[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7444-7448]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take time to share some 
excerpts taken from the National Intelligence Estimate 99-17D of 
January 2000, which frames infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, as a 
national security threat to the United States.
  This is, obviously, pursuant to the discussion we have been having 
most of the day with regard to the inadequacy of the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act with regard to the provisions concerning HIV/AIDS in 
Africa and, in particular, the very serious error of the conference 
committee in eliminating the Feinstein-Feingold amendment concerning 
HIV/AIDS.
       This report represents an important initiative on the part 
     of the Intelligence Community to consider the national 
     security dimension of a nontraditional threat. It responds to 
     a growing concern by senior US leaders about the 
     implications--in terms of health, economics, and national 
     security--of the growing global infectious disease threat. 
     The dramatic increase in drug-resistant microbes, combined 
     with the lag in development of new antibiotics, the rise of 
     megacities with severe health care deficiencies, 
     environmental degradation, and the

[[Page 7445]]

     growing ease and frequency of cross-border movements of 
     people and produce have greatly facilitated the spread of 
     infectious diseases.
       As part of this new US Government effort, the National 
     Intelligence Council produced this national intelligence 
     estimate. It examines the most lethal diseases globally and 
     by region; develops alternative scenarios about their future 
     course; examines national and international capacities to 
     deal with them; and assesses their national global social, 
     economic, political, and security impact.
       Of the seven biggest killers worldwide, TB, malaria, 
     hepatitis, and, in particular, HIV/AIDS continue to surge, 
     with HIV/AIDS and TB likely to account for the overwhelming 
     majority of deaths from infectious diseases in developing 
     countries by 2020.
       Sub-Saharan Africa-accounting for nearly half of infectious 
     disease deaths globally--will remain the most vulnerable 
     region. The death rates for many diseases, including HIV/AIDS 
     and malaria, exceed those in all other regions. Sub-Saharan 
     Africa's health care capacity--the poorest in the world--will 
     continue to lag.
       The most likely scenario, in our view, is one in which the 
     infectious disease threat--particularly from HIV/AIDS--
     worsens during the first half of our time frame, but 
     decreases fitfully after that, owing to better prevention and 
     control efforts, new drugs and vaccines, and socioeconomics 
     improvements. In the next decade, under this scenario, 
     negative demographic and social conditions in developing 
     countries, such as continued urbanization and poor health 
     care capacity, remain conducive to the spread of infectious 
     diseases; persistent poverty sustains the least developed 
     countries as reservoirs of infection; and microbial 
     resistance continues to increase faster than the pace of new 
     drug and vaccine development. During the subsequent decade, 
     more positive demographic changes such as reduced fertility 
     and aging populations; gradual socioeconomic improvement in 
     most countries; medical advances against childhood and 
     vaccine-preventable killers such as diarrheal diseases, 
     neonatal tetanus, and measles; expanded international 
     surveillance and response systems; and improvements in 
     national health care capacities take hold in all but the 
     least developed countries.
       Barring the appearance of a deadly and highly infectious 
     new disease, a catastrophic upward lurch by HIV/AIDS, or the 
     release of a highly contagious biological agent capable of 
     rapid and widescale secondary spread, these developments 
     produce at least limited gains against the overall infectious 
     disease threat. However, the remaining group of virulent 
     diseases, led by HIV/AIDS and TB, continue to take a 
     significant toll. The persistent infectious disease burden is 
     likely to aggravate and, in some cases, may even provoke 
     economic decay, social fragmentation, and political 
     destabilization in the hardest hit countries in the 
     developing and former communist worlds.
       The economic costs of infectious disease--especially HIV/
     AIDS and malria--are already significant, and their 
     increasingly heavy toll on productivity, profitability, and 
     foreign investment will be reflected in growing GDP losses, 
     as well, that could reduce GDP by as much as 20 percent or 
     more by 2010 in some Sub-Saharan African countries, according 
     to recent studies.
       Some of the hardest hit countries in Sub-Saharan Africa--
     and possibly later in South and Southeast Asia--will face a 
     demographic upheaval as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases 
     reduce human life expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill 
     as many as a quarter of their populations over a decade or 
     less, producing a huge orphan cohort. Nearly 42 million 
     children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to 
     AIDS by 2010; 19 of the hardest hit countries will be in 
     Sub--Sahran Africa.
       The relationship between disease and political instability 
     is indirect but real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of 
     state instability suggests that infant mortality--a good 
     indicator of the overall quality of life--correlates strongly 
     with political instability, particularly in countries that 
     already have achieved a measure of democracy. The severe 
     social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely 
     to intensify the struggle for political power to control 
     scarce state resources.


