[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26746-26750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to address the issue of the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative and the African Growth and Opportunity Act which is 
pending before the Senate. The package of incentives the Senate is 
considering this week includes the African Growth and Opportunity Act, 
the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, and the 
reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences and Trade 
Adjustment Assistance. Those are the four pieces of the proposal before 
us.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance dates back to 1962, when we decided 
to provide assistance to men and women in this country who had been 
adversely affected as a result of trade policies and who lost jobs. 
Trade adjustment allows for those individuals and companies that may be 
adversely affected to get some help. It has been a good law for almost 
40 years, and I am confident this piece of the package is one all of 
our colleagues will support.
  The matter dealing with the Generalized System of Preferences, the 
GSP, is also pretty routine, and one that we need to have enacted. I 
am, again, confident that this provision will also enjoy broad-based 
support.
  The two pieces that are provoking the debate have to deal with the 
enhancement of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act.
  I will spend a couple minutes talking about both of those provisions. 
I support them. I think they are important pieces of legislation that 
are going to accrue to the benefit of our country. I know there are 
those who are going to argue that somehow this is going to cause great 
damage to certain workers in the country. I don't believe it to be the 
case. In fact, I argue that if we were to defeat the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative and the Africa Growth provisions, that they will actually 
accrue to the detriment of workers.
  These are two important provisions which are going to enhance job 
opportunities in this country and are not going to harm people. I 
notice the presence of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, 
chairman of the Finance Committee. I commend him and his colleagues on 
the Finance Committee for dealing as expeditiously as they did with 
this trade package. This is the only piece of trade legislation I am 
aware of that we will deal with in this session of this Congress. I am 
hopeful that a good, strong majority of our colleagues will support 
these two provisions on the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa 
Growth and Opportunity Act.
  First, let me share some factual information so people can put this 
whole effort into context. Today, the Caribbean countries and the 
Central American nations comprise about 1.9 percent of all of the 
imports that come into the United States, 1.9 percent total. Of the 48 
countries in sub-Saharan Africa that will be affected by this 
legislation if it is adopted, more than 700 million people who are the 
poorest in the world, live in these 48 countries. These countries make 
up .86 percent of 1 percent of textile and apparel imports to the 
United States. So between the 48 countries and more than 700 million 
people in the sub-Saharan Africa region and the 24 countries that make 
up the Caribbean Basin and the Central American nations, we are talking 
about something around 2.75 percent of imports that come into the 
United States.
  We are talking about millions of people who live in these nations. We 
have a provision that would allow for the duty-free import of products 
that come out of these two parts of the world. But it isn't just duty 
free. It doesn't mean anything they produce automatically comes to this 
country. In this provision, there is a very important clause regarding 
textiles, which is the source of most of the argument, I think. The 
distinguished Senator from Delaware can correct me if I am wrong, but I 
think the textile provisions are probably provoking the most debate. In 
the textile provisions, we say that the fabric and the thread that is 
used to assemble the product in the 48 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa 
and the 24 countries in the Caribbean, that fabric and that thread must 
be made in the United States. You can then assemble the product in 
these other countries and it will come into the United States.
  Why is that important? Today, we have a massive amount of imports 
that come into this country from the Pacific Rim, Asian countries. 
There is no such requirement in those trade agreements, while there are 
quotas. In the year 2005, the quotas come off entirely. If we don't 
pass the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act, by 2005, we are going to find our markets flooded by 
products made in the Pacific Rim, where there is no U.S. content 
requirement.
  There are some 400,000 jobs in this country that make fabric and make 
the thread used in the production of these textile products that would 
come out of Africa and the Caribbean Basin. If we don't pass this 
legislation, those 400,000 jobs are in jeopardy. That is why this bill 
is important. First and foremost, this bill is important to America. As 
with any piece of legislation, the first consideration is, does it do 
any good or do no harm, but most especially, does it do any good for 
the people of the United States of America? I argue this bill is 
critically important to the well-being of almost a half million workers 
in the United States. Our failure to enact this legislation places 
those 400,000 jobs in jeopardy.
  There are other reasons why I think this is important, aside from our 
own interests. We spent $6 billion of U.S. taxpayer money in the 1980s 
in one of these Caribbean Basin countries, El

[[Page 26747]]

