[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7475-7477]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        AFRICAN-CARIBBEAN TRADE

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the conference 
report on the Trade and Development Act of 2000, the so-called African-
Caribbean trade bill.
  When we debated this bill last October, I expressed my concerns about 
it, and what has happened is the fruition of what I was concerned about 
at that time. A bill that was bad when it left the Senate last October 
has become worse. This bill creates enormous risks for American textile 
businesses and American textile workers, with very little in the way of 
offsetting benefits.
  Let me speak for a couple of minutes about what I think is wrong with 
this bill and what kind of risk I think it creates for American 
workers. When we negotiate trade agreements, in my judgment, there are 
certain fundamental principles that should always be adhered to: First, 
they must be negotiated and multilateral; that is, both sides give up 
something; second, that they create a fair and enforceable system so 
the trade agreements don't become an empty shell but in fact there is a 
real and meaningful mechanism for enforcing the trade agreements; 
third, they must have adequate labor and environmental protections; 
and, fourth, they must have real, tangible, and provable benefits for 
U.S. businesses and U.S. workers.
  These bills do not meet those basic principles that ought to be 
complied with on every single trade agreement.

[[Page 7476]]

  Senator Feingold spoke very eloquently about the lack of adequate 
labor and environmental protections in these bills.
  There are two other principles that have been violated in these 
bills. First is the requirement that they be multilateral and 
negotiated, the simple proposition being that if the American people 
and we as a country are going to lower our barriers, we ought to get 
something in return. That ``something'' is that the other countries 
that are subject to these trade agreements lower their barriers. That 
simply has not happened here.
  What is happening is we are lowering our trade barriers while these 
other Caribbean and African nations are keeping their trade barriers 
completely in place. Their tariffs remain just as they were. There is 
no set of circumstances under which that kind of arrangement is 
equitable for American business or equitable for American workers.
  Second, there has to be a real and meaningful mechanism for enforcing 
these provisions. One of the things that happened to this bill when it 
left the Senate is there was a complex set of enforcement mechanisms 
and provisions put in place. When the bill left the Senate, we had what 
was called yarn and fabric forward provisions, which basically said, as 
a matter of equity, we would allow the trade barriers to be lowered for 
those African and Caribbean nations that used yarn and fabric from the 
United States so that our workers and our businesses benefited.
  Well, when the bill got to conference with the House bill, those 
provisions were changed. Now there are many African nations that are 
not required to use American yarn or American fabric. Secondly, they 
are allowed to use regional yarn and fabric; that is, yarn and fabric 
from that area.
  So those are two significant changes in the bill since it left the 
floor of the Senate which have real and meaningful impact on American 
business and American workers.
  Probably the more dangerous situation, though, is that created by the 
potential for transshipment. We talked about this on the floor of the 
Senate when this bill was debated the first time, and my colleagues are 
aware of this problem.
  Transshipment, basically, is a situation where a country, such as 
China, which I think has the greatest potential for taking advantage of 
transshipment, ships their fabric and their goods through Africa only 
for the purpose of having a button sewn on or some other minor change 
in the product, and then the product is shipped to the United States.
  The antitransshipment provisions of this bill are simply not adequate 
for a variety of reasons. One of the two most important is that the 
enforcement mechanism relies upon African countries for enforcement. 
The reality is--and all of us know it--that these African nations are 
not going to be able to enforce the provisions about transshipment. And 
we are going to have--at least there is real potential for--a massive 
transshipment by China and Chinese textile businesses through Africa to 
the United States. Transshipment has a real and devastating effect on 
American workers and American businesses, and we have seen some of 
those effects over the last 8 to 10 years.
  I have some specific examples of this. In North Carolina, my home 
State, during 1999, these were the jobs that were lost as a result of 
cheap textile goods coming into the United States:
  At Pluma, Inc., a plant located in Eden, NC, a small community, 500 
jobs were lost when the plant was closed. Jasper closed a plant in 
Whiteville, NC, in September and 191 jobs were lost. Whiteville Apparel 
in Whiteville, NC, closed a plant in August and 396 jobs were lost. 
Stonecutter Mills in Rutherford and Polk in western North Carolina 
closed a plant in June--800 jobs lost. Dyersburg in Hamilton, NC, 