                            the deadly seven

       The seven infectious diseases that caused the highest 
     number of deaths in 1998, according to WHO and DIA's Armed 
     Forces Medical Intelligence Center, AFMIC, will remain 
     threats well into the next century. HIV/AIDS, TB malaria, and 
     hepatitis B and C--are either spreading or becoming more 
     drug- resistant, while lower respiratory infections, 
     diarrheal diseases, and measles, appear to have at least 
     temporarily peaked.


                                hiv/aids

       Following its identification in 1983, the spread of HIV 
     intensified quickly. Despite progress in some regions, HIV/
     AIDS shows no signs of abating globally. Approximately 2.3 
     million people died from AIDS worldwide in 1998, up 
     dramatically from 0.7 million in 1993, and there were 5.8 
     million new infections. According to WHO, some 33.4 million 
     people were living with HIV by 1998, up from 10 million in 
     1990, and the number could approach 40 million by the end of 
     2000. Although infection and death rates have slowed 
     considerably in developed countries owing to the growing use 
     of preventive measures and costly new multidrug treatment 
     therapies, the pandemic continues to spread in much of the 
     developing world, where 95 percent of global infections and 
     deaths have occurred. Sub-Saharan Africa currently has the 
     biggest regional burden, but the disease is spreading quickly 
     in India, Russia, China, and much of the rest of Asia.


                                   TB

       WHO declared TB a global emergency in 1993 and the threat 
     continues to grow, especially from multidrug resistant TB. 
     The disease is especially prevalent in Russia, India, 
     Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Latin 
     America. More than 1.5 million people died of TB in 1998, 
     excluding those infected with HIV/AIDS, and there were up to 
     7.4 million new cases. Although the vast majority of TB 
     infections and deaths occur in developing regions, the 
     disease also is encroaching into developed regions due to 
     increased immigration and travel and less emphasis on 
     prevention. Drug resistance is a growing problem; the WHO has 
     reported that up to 50 percent of people with multidrug 
     resistant TB may die of their infection despite treatment, 
     which can be 10 to 50 times more expensive than that used for 
     drug-sensitive TB. HIV/AIDS also has contributed to the 
     resurgence of TB. One-quarter of the increase in TB incidence 
     involves co-infection with HIV. TB probably will rank second 
     only to HIV/AIDS as a cause of infectious disease deaths by 
     2020.
       Malaria, a mainly tropical disease that seemed to be coming 
     under control in the 1960s and 1970s, is making a deadly 
     comeback-especially in Sub-Saharan Africa where infection 
     rates increased by 40 percent from 1970 to 1997. Drug 
     resistance, historically a problem only with the most severe 
     form of the disease, is now increasingly reported in the 
     milder variety, while the prospects for an effective vaccine 
     are poor. In 1998, an estimated 300 million people were 
     infected with malaria, and more than 1.1 million died from 
     the disease that year. Most of the deaths occurred in Sub-
     Saharan Africa. According to the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development, USAID, Sub-Saharan Africa alone is 
     likely to experience a 7- to 20-percent annual increase in 
     malaria-related deaths and severe illnesses over the next 
     several years.
       Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the region most affected by 
     the global infectious disease phenomenon--accounting for 
     nearly half of infectious disease-caused deaths worldwide. 
     Deaths from HIV/AIDS, malaria, cholera, and several lesser 
     known diseases exceed those in all other regions. Sixty-five 
     percent of all deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa are caused by 
     infectious diseases. Rudimentary health care delivery and 
     response systems, the unavailability or misuse of drugs, the 
     lack of funds, and the multiplicity of conflicts are 
     exacerbating the crisis. According to the AFMIC typology, 
     with the exception of southern Africa, most of Sub-Saharan 
     Africa falls in the lowest category. Investment in health 
     care in the region is minimal, less than 40 percent of the 
     people in countries such as Nigeria and the Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo DROC have access to basic medical care, 
     and even in relatively well off South Africa, only 50 to 70 
     percent have such access, with black populations at the low 
     end of the spectrum.
       Four-fifths of all HIV-related deaths and 70 percent of new 
     infections worldwide in 1998 occurred in the region, totaling 
     1.8 to 2 million and 4 million, respectively. Although only a 
     tenth of the world's population lives in the region, 11.5 
     million to 13.9 million cumulative AIDS deaths have occurred 
     there. Eastern and southern African countries, including 
     South Africa, are the worst affected, with 10 to 26 percent 
     of adults infected with the disease. Sub-Saharan Africa has 
     high TB prevalence, as well as the highest HIV/TB co-
     infection rate, with TB deaths totaling 0.55 million in 1998. 
     The hardest hit countries are in equatorial and especially 
     southern Africa. South Africa, in particular, is facing the 
     biggest increase in the region.
       Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for an estimated 90 percent of 
     the global malaria burden. Ten percent of the regional 
     disease burden is attributed to malaria, with roughly 1 
     million deaths in 1998. Cholera, dysentery, and other 
     diarrhea diseases also are major killers in the region, 
     particularly among children, refugees, and internationally 
     displaced populations. Forty percent of all childhood deaths 
     from diarrhea diseases occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. The 
     region also has a high rate of hepatitis B and C infections 
     and is the only region with a perennial meningococcal 
     meningitis problem in a ``meningitis belts'' stretching from 
     west to east.