Salvador; $6 billion from the U.S. Treasury went to finance a war 
basically in the one country of El Salvador. Today, there are some 
335,000 Salvadorans living in the United States. In fact, there are 1 
million illegal aliens from the 24 Caribbean Basin countries living in 
the United States. And every day, more come.
  Why do they come here? Why did my great-grandparents come here? Why 
do the grandparents of parents of most people, with the exception of 
African Americans, come to America? My great-grandparents left Ireland 
not because they did not love Ireland any longer. It was because they 
were discriminated against. They couldn't get work. They weren't 
allowed to be educated. So they were left with no choice but to leave 
the country they loved to come to America. That is true for millions 
and millions of people in this country.
  Why do Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, people of the Dominican Republic and 
other nations leave to come here? It is not because they don't love 
their own countries, but the opportunities in these nations are almost 
nonexistent in many cases. That is why they come here. Do you want to 
stop that flood from coming? You have to create economic opportunity or 
that flood is going to continue, as sure as I am standing here.
  This effort doesn't solve that problem entirely. It would be 
ludicrous to suggest it would. But it would start to create economic 
opportunities in these countries that would allow their people to have 
some future without looking for the next boat or raft or plane in which 
to escape the economic deprivation they see in their own nation and to 
seek what millions have done over the years; that is, to come to this 
land of opportunity. If we are going to stem that tide, we have to 
begin by creating economic opportunity, or at least assisting in that 
process. I think this bill attempts to do that and does begin that 
process.
  Let me remind my colleagues that many of these Caribbean countries 
over the last few years have been devastated by natural disaster.
  These hurricanes that have swept across these islands and across 
these countries have left thousands homeless, without any future 
whatsoever.
  I recall that only about a year ago at this time, or a little less--
actually in early November of last year--I flew down to Nicaragua, 
after the hurricane hit there, with the wife of our Vice President, 
Mrs. Gore, Tipper Gore, and a group of Members of Congress. We went 
down for a weekend to help out with the international relief 
organizations to try to see what we could do as volunteers to provide 
some assistance.
  I will never forget, there were six or seven of us inside a one-room 
schoolhouse in Nicaragua, outside of Managua. It took us an entire day 
with shovels to shovel out the mud in a one-room schoolhouse. That is 
how thick it was. It took six people almost an entire day to shovel the 
mud out of what had been a one-room schoolhouse a few days earlier.
  We were looking over a small community that had just been devastated, 
with tent cities going up. Most of them were made of whatever scrap 
pieces of metal and cardboard people could find.
  So we talk about these neighbors of ours to the immediate south in 
this hemisphere who have been devastated by these natural disasters and 
events and our efforts to try to help them get back on their feet. We 
could write a check, although I suspect we would not come up with $6 
billion in aid relief, as we did during the guerrilla conflict in 
Central America, for one country. We probably could not get that 
passed.
  What we can do is try to provide some opportunity for jobs to be 
created, using U.S. content product, that would put some people to work 
in these countries, which keeps people working in America, and will 
provide some ray of hope for millions of people in these countries.
  I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee and those who worked 
with him. This is a good bill. It is not perfect, and there may be some 
amendments that would be offered. My good friend and colleague from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, has an idea that is a different approach 