closed a plant in May--422 jobs lost. Levi Straus closed a plant in 
Murphy--382 jobs lost.
  Remember that we are only talking about 1999 at this point.
  Burlington Industries, in January, closed plants in Cramerton, Forest 
City, Mooresville, Raeford, Oxford, and Statesville--2,600 jobs lost as 
a result; all of those occurring in 1999.
  In 1999 alone, the South lost 55,000 textile and apparel jobs.
  This is not an abstract position for the families and employees whose 
lives are devastated as a result of these cheap goods coming into the 
United States.
  A perfect example is Margie Brown. You heard me talk about 
Whiteville, NC, which was one of the areas in eastern North Carolina 
hardest hit by this flow of cheap goods into the United States. Margie 
Brown is 47 years old. She had a good job working at Jasper Textiles in 
Whiteville, NC. She made just under $200 a week. She depended on it. 
Her family depended on the income from that job. It is what she was 
trained to do; It is what she knew how to do; and she felt good about 
what she did.
  As a result of that plant being closed down, the reality exists all 
over North Carolina. In many cases there is no work for these folks; 
they have no comparable employment. There is nothing they can do with 
the education and the job training they have.
  So she had nowhere to go. Today, instead of having a job she is proud 
of, being able to support her family, feeling good about going to work 
every day and doing the things that made her productive as an American 
citizen, she is on unemployment and she gets $51 a week.
  My point is that these are real people. These are real families, and 
the impact on them is devastating. We can't turn our heads on this. 
This is not hypothetical. This is not some theoretical thing we are 
talking about. It is all well and good for us to talk abstractly on the 
floor of the Senate about trade being good, about, in this case, this 
having some diffuse benefit to our country as a whole, but there are 
real people whose lives are being devastated by these trade agreements, 
real people who have nowhere to go to work tomorrow, who have no way of 
taking care of their families and who have lost all semblance of self-
esteem.
  These people, who oftentimes worked in textile mills for 20, 30, or 
40 years--I do have to say at this point my dad worked in a cotton mill 
basically his whole life. During the summers, in high school and 
college, and then in law school, I saw firsthand the people who spent 
their whole lives in these textile mills and these cotton mills. They 
do not know anything else.
  We can talk about the technological world we now live in and how 
these people have to make a transition because the world is changing. 
The reality is, many of them are 50 or 60 years old and have spent 
their whole life working in the mill. They have nowhere to go. They 
have no idea what to do about their families. They are put on the 
street after working every day for the last 30 or 40 years. What do 
they say to their kids? What do they say to their spouses about what 
they are going to do?
  My point is that these trade agreements have a real impact on real 
people's lives, and we all have to recognize it. In fact, this 
particular agreement is going to do nothing but accelerate the problem. 
The Margie Browns I just described will be all over North Carolina and 
the southern United States.
  The reason is very simple: The average apparel wage in the United 
States is $8 an hour.
  Of some of the countries that are covered by this agreement: In 
Mexico the average wage is 85 cents an hour; the Dominican Republic, 69 
cents an hour; El Salvador, 59 cents an hour; Guatemala, 65 cents an 
hour; and, Honduras, 43 cents an hour.
  You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to figure out that there 
is no way for American workers under these circumstances to compete, 
and there is no way they are going to keep their jobs.
  What will happen is China is going to ship goods through Africa. In 
all likelihood, there will be massive transshipping with no way to stop 
it, no way to detect it, and no way to enforce the antitransshipment 
provisions of this bill. As a result, people all over North

[[Page 7477]]

Carolina and the United States are going to lose their jobs.
  We are playing with fire. I said this when we debated the bill last 
fall. I say it again. The only thing that has changed is the fire has 
gotten hotter. It has gotten more dangerous.
  There are more American workers whose jobs are going to be lost, and 
this conference report it does not meet the fundamental principles of 
equity, the principles that ought to apply to every trade agreement, 
the principles that are needed to protect our businesses and our 
textile workers in the United States.
  They are perfectly willing to compete. They just want the chance to 
compete on a level playing field. The other countries aren't lowering 
their barriers. We are. We know there are going to be goods 
transshipped through Africa from China and other places. And there is 
no way to prepare for that. The net result is this is not an abstract 
thing. Real people, real families, lives and jobs are about to be 
changed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

                          ____________________