                      middle east and north africa

       The region's conservative social mores, climatic factors, 
     and high levels of health spending in oil-producing states 
     tend to limit some globally prevalent diseases, such as HIV/
     AIDS and malaria, but others, such as TB and hepatitis B and 
     C, are more prevalent. The region's advantages are partially 
     offset by the impact of war-related uprooting of populations, 
     overcrowded cities with poor refrigeration and sanitation 
     systems, and a

[[Page 7446]]

     dearth of water, especially clean drinking water.
       The HIV/AIDS impact is far lower than in other regions, 
     with 210,000 cases, or 0.13 percent of the population, 
     including 19,000 new cases, in 1998. This owes in part to 
     above-average underreporting because of the stigma associated 
     with the disease in Muslim societies and the authoritarian 
     nature of most governments in the region.


                    international response capacity

       International organizations such as WHO and the World Bank, 
     institutions is several developed countries such as the US 
     CDC, and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), will continue 
     to play an important role in strengthening both international 
     and national surveillance and response systems for infectious 
     diseases. Nonetheless, progress is likely to be slow, and 
     development of an integrated global surveillance and response 
     system probably is at least a decade or more away. This owes 
     to the magnitude of the challenge; inadequate coordination at 
     the international level; and lack of funds, capacity, and, in 
     some cases, cooperation and commitment at the national level. 
     Some counties hide or understate their infectious disease 
     problems for reasons of international prestige and fear of 
     economic losses. Total international health-related aid to 
     low- and middle-income countries--some $2-3 billion 
     annually--remains a fraction of the $250 billion health bill 
     of these countries.


                          macroeconomic impact

       The macroeconomic costs of the infectious disease burden 
     are increasingly significant for the most seriously affected 
     countries despite the partially offsetting impact of declines 
     in population growth, and they will take an even greater toll 
     on productivity, profitability, and foreign investment in the 
     future. A senior World Bank official considers AIDS to be the 
     single biggest threat to economic development in sub-Saharan 
     Africa. A growing number of studies suggest that AIDS and 
     malaria alone will reduce GDP in several sub-Saharan African 
     countries by 20 percent or more by 2010.
       The impact of infectious diseases on annual GDP growth in 
     heavily affected countries already amounts to as much as a 1-
     percentage point reduction in the case of HIV/AIDS on average 
     and 1 to 2 percentage points for malaria, according to World 
     Bank studies. A recent Namibian study concluded that AIDS 
     cost the country nearly 8 percent of GDP in 1996, while a 
     study of Kenya projected that GDP will be 14.5 percent 
     smaller in 2005 than it otherwise would have been without the 
     cumulative impact of AIDS. The annual cost of malaria to 
     Kenya's GDP was estimated at 2 to 6 percent and at 1 to 5 
     percent for Nigeria.
       Public health spending on AIDS and related diseases 
     threatens to crowd out other types of health care and social 
     spending. In Kenya, HIV/AIDS treatment costs are projected to 
     account for 50 percent of health spending by 2005. In South 
     Africa, such costs could account for 35 to 84 percent of 
     public health expenditures by 2005, according to one 
     projection.