to what is included in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I like 
what he is going to propose. I don't know if he will offer it as an 
amendment or not. My concern is that it probably would not pass. It has 
a factor of aid written into it, and I don't think there are 51 votes 
for a massive aid package here, nor does it exist in the House.
  So while I like what he proposes, I am concerned that would not make 
it, and what we have here, I think, can. I am attracted to what he is 
suggesting, but I don't necessarily believe that is going to be the 
answer in terms of how to do it. In the long term, it is creating 
economic opportunity in these countries that makes the most difference.
  We now have a balance of payment and trade in the 24 Caribbean 
countries that is positive. We talk about a mounting trade deficit, and 
it is true; but now if we are going to attack the trade deficit, we are 
aiming at the wrong target.
  To give you an idea where the numbers are, in the last several years, 
the trade surplus with the 24 Caribbean Basin countries is over $2 
billion. In the first 6 months of 1999, the surplus stands at $830 
million for this year alone. That is getting near $3 billion in a trade 
surplus with these 24 countries.
  It seems to me, if you want to deal with the trade deficit, maybe you 
ought to be aiming your sights on other parts of the world, although I 
am not advocating you do it. But if you do, that is where we ought to 
be looking. We have a trade surplus, and it is only a small amount of 
imports; 1.9 percent of the total imports come out of these 24 
countries. Nonetheless, we have a trade surplus.
  It seems to me that trying to expand trading opportunities is one of 
the few bright spots around the globe when it comes to expanding job 
opportunities here by providing new markets where American-produced 
products can be sold.
  With regard to these African countries, all of us have seen these 
photographs. You don't have to go to Africa or necessarily become a 
great student of what is going on in the sub-Saharan region. But 
anybody with even a passing awareness of what has happened to these 
countries over the last number of years has to be moved by it. They 
have to be moved by what they see.
  When you see more than 700 million people living under the most 
abject conditions of poverty imaginable in the world, with less than 1 
percent of textile and apparel imports coming from those 700 million 
people--I think .86 percent is the number; that is all it is coming 
into this country. If we can't say to these 700 million people in these 
48 countries, look, take our fabric and our threads, and if you can 
produce a product to sell into this country, keeping the jobs here at 
home and enhancing your economic opportunities, then what do we stand 
for? How else do we really, in the long term, provide assistance to 
these people?
  Does anybody really believe we are going to take out a check and 
write out an aid program to provide assistance to this many people in 
those countries? I don't think so. Ironically, only two of the 
countries in the sub-Saharan region have any kind of trading 
relationship with us at all. The other 46 have virtually no trading 
relationship. While this bill would potentially affect 48 countries, in 
fact, only 2 of the 48 really have any kind of involvement in terms of 
trading. Again, it is almost exclusively in the textile area.
  Again, I will make the point I tried to make at the outset. This 
bill, first and foremost, is good for this country. In the year 2005, 
the quotas come off. Again, my colleague from Delaware has forgotten 
more about this issue than I know. He can correct me if I am wrong. In 
the year 2005, as I understand it, the quotas on trade from the Pacific 
rim come off. There are no content requirements, as I understand it, 
with product produced in the Pacific rim.
  So if we don't provide an offsetting market to the Pacific rim market 
in the Caribbean Basin Initiative in the sub-Saharan region, come the 
year 2005, the people today who produce the fabric and produce the 
threads that

