we ought to have the courage to do the policy evaluation to know what 
is happening with the welfare bill. Every time I do this, I am either 
defeated by a close vote or it is passed and then dropped in 
conference. I think that has happened again. To me, it is outrageous. I 
will have an opportunity to talk about this when I introduce this 
amendment.
  But to make a very long story short, to cut the welfare rolls in half 
does not necessarily mean we have success. We have success when we have 
cut poverty in half; we have success when welfare recipients, who by 
definition are basically single-parent families--women and children 
primarily--are better off economically. So we ought to know, as women 
and children are essentially no longer receiving welfare assistance, do 
women have jobs now? What kind of wages do they pay? We need to 
understand. The Families U.S.A. study says 670,000 of America's 
children have no medical assistance because of this bill. Do they still 
have health care coverage or not? In addition, we ought to know with 
the 30- to 35-percent drop in food stamp participation--the Food Stamp 
Program being the major safety net program for children's nutrition--
does this mean more children are now going hungry today in our country?
  Finally, we need to know whether or not there is affordable child 
care. We ought to at least do the honest policy evaluation. Given, 
again, the conference committee dropped this, I will be back with this 
amendment.
  After having said that, in particular, again, let me emphasis my 
primary focus--there are a number of amendments--which is, more than 
anything else, I want to make the fight on agriculture. I want to have 
the opportunity to bring to the floor of the Senate an amendment and 
legislation that I think will help alleviate some of the suffering 
among family farmers. I want to do that. I think we should have, before 
we leave, the opportunity to have a debate about ways in which we can 
change agricultural policy for the better. If other Senators have other 
ideas, I think that is great as well. I do not want to see us leave 
without trying to take some positive action.
  After having said that, I think this debate about the CBI and the 
African trade bill could be useful and enlightening. I said this on 
Friday as well. The question really is, when we talk about trade 
policy, we want to know whether we can make the global economy work for 
working families. That is the test: Can we make this new global economy 
work for working families in our country. I am an internationalist. I 
argue for the people of the other countries as well.
  Senator Feingold introduced an impressive and innovative bill based 
on legislation that was introduced in the House by Jesse Jackson, Jr., 
that blazes a trail for U.S. trade policy. It is truly ground breaking.
  Finally, people who want our trade policy to work for working 
families will have an alternative that I think they can wholeheartedly 
support. I don't think the issue is whether or not we expand trade. I 
don't think the issue is whether or not the United States of America is 
part of an international economy. I certainly don't think the issue is 
that we should put walls up on our borders. I think the issue is, on 
whose terms are we going to expand trade? What are the rules and who 
benefits from those rules? I am interested in the rules of trade. I am 
not interested in trade without rules. Let me say that again. I am 
interested in the rules of trade, which means I am interested in trade. 
I am not interested in trade without rules.
  In this case, the choice could hardly be clearer. The Feingold-
Jackson legislation, called the HOPE for Africa Act, says the expansion 
of trade should benefit working families and poor families in America 
and in Africa. Trade agreements should be about making the global 
economy work for ordinary citizens. The HOPE for Africa bill says if 
you are really serious about raising labor and environmental standards 
across the globe, then we have to have enforceable--let me mention that 
two or three times--enforceable protections built into our trade 
agreements. The HOPE for Africa bill says that we can't be serious 
about wanting to help African countries develop economically if we 
don't do anything about their crushing debt burden. The HOPE for Africa 
bill says that the lives of Americans or the lives of Africans 
suffering from AIDS are more important than the monopoly profits of the 
pharmaceutical companies. The HOPE for Africa bill has its priorities 
set straight. It expands trade the right way by putting people first. 
We have heard that before. Why don't we make it a reality?
  Our other option, I fear, is more of the same, more NAFTAs--NAFTA for 
the Caribbean, NAFTA for all of South America, NAFTA for Africa. I 
certainly don't want to see IMF-style economic policies that I think 
have been impoverishing one country after another all over the world 
with the austerity measures--raise interest rates, try to export your 
way out of a crisis, and more investment protections for multinationals 
to export jobs overseas so they can avoid complying with American-style 
labor and environmental standards. That is what we are talking about--
more investment protection for multinationals to export jobs overseas 
so they can avoid complying with American-style labor and environmental 
standards--more trade incentives so multinationals can shift those 
goods right back into the United States, competing against American 
workers trying to organize a union.
  The message is: Try to organize a union and we go to another country. 
More enforceable protections for the interests of multinationals and 
foreign investors and more unenforceable lip service for the interests 
of working families. This is a policy that says to working Americans: 
Don't even try to organize a union.
  This is the main basis of my opposition. Do that and we will move 
jobs overseas with special trade and investment incentives. It says to 
workers overseas, don't try to organize a union; the only way to 
compete for foreign investment is by accepting rock bottom wages.
  That is the flaw in this trade legislation. It is a pretty good deal 
for an investor who wants to save labor costs, but it is a pretty 
rotten deal for an American worker or worker overseas. That is what is 
at issue. We are basically saying to working Americans: Don't even try 
to organize a union; do that and we will move your jobs overseas. That 
is what we are saying.
  It says to the workers overseas: Don't try to organize a union; the 
only way to get the foreign investment is by accepting rock bottom 
wages.