                        disruptive social impact

       At least some of the hardest-hit countries, initially in 
     Sub-Saharan Africa and later in other regions, will face a 
     demographic catastrophe as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases 
     reduce human life expectancy dramatically and kill up to a 
     quarter of their populations over the period of this 
     Estimate.


                 life expectancy and population growth

       Until the early 1990's, economic development and improved 
     health care had raised the life expectancy in developing 
     countries to 64 years, with prospects that it would go higher 
     still. The growing number of deaths from new and reemergent 
     diseases such as AIDS, however, will slow or reverse this 
     trend toward longer life spans in heavily affected countries 
     by as much as 30 years or more by 2010, according to the US 
     Census Bureau. For example, life expectancy will be reduced 
     by 30 years in Botswana and Zimbabwe, by 20 years in Nigeria 
     and South Africa, by 13 years in Honduras, by eight years in 
     Brazil, by four years in Haiti, and by three years in 
     Thailand.


                            family structure

       The degradation of nuclear and extended families across all 
     classes will produce severe social and economic dislocations 
     with political consequences, as well. Nearly 35 million 
     children in 27 countries will have lost one or both parents 
     to AIDS by 2000; by 2010, this number will increase to 41.6 
     million. Nineteen of the hardest hit countries are in Sub-
     Saharan Africa, where HIV/AIDS has been prevalent across all 
     social sectors. With as much as a third of the children under 
     15 in hardest-hit countries expected to comprise a ``lost 
     orphaned generation'' by 2010 with little hope of educational 
     or employment opportunities, these countries will be at risk 
     of further economic decay, increased crime, and political 
     instability as such young people become radicalized or are 
     exploited by various political groups for their own ends; the 
     pervasive child soldier phenomenon may be one example.


              destabilizing political and security impact

       In our view, the infectious disease burden will add to 
     political instability and slow democratic development in Sub-
     Saharan Africa, parts of Asia, and the former Soviet Union, 
     while also increasing political tensions in and among some 
     developed countries.
       The severe social and economic impact of infectious 
     diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, and the infiltration of 
     these diseases into the ruling political and military elites 
     and middle class of developing countries are likely to 
     intensify the struggle for political power to control scarce 
     state resources. This will hamper the development of a civil 
     society and other underpinnings of democracy and will 
     increase pressure on democratic transitions in regions such 
     as the FSU and Sub-Saharan Africa where the infectious 
     disease burden will add to economic misery and political 
     polarization.

  I see another colleague who wishes to speak. I will summarize why I 
have chosen to read at length from this intelligence report. It is very 
clear. The threat of these HIV/AIDS problems and other infectious 
diseases is not something that is separate from or different from the 
piece of legislation that we are looking at today. This is titled the 
``African Growth and Opportunity Act.'' It is supposed to hold out the 
promise not only of profit for Americans who want to trade with Africa 
but also genuine hope in the future for the nations of Africa and the 
people of the African countries.
  Without a genuine attempt in this bill to begin to deal, in 
particular, with the HIV/AIDS problem, as well as other issues, this is 
a false promise, it is a hollow statement, and, I am afraid, one that 
could lead to a cynical response from those in Africa who will see this 
for what it really is: a one-sided piece of legislation that ignores 
one of the greatest human tragedies in human history and certainly a 
tragedy that completely undercuts the notion that we can have a good 
trading relationship with a continent that is being destroyed by such a 
vicious disease.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be 
allowed to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bennett pertaining to the introduction of S. 2539 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Conference Report on the Trade and Development Act of 2000. It is 
important to remind everyone this is the first substantive trade bill 
we have passed since the Uruguay Round implementation bill in 1994. It 
is about time. We Americans have, by far, the largest and most dynamic 
economy in the world. We are the world's only superpower. We better act 
like one. And that means taking leadership on global trade issues and 
trade policy, not burying our heads in the sand. Completion of this 
bill is a first step. Passage of PNTR for China is another.
  I would like to make several general comments about this legislation. 
Then I will highlight some of its major sections and explain why they 
are in the best interest of the United States.
  In two weeks, the House is scheduled to vote on whether to extend 
permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China. The Senate vote will 
follow. I am confident that it will pass in both houses. These two 
pieces of legislation have a common underlying set of principles.
  First, a market-based economy, the rule of law, and the reduction and 
elimination of barriers to foreign trade. These all lead to greater 
growth, both for our trade partners domestically, as well as and for 
the global economy.
  Second, greater interchange of goods, services, investment, and 
people between the United States and developing countries. This leads, 
over the long-run, to domestic stability in those nations, and greater 
global stability.
  Third, if the United States were to turn inward today, we would be 
turning our back on a global trade and economic system that has brought 
us to the greatest height of prosperity in the history of the world.
  Although the disparities in income around the world are greater than 
in