[[Page 26748]]

would be used to produce the products out of the nations affected by 
this bill would have their jobs in jeopardy because that content 
requirement is not there on the Pacific rim nations. The quotas do come 
off, and we could be adversely affected, in my view, by such an event. 
So it is going to be critically important that we start to build up an 
alternative market that has U.S. content requirements in it.
  I know some of my colleagues have raised the issue of labor 
standards. They are legitimate issues to raise. I point out that, to 
the best of my knowledge, all 24 countries in the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative are signatories to the international labor agreements. They 
are already on the line for supporting those labor standards. There is 
a legitimate issue about enforcement of the standards; that is a 
separate issue.
  But the fact is, there are labor standards here. The issue is whether 
or not you can enforce them and see to it that people are going to be 
protected to the extent possible by those labor standards. I hope we 
will figure out a mechanism to enforce the standards in those laws. The 
laws do exist to require these countries to meet those labor standards.
  Again, I commend those who have been involved. I will have more to 
say on the bill as the debate moves forward.
  For those who think that somehow this is a giveaway, this is just a 
favor we are doing for people who live in the island nations of the 
Caribbean or the Central American countries, nothing could be further 
from the truth. This bill is good for America. It protects jobs in 
America, expands growth and opportunity for businesses to be able to 
sell into these markets.
  The best social welfare program is a job. That is the best social 
welfare program. Nothing does more for a nation, for a family, or for 
an individual than to give them an opportunity to have a job, where 
they are self-sufficient and providing for their families and 
themselves. This proposal that increases a trading opportunity with 
these poor countries in Central America and the Caribbean and in the 48 
nations of sub-Saharan Africa gives them an opportunity to have a job 
which, in the long-term, is what preserves democracy and creates the 
kind of wealth and education necessary for nations to prosper and to 
grow.
  Again, with only 1.9 percent of all the imports coming from the 
Caribbean, those 24 countries, and less than 1 percent of textiles and 
apparel coming from the 48 nations in the sub-Saharan Africa nations, I 
think this country of ours and the Senate should support this 
initiative and say to the nations and the people: We want you to be 
partners with us. We want you to have the chance to provide for your 
own people.
  We want to do so without costing jobs for hard-working Americans. 
This bill does both of those things, and for those reasons is richly 
deserving of the support and votes of Members of the Senate.
  For those reasons, I urge adoption of this bill when the appropriate 
time comes to vote aye.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand that I am entitled to up to 
1 hour under the rules at this point, or at any point during the debate 
on the motion to proceed. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during debate of H.R. 434 
the following members of my staff have access to the floor: Mary 
Murphy, Tom Walls, Mary Ann Richmond, Linda Rotblatt, Sumner Slichter, 
and Michelle Gavin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Africa trade debate.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act's supporters believe that this 
legislation is a landmark--that it represents a real opportunity for 
growth on the continent, a new way of thinking about Africa.
  And they want us to believe, as they believe, that to reject it, or 
try to improve it, would be to reject all engagement with the continent 
and indeed to reject all of the African people's enterprise and energy.
  On that they are wrong. This bill is deeply flawed, and must be 
changed in a number of fundamental ways or, quite frankly, if we can't 
do that, I think it should be defeated.
  For 7 years I have served on the Subcommittee on Africa and I have 
committed myself to supporting democratization, peace, and development 
in the many varied countries of that continent. I support engagement 
with Africa as strongly as any Member of this body.
  I am deeply concerned about the dearth of economic ties between the 
people of the United States and those of the African continent. The 
current level of trade between us is depressingly small. Africa 
represents only 1 percent of our imports, 1 percent of our exports, and 
1 percent of our foreign direct investment.
  Should something to done to stimulate our trade with Africa? 
Absolutely.
  But I urge this body--let's not pretend that we are now debating a 
comprehensive trade package for Africa, for this bill is not in the 
least comprehensive. Let's not fail to address the need to build an 
environment that will foster and sustain mutually beneficial economic 
relationships. If we fail to assemble the components of that 
environment in this trade package, it cannot be called comprehensive, 
and I don't think it should even be passed.
  There really are only two defensible views of this bill. It either 
does virtually nothing at all or, worse, it actually does harm.
  This legislation actually does very little for Africa. The trade 
benefits we are talking about are not terribly significant. The African 
Growth and Opportunity Act makes African states eligible for temporary 
preferential access to the U.S. market for textiles and apparel only.
  Many of Africa's primary exports are not addressed at all by this 
legislation.
  The African Growth and Opportunity is silent on the subject of 
corruption. But surely corruption ranks right beside instability as one 
of the primary disincentives for American companies to get involved in 
Africa.
  In fact, of the 17 sub-Saharan African states rated in Transparency 
International's 1998 Corruption Perception Index, 13 ranked in the 
bottom half. Shouldn't a major piece of U.S.-Africa trade legislation 
at least mention this issue? Shouldn't it at least take a stab at 
addressing the corruption that impedes healthy commercial 
relationships?
  Mr. President, this legislation does nothing at all to address the 
African context for economic growth. That context is a challenging 
one--it is a context of boundless potential amid a web of obstacles.
  Economic growth in Africa faces the obstacle of a devastating HIV/
AIDS epidemic. In the course of 1998, AIDS was responsible for an 
estimated 2 million African deaths. That's 5,500 deaths a day.
  Eighty-seven percent of the world's HIV-positive children live in 
Africa. Their lives are that continent's future. Their chronic illness 
and their deaths each day erode a little more of Africa's promise. It 
is difficult to see how the United States can enjoy mutually beneficial 
trade relations with Africa unless we commit ourselves to addressing 
HIV/AIDS crisis on a scale beyond anything we have done before.
  Economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa faces the obstacle of a 
staggering $230 billion in bilateral and multilateral debt. Africa's 
debt service requirements now take over 20 percent of the region's 
export earnings. How can Africa become a strong economic partner when 
its states must divert funds away from schools, away from health care, 
and away from infrastructure in order to service their debt burden?
  How can we talk about economic engagement and simply ignore these 
painfully obvious realities?

