Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 1998 I was granted a leave of absence to be in Illinois for the state primary elections. If I were able to be present on that day, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call number 55 regarding the passage of H. Res. 361, a resolution calling for free and impartial elections in Cambodia.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. All I can say is any American business can be a participant in the bill. They are all welcomed. We do not discriminate. We are not really concerned about whether they are white, whether they are black, whether they are Hispanic, whether they are Asian. We want to encourage business across the board, one and all. That specific kind of provision is not incorporated in the language of the bill.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the proposal to require that any apparel products receiving benefits under this bill be sewn in Africa only from U.S.-formed and -cut component parts. That would add, 17 percent are the estimates, to the cost of the product and negate any possibility of any textile and apparel coming from the sub- Saharan continent. What we are attempting to do here is to provide an opportunity for a section of the world that numbers almost 700 million in population and which, in terms of a component of our textile and apparel imports, which in 1996 totaled $46 billion, their component was $380 million; and ITC says, ``Wow, that could almost double with this bill,'' add another $100 to $170 million. Be realistic, folks. We are not looking at the kinds of threats that have been raised by some that have spoken in opposition to the legislation. I understand they have constituencies that have concerns. They have had concerns for years, long before this bill came down the pike, and they will have continued concerns. Mr. Speaker, when all the fine words about encouraging economic development in Africa are set aside, the trade measures in H.R. 1432 stand out as concrete attempts to offer real opportunities and a solid transition path. We are moving from the old ways of transferring billions of dollars in foreign aid and towards the goal that Africans have for themselves, economic health and self-reliance. I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking minority member.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished Speaker to make concluding remarks.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. CRANE. I do not know of any business that is guilty of that and that would violate our guidelines, anyway. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who unfortunately is on the wrong side of this issue, to represent his point of view. (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has been conscientious and worked strenuously on behalf of the advancement of this bill.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which represents the culmination of 3 years of bipartisan work to develop a trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub- Saharan Africa. I am pleased that the bill will take this important step forward today. I believe that this legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity for sub-Saharan Africa. In recent years the region has undergone a quiet but persistent evolution toward democratic transformation as well as free market reforms. Indeed, 25 of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have held democratic elections and 30 have embarked on significant economic reforms, including tightening their fiscal discipline, the privatization of state enterprises, and the liberalization of trade and investment regimes. Due in no small part to these reform efforts, African economic growth is picking up, and U.S.-Africa trade has grown at nearly 20 percent a year for the past 2 years. Perhaps nothing describes the changes underway better than an African diplomat's statement at the Committee on Ways and Means markup of this bill that ``Africa is open for business.'' In recognition of the progress sub-Saharan Africa has made, H.R. 1432 moves our African policy away from its historical focus on aid towards a focus on trade. In particular, the bill promotes mutually beneficial trade relationships and partnerships with those countries in the region committed to economic and political reform. First, to facilitate trade and investment policy discussions, the bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum similar to the successful APEC model in the Asia-Pacific region. Second, to provide enhanced export opportunities for nonimport- sensitive products from Africa, the bill provides a 10-year extension of the Generalized System of Preferences program for sub-Saharan African countries committed to economic and political reform. Third, to promote trade liberalization in the region, the bill requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria. And just as a side comment, I would like to reassure colleagues present, because this issue has arisen already, that the bill in no way, in no way cuts back or eliminates the aid programs that are currently in place. While this legislation offers many important benefits for sub-Saharan Africa, the bill also furthers important policy goals of the United States. Clearly, it is in our interest to support the democratic and free market trends in Africa, because a stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a greater and better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in our mutual fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation. At the same time, a strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market of nearly 700 million people, more than Japan and all of the ASEAN nations combined. Already U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa are 27 percent greater than our exports to all of the former Soviet Union, and yet our exports, which were valued at $6.2 billion in 1997, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets in the region. At present, our exports are intensive in high-wage industries, such as machinery, transportation equipment, electronics and services. As sub-Saharan Africa benefits from its own decision to embrace free market principles, U.S. firms and workers will benefit in terms of higher levels of U.S. exports. I also believe that it is important that we hear the voices of Africans themselves in our debate today about what they believe H.R. 1432 means to their future. As the sponsor of this legislation, I believe that it will establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and will encourage countries in the region to continue and perhaps redouble their economic and political reform efforts. In addition, H.R. 1432 is important to the advancement of the wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to codify many significant initiatives already underway by this administration. I urge its favorable consideration by the House today. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following: Embassy of the Republic of Djibouti, Washington, DC, July 8, 1997. Re passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Hon. Phillip Crane, Member of Congress, Cannon House Office Building, Washington,