[[Page 7447]]

the past, hundreds of millions of people have been raised out of 
poverty over the last two decades. We need to do a lot more to ensure 
that people in America and people overseas are not passed over by this 
growth. But raising trade barriers, reversing trade liberalization, and 
halting our efforts to open markets around the world is not the answer. 
That would only worsen income disparities and increase the number of 
people living in poverty.
  The outcome of our conference is not perfect. It never is. But the 
result is absolutely in our national interest.
  The two major sections of the bill are the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act, and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade 
Partnership Act. The Africa portion is but one step in bringing Africa 
into the global economic system. And in promoting development on this 
terribly poor continent.
  Many of the problems of Africa are home grown. Many of the problems 
are the vestige of totally inept and irresponsible colonial rule. We 
can provide ways, in this case through economic development, industrial 
growth, and debt relief, for Africa to begin to emerge from its cycle 
of poverty.
  The Caribbean Basin was put at a competitive disadvantage once NAFTA 
came into effect. This bill brings the CBI nations up to parity with 
Mexico. At the same time, it requires important commitments from those 
nations on intellectual property rights, on WTO obligations, on 
participation in negotiations in the free trade area of America, on 
fighting the war against corruption, on respecting internationally 
recognized worker rights, and on protecting against the worst forms of 
child labor.
  Under this bill, a country in Africa or the Caribbean must commit to 
protect internationally recognized worker rights in order to receive 
benefits. Congress has debated the issue of the relationship between 
trade and labor for years. I am very pleased we have acted in support 
of one of the most basic sets of human rights. I hope this is an 
indication that we will start making real progress in reconciling trade 
and labor in future trade legislation.
  Let me mention several other provisions of the bill that are of 
particular import. I deeply regret the provision passed by this Senate 
to provide trade adjustment assistance for farmers was not included in 
the conference report. Our farmers have suffered as much as any sector 
of our economy. Yet they fall between the cracks in our TAA policy, and 
that was not the intention when trade adjustment assistance was 
originally conceived.
  As a compromise, the Secretary of Labor must submit a report 
examining the applicability to farmers of trade adjustment assistance 
programs. Further, the Secretary must make recommendations, either to 
approve the operation of those programs as they apply to farmers, or to 
establish a new program for farmers. These provisions are utterly 
inadequate. I guarantee we will revisit this issue. Farmers suffering 
adversely from the impact of trade should be provided with the means to 
adjust, just as factory workers do today.
  I strongly support the provision establishing a chief agricultural 
negotiator at USTR, with the rank of ambassador. Agriculture is at the 
core of our economy and our society, and our agricultural trade 
negotiators need this high visibility to represent American interests 
properly.
  I might add that agriculture disparities around the world are the 
only major remaining trade distortion not yet addressed either in GATT 
or WTO. It is agriculture trade distortions which are the major 
remaining significant barrier to trade with which we have not yet 
dealt.
  I am very pleased this effort includes provisions dealing with the 
ways we deal with products made with forced or indentured child labor. 
Every time I hear that phrase ``forced or indentured child labor,'' I 
get chills down my spine. It bothers all of us when we hear that. This 
conference report also includes provisions to deal with that and it 
includes new eligibility criteria in the GSP, Generalized System of 
Preferences, regarding the elimination of the worst forms of child 
labor.
  I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, for his 
tireless efforts on behalf of the rights of children globally. Everyone 
who is concerned--and we are all--with this problem should remember the 
name Tom Harkin.
  As has Senator Harkin, I have traveled to some of the most 
inhospitable places in the world, and I have seen children working and 
living in conditions that would not be shown in a R-rated movie. I am 
proud to join him in supporting these measures.
  Finally, wool tariffs. For years, there have been efforts to reduce 
the tariffs on the finest worsted wool. This is a complex issue 
affecting the manufacturers of wool suits, the manufacturers of wool 
fabric, the yarn spinning industry, wool growers, and retailers. The 
conference report provides for the temporary reduction of tariffs on a 
limited quantity of certain wool fabrics. It temporarily suspends the 
duty on certain wool yarns, fibers, and tops. And it establishes a $9 
million wool research development promotion trust fund. This fund will 
assist wool producers in improving the quality of wool produced in the 
United States and help develop and promote the wool market. I welcome 
this thoughtful compromise that serves all concerned groups.
  In sum, I am pleased the House has passed this comprehensive and 
historic trade package. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of it. America is the world leader in promoting a market 
economy and knocking down trade barriers in order to improve the 
quality of life, both in our country and abroad. We need to continue 
this, first, by approving this conference report, and then, shortly, by 
approving PNTR for China.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the distinguished Majority Leader knows, 
I have made no secret of my opposition to the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 434, the so-called African Growth and Opportunity Act. 
And though there's no doubt that the conference report will be adopted 
by the Senate, I am obliged to point out that Congress is on the brink 
of passing legislation that accelerates the loss of a significant part 
of America's manufacturing base and costs numerous jobs in the 
beleaguered textile and apparel industry.
  Let me say at the outset that I certainly am not against ``African 
growth'' or ``African opportunity'' or economic growth in the Caribbean 
Basin. But I do not believe--and will not be convinced--that U.S. trade 
policy should aid emerging economies at the expense of an entire 
domestic industry and thousands of American workers.
  But make no mistake, Mr. President, that is precisely what is 
occurring this week in the United States Senate. Consider the evidence: 
The textile industry is already operating under an enormous trade 
deficit. For every $6 million in apparel and fabric the industry 
exports, $21 million is imported, the vast majority of which streams in 
from third-world countries with cheap production costs. I don't suspect 
any Senator will seriously argue that H.R. 434 will do anything but 
dramatically increase this trade deficit.
  Why is this so? Because American textile companies simply cannot 
compete on a playing field that isn't a level playing field. As cheap 
imports continue to flood the domestic market, job loss will not only 
continue, but increase. The media report news of our booming economy, 
but this so-called ``boom'' has left the textile and apparel industry 
out in the cold. As the Clinton administration crows about low 
unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also announced that just 
last month, 3,000 textile jobs were lost. Since 1994, when Congress 
passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, this industry alone has 
lost 453,000 jobs.
  That's not just a statistic, Mr. President. That's 453,000 families 
forced to contend with the stress and displacement that accompany job 
loss. That's 453,000 workers forced to find new means to make their 
livelihood, often at lower-paying, entry level jobs for which they have 
little or no training.
  453,000 Americans lost their job Mr. President, 70,000 of whom are 
North