[[Page 26749]]

  Mr. President, in several ways, I believe that this legislation 
actually would do harm.
  By seriously addressing only the textile industry, it would 
discourage the kind of diversification that African economies need to 
gain strength and stability.
  AGOA also fails to adequately tackle the problem of transshipment. 
Transshipment is a practice whereby producers in China and other third 
party countries establish sham production facilities in countries which 
may export to the United States under more favorable conditions. Then 
these producers ship goods made in their factories at home and meant 
for the U.S. market to the third country, in this case an African 
country, pack it or assemble it in some minor way, and send it along to 
the United States marked ``Made in Africa,'' enjoying all of the trade 
benefits that label would bring.
  As my colleagues know, transshipment is a very serious problem. 
Approximately $2 billion worth of illegally transshipped textiles enter 
the United States every year.
  The U.S. Customs Service has determined that for every $1 billion of 
illegally transshipped products that enter the United States, 40,000 
jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost.
  I'd like to share some words from the Peoples Republic of China with 
my colleagues.
  It is a pretty startling example of what can happen.
  This is a quote taken from the official website of the Chinese 
Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation. It says, and this is a 
direct quote:

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

   Mr. President, it's not hard to see that those who would engage in 
transshipment aren't too worried about the protections we currently 
have in place to guard against it.
  If nothing else raises a red flag for my colleagues when they 
consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act, this should be a 
crystal clear signal. Whatever opportunities this legislation creates 
by and large will not be opportunities for Africans.
  In fact, the African Growth and Opportunity Act does not require that 
Africans themselves be employed at the firms receiving trade benefits.
  While it is utterly silent on African employment, AGOA actually takes 
a step backwards for Africa with regard to content. The GSP program 
requires that 35 percent of a product's value-added content come from 
Africa. This legislation lowers that bar to 20 percent. This is 
progress?
   Mr. President, AGOA also contains weak provisions for ensuring 
workers' rights. It relies on GSP provisions to protect African labor. 
But some countries--like Equatorial Guinea--have GSP today, and still 
do not allow the establishment of independent free trade unions.
  AGOA could lead to exploitation in the name of increased trade. AGOA 
does not mention environmental standards at all. Any plan for 
sustainable economic development must include some notion of 
environmental protection. This is particularly true of a continent like 
Africa, where in some countries 85 percent of the population lives 
directly off the land.
  We are all affected when logging and mining deplete African 
rainforests and increase global warming; we all lose when species 
unique to Africa are lost to hasty profitmaking schemes, hatched 
without regard to sustainability or long-term environmental effects.
  Environmental quality also has serious implications for peace and 
stability in the region. As we have seen in the Niger Delta, 
environmental degradation can lead to civil unrest.
  Responsible trade policies must adequately address human rights and 
environmental issues--not just because it is the right thing to do, but 
also because, in the long run, it will create a better business climate 
for Africans and Americans alike.
  In addition, the failure of the African Growth and Opportunity Act to 
mention the critical role that development assistance plays in 
promoting African growth and opportunities has raised alarm here at 
home and internationally. The perception is that the United States has 
deluded itself into believing that a small package of trade benefits--
benefits which may not actually affect Africans themselves--can replace 
a responsible and well-monitored program of development assistance. 
This inevitably must cast doubt on the United States commitment to 
development in Africa.
  I care deeply about Africa and about United States policy towards 
Africa, and my colleagues know that. But I am here today not just 
because of my own concerns, but because of others--because I know how 
deeply they care about Africa, and I have heard them voice their very 
serious concerns about AGOA.
  African-American leaders ranging from Cornel West to Randall Robinson 
oppose the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Just 2 weeks ago, a group of African-American ministers representing 
communities from Massachusetts and Mississippi, California and New 
Jersey, Virginia and Illinois came to Capitol Hill to express their 
opposition to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I will read 
briefly remarks of Rev. Alexander Hurt of the Hurt Inner-City 
Ministries, Church of God and Christ on the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act:

       I have never fully felt like an American until the day that 
     I watched my President land in the land of my fathers. It was 
     like introducing two old friends to each other. That the AGOA 
     is in any way associated with that trip is the saddest part 
     of this debate. There are millions of African-Americans who, 
     like me, connect the President's trip to Africa with a start 
     of a new kind of relationship between not only Africa and 
     America, but Africa and the West. AGOA closes that 
     possibility. For it represents not a new future, but a return 
     to the past.
       America in a period of abundance that is unknown in human 
     history, can not be moved to reach out to Africa to help 
     starving nations. In the end we must decide if we will have a 
     foreign policy that reaches out with a hand toward nations as 
     equals, or with a hammer and pound them into subjection.
       Few things have changed with America's position toward 
     Africa. What was once done with the canon and the gun is now 
     being done with medicine and debt.