[[Page 26731]]

  It is great for the investors who want to save labor costs, but it is 
a rotten deal for an American worker and it is a rotten deal for a low-
wage worker in another country.
  I want to see a global trade policy that works for workers. I want to 
see a trade policy that lifts the living standards of workers. This is 
a developmental model that has failed time after time. This is the way 
of the past. It is time to say good riddance once and for all.
  It is not as if we don't have any choice. The Feingold bill gives a 
clear alternative. It is called the HOPE for Africa Act. We need 
something similar for the Caribbean. I know my colleague from Florida 
is now working on trying to have some enforceable labor standards. That 
would make a huge difference.
  We have a World Trade Organization meeting coming up in Seattle. I 
hear the discussion from the administration and others who want this 
trade legislation to pass. They think it is possible we could push for 
meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental standards.
  What kind of message are we now conveying, with about a month to go 
before this critical WTO meeting, when we are talking about a bilateral 
trade agreement which does not have any enforceable labor and 
environmental standards? I ask the administration: Where are you going 
with this? What is your message to labor? What is your message to the 
environmental groups? What is your message to the human rights groups? 
What is your message to all the nongovernment organizations that are 
going to be out in Seattle?
  As a Senator, I will be proud to join them. On the one hand, we have 
the rhetoric that says we think it is possible through WTO to have 
enforceable labor and environmental standards. That is implied in the 
rhetoric. At the same time, we have some trade bills that the 
administration is saying we have to pass; this is a No. 1 priority; we 
have to pass them before the WTO, which communicates the exact opposite 
message. They basically say we are not interested in enforceable labor 
standards; we are not interested in enforceable environmental 
standards.
  And, by the way, the message for farmers and producers in my State: 
If we don't have an opportunity to offer amendments, we are also not 
interested in trade policy that gives them any kind of fair shake. Both 
Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad will be out here, as well.
  I will say that 1,000 times over the next X number of hours: If we 
don't have the commitment to enforceable labor and environmental 
standards in our bilateral trade agreements, how can we credibly expect 
to include them in multilateral agreements?
  I think this legislation in its present form sets a terrible 
precedent. I think it goes in exactly the opposite direction from the 
words I hear the administration speak. I think it goes in the exact 
opposite direction from the rhetoric of at least some of my colleagues.
  I am interested in negotiations. Senator Graham has talked about the 
United States-Caribbean trade agreement and is trying to work on 
enforceable labor standards. However, I don't now see it in any of 
these trade bills. From my point of view, I think we have to have some 
enforceable labor standards that give working people in these other 
countries the right to organize and bargain collectively.
  If someone in the Senate says that my insistence as a Senator from 
Minnesota on some enforceable global labor standard is protectionist 
and that is the case, then we might as well say the Fair Labor 
Standards Act is also protectionist. That is the piece of legislation 
that relates to commerce in States in our country. We are saying we are 
going to apply this to all the States. Companies are not going to be 
able to have these atrocious child labor conditions. We will have 
protection dealing with child labor. Senator Harkin will probably be 
here with an amendment dealing with that. We will make sure people have 
a right to organize and bargain collectively.
  If we live in a global instead of a national economy--haven't I heard 
all Members say that--then we need the same kind of rules on the global 
level that we have on the national level for exactly the same kinds of 
reasons.
  I will come back later this afternoon to critique the legislation. I 
am preparing amendments to introduce.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, for his graciousness in yielding the floor. I 
realize this is somewhat inconvenient for him, but I deeply appreciate 
his kindness in yielding at this time.

                          ____________________