[[Page 7448]]

Carolinians. Let's try to put that job loss statistic into perspective. 
The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, 
knows that there are only 412,000 jobs in the entire state of Delaware. 
A senior member of his committee, Senator Baucus, who was a conferee on 
this legislation, surely is aware that there are only 389,000 total 
jobs in Montana. Alaska has 289,000 jobs, Wyoming has 235,000 jobs, 
Vermont 296,000, South Dakota 381,000 and North Dakota 325,000 jobs.
  Perhaps Senators would feel differently about U.S. trade policy if 
all of the workers instead of their entire states lost their jobs in 
the last decade. Yet that's the precarious state of textile and apparel 
in America, Mr. President, and Congress continues to promote policies 
that will further erode the industry.
  In the textile communities of North Carolina, where 18 plants shut 
down in 1999 alone, you can bet they don't talk much about the booming 
economy. They're talking about something else.
  Last April, I held a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on 
the effects of NAFTA five years after it took effect. Among those who 
provided testimony was a wonderfully unassuming women named Vontella 
Dabbs. Ms. Dabbs works at Delta Mills in Maiden, North Carolina, and 
although she was seated at the same table with Ambassador Richard 
Fischer and Pat Buchanan, she stole the show.
  I am going to quote extensively from her testimony because it's 
important and it bears repeating again and again. She said the 
following:

       I come to you not as an expert in any field, not as a 
     politically motivated person, but simply as an American that 
     is deeply concerned for both my future and the future of my 
     family and friends. I cannot quote you statistics or give you 
     fancy computer-generated data to support some theory about 
     foreign trade. What I can give you are honest and heartfelt 
     feelings about what's going on in our community, as related 
     to the foreign trade agreements and the people who work in 
     textile plants . . .
       Today . . . modern textile companies and plants are 
     threatened by one thing that I feel can put an end to our 
     entire industry. This threat is that we are not being given a 
     fair opportunity to compete with foreign business on a level 
     playing field. Many of the well-intentioned laws, treaties, 
     and trade agreements enacted during the past few years have 
     made the competition between domestic and foreign textile 
     business unfair, in favor of the foreign producers. These 
     treaties and laws and trade agreements have not really opened 
     up the world to American textiles, as was intended, but 
     instead have opened our borders for foreign manufacturers to 
     flood our country with goods produced with near slave labor 
     in deplorable conditions for workers. These agreements have 
     also created an incentive for American manufacturers to close 
     the door on American manufacturing and go south to Mexico and 
     the Caribbean to invest millions in foreign countries. And by 
     doing this, they are putting thousands of hard-working 
     Americans out of a job.

  It's hard to argue with that, Mr. President, though I have no doubt 
that many of my colleagues will try to do so. I can hear them now, 
saying that may comparable new jobs have been created through the 
growth of the retail industry. To which the textile communities of 
North Carolina say, ``Thanks for nothing.'' Textile jobs pay 63 percent 
more than retail jobs. While the average mill worker earns wages of 
$440.59 a week, retail workers make only $270.90.
  Worse, the loss of textile jobs means money is drained from the 
economies of the hardest-hit communities, making it impossible for 
these towns to support this highly touted new retail employment. When 
the mills close, workers can't simply consult the local newspapers to 
get another job. Instead, they are forced to relocate, looking for 
those elusive retail jobs that pay barely more than half than the job 
they just lost, and are growing most rapidly in larger cities with a 
higher cost of living.
  With this in mind, the last thing Congress needs to do is increase 
the amount of cheap imports coming into our markets. Yet this is 
exactly what H.R. 434 will do. Even worse, however, the bill provides 
the perfect loophole for Asian countries to circumvent U.S. import 
restrictions. No wonder many people around town are starting to refer 
to this legislation as the ``Chinese Transshipment Bill.''
  Here's how Asian companies can easily conduct illegal transshipments 
from both African and Caribbean nations, Mr. President. Asian 
companies, which currently must comply with U.S. quota and duty 
requirements, will simply set up shop in the nations that benefit from 
this legislation. Once they are in operation, it's impossible to know 
whether garments are actually assembled in Africa or the Caribbean or 
being shipped to these countries from elsewhere. Then, under the bill, 
they can add another $3 billion to their current agreements with the 
United States.
  Mr. President, these illegalities certainly won't benefit American 
textile companies--and it's hard to see how it does much for the 
African and Caribbean nations that this bill is ostensibly designed to 
help. Instead, it merely allows already-established Asian companies to 
use these nations as simple fronts for their own business. I certainly 
hope that's not what the Senate has in mind.
  Mr. President, in my view, the decimation of one of America's most 
important industries is absolutely unacceptable. I do not quarrel with 
the contention that economic development in Africa and the Caribbean is 
an important objective and ultimately in America's best interest. Yet I 
fail to see why we must sacrifice an entire domestic industry to this 
international goal.
  Sadly enough, the Senate is now poised to do just that. I am 
realistic enough to know the ultimate outcome of this debate. But I 
would be remiss in my duty as a Senator from North Carolina--and as an 
American--if I did not take a stand on behalf of the many thousands of 
workers who have paid--and will continue to pay--the price for a U.S. 
trade policy willing to countenance the destruction of the textile 
industry and the communities it supports.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2540 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________