  I have heard African voices raise the alarm about AGOA as well as 
American ones. The Congress of South African Trade Unions has issued a 
statement opposing the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  A statement issued by 35 African NGO's--including Angola's 
Journalists for the Environment and Development, Kenya's African 
Academy of Sciences, South Africa's International People's Health 
Council, and Zambia's Foundation for Economic Progress--strongly 
opposed AGOA.
  Women's groups have spoken out as well. Women in Law Development in 
Africa, a coalition of African women and women's advocacy groups, 
opposes the African Growth and Opportunity Act, as does Women's EDGE, a 
coalition of international development organizations and domestic 
women's groups.
  The Africa-America Institute organized focus group discussions in 
eight African countries and the United States to foster discussion of 
proposed United States-Africa trade legislation. They found that AGOA 
will not contribute to African development unless the United States and 
other donor countries also increase investments in African human 
resource development and take measures to relieve Africa's debt burden.
  I know others have voiced support for AGOA, and I don't question 
their motives. Some of those supporters believe that this is the only 
game in town, and that a deeply flawed Africa trade bill is better than 
no bill at all. I think they are wrong. This Senate has a 
responsibility either to make this bill better, or to refuse to let it 
become law.
  I want to take a positive approach and make this bill better. 
Therefore, I have proposed alternative legislation, S. 1636, the HOPE 
for Africa Act. It was based largely on the efforts of my colleague 
from the House, Congressman

[[Page 26750]]

Jesse Jackson, Jr., and I am grateful to him for his leadership on this 
issue.
  The provisions of the HOPE bill point the way toward a truly 
comprehensive and a more responsible United States-Africa trade policy. 
I intend to use elements of HOPE to try to amend and improve AGOA.
   Mr. President, I want to amend AGOA to make goods listed under the 
Lome Convention eligible for duty-free access to the United States, 
provided those goods are not determined to be import-sensitive by the 
President. These provisions would mean more trade opportunities for 
more African people.
  At the same time, AGOA must be changed to reflect the importance of 
labor rights, human rights, and environmental standards. My proposals 
will clearly spell out the labor rights that our trade partners must 
enforce in order to receive benefits. They will also contain a 
monitoring procedure that involves the International Federation of 
Trade Unions, so that violations will not be glossed over at the 
expense of African workers.
  I will propose stronger human rights language, and incentives for 
foreign companies operating in Africa to bring their environmental 
practices there up to the standards that they adhere to at home.
  I will propose tough transshipment protections that give American 
entities a stake in the legality of the products they import. I want to 
be sure that Africans and Americans really do benefit from our United 
States-Africa trade policy.
  In that same vein, I will propose that trade benefits be contingent 
upon African content and the employment of African workers.
  I will propose that the United States reassert its commitment to 
responsible, well-monitored development assistance for Africa.
  I would be irresponsible if I did not propose changes to AGOA that 
will address the factors crippling Africa's economic potential today--
debt, HIV/AIDS, and corruption.
  I will urge this Senate to include anticorruption provisions that I 
will offer as an amendment to the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  I will propose that we address debt relief in this legislation so 
that, at the very least, we can put ourselves on the path toward taking 
well-thoughtout and responsible action.
  For all its wealth of natural resources, Africa's people are its most 
valuable resource. I will support measures to prioritize HIV/AIDS 
prevention and treatment in AGOA. In addition, I want to address the 
issue of Africa's intellectual property laws, to ensure that United 
States taxpayer dollars are not spent to undermine the legal efforts of 
some African countries to gain and retain access to low-cost 
pharmaceuticals.
   Mr. President, if all of this sounds ambitious, it is. Any plan to 
seriously engage economically with Africa must be ambitious. My bill 
and the amendments I will offer to AGOA are the minimum we must do to 
knock down the obstacles to a healthy, thriving, and just commercial 
relationship between the countries of Africa and the United States. The 
bill before us falls short of the minimum meaningful effort. The 
rhetoric that surrounds the African Growth and Opportunity Act is 
certainly ambitious. It is the content that is insufficient.
  We must demand more of a United States-Africa trade bill than AGOA 
has to offer. Ambitious plans can lead to rich rewards for both America 
and Africa. Anything less promises failure, despair, and decades more 
of lost opportunity.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________