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the committee.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks. Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude with a letter that was sent to all of our colleagues by a former colleague, Jack Kemp. He wrote, I am writing to ask you to support important legislation that is expected to come to the House floor for a vote on the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Much of Africa is growing dynamically. Political and market liberalization are revitalizing and energizing the continent. There is a new generation of leaders implementing democratic reforms, expanding economic growth, and unleashing the human spirit that will help bring greater stability, prosperity and democracy to African nations. African leaders would like some help building this hopeful start on a full-scale boom, yet they aren't for the most part asking for more development assistance. They would like expanded trade, not aid. They would like an opportunity for their people to become self-reliant. To that end, the African Growth and Opportunity Act would create a trade component of U.S. policy towards sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, it would establish a goal of achieving a free trade area with countries that meet the economic criteria of the bill. In addition, H.R. 1432 calls for a trade and economic cooperation forum between the United States and economic reformers in sub-Saharan Africa to facilitate discussion on the elimination of trade and investment barriers. In the near term, the bill offers countries in the region enhanced opportunities for duty-free trade with the U.S. under the Generalized System of Preferences program. I firmly believe that we have an historic opportunity to open a new era in our relations with this region. This bill will foster a brighter future for sub-Saharan Africa based on free market reforms, expanded economic activity, and enhanced self- reliance. I urge you to vote yes on H.R. 1432. Sincerely, Jack Kemp.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to commend our distinguished ranking minority member for his comments, his insights and his explanation as to why this legislation is in the mutual interests of the countries affected in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in our own national interests. I think that is why it has attracted the kind of bipartisan support that we have enjoyed. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) over there, all the people that were there from the beginning and fighting the good fight. Mr. Chairman, on this question of transshipment, because it has come up and it does excite a degree of paranoia, and I think a legitimate paranoia on the part of those who could be adversely affected, I think that in this legislation we have gone further than any legislation heretofore in trying to cope with the situation. To that end, our bill directs the President to require the exporting countries in Africa to adopt effective visa systems to guard against transshipments and the use of counterfeit documents. In order to receive benefits under the bill, African countries are required to cooperate fully with customs in combating transshipments. This means enforcement of domestic laws and procedures, and assisting customs in efforts to verify manufacturing operations through visits of so-called jump teams and other measures. Finally, H.R. 1432 provides that exporters who engage in illegal transshipments and their successors would lose trade benefits under the bill for two years. With no market for their product, this sanction will have the effect of putting the bad actors out of business. We have in this bill, Mr. Chairman, the strongest language dealing with transshipment that we have ever legislated. That is not to say that crime still cannot exist, but what I am saying is that we have gone further than we have ever gone before. I think we have a stronger position on this legislation than anything heretofore, and I think it will address the problem more effectively than it has ever been addressed before. Let me make one other observation, too. We have the understandable concern of our textile and apparel manufacturers in this country, and one of our colleagues today showed me an article of a plant in his district that is closing. I think it employed like 350 people. That is sad. That has been going on for some time. But his plant in his district is not closing because of our bill that is under consideration on the floor today. His plant is closing because of inefficiencies, and the inability of most of our production here in the United States to keep pace with competition. It is not competition coming from Africa. Our textile and apparel imports in the year 1996 totaled $46 billion, billion. Of that $46 billion, the portion that came from sub-Saharan Africa totaled roughly $380 million, out of $46 billion. The ITC, International Trade Commission, has estimated that with the passage of this bill, our imports from sub-Saharan Africa will increase from $100 to $170 million. It will be less than 2 percent of our total imports, out of that $46 to $50 billion in imports from around the world. In addition to that, ITC has projected out that at the end of 10 years, it will be 3 percent of our imports. So when we read these articles about plant closings, do not point the accusing finger at sub- Saharan Africa. That is not what is causing the problem. It is a worldwide development, and it is one that has adversely impacted us, to be sure, because we do have more efficient competition to face worldwide. But do not make it look like that is coming from sub-Saharan Africa, and do not make it look like the passage of 1432 is going to have any significant impact on it. I urge all of our colleagues to wholeheartedly support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I think the points that my colleague has just made are valid and will be under consideration. Under the GSP program and under the bill, the President must consider whether a country is taking steps to afford its workers internationally recognized workers' rights when determining whether to designate a country as eligible for trade benefits. So I think it addresses the concerns that the gentlewoman raises and raises properly. We appreciate the support that the gentlewoman has given and look forward to working with her in the future, too.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, which is of critical importance to the children of Illinois. I am pleased the House of Representative is acting quickly on this legislation which strikes the right balance between encouraging states to modernize their child support systems without penalizing the very children the law is designed to help. While we want to ensure that states have the most efficient mechanism in place to collect and distribute child support payments to families in neet, we must also make certain that the penalties for failure to meet the federal deadlines are not so extreme as to jeopardize funding intended for those same children. My own state of Illinois did not meet the deadline established by the 1988 Family Support Act and if this legislation is not approved today, Illinois will be forced to forfeit $650 million in federal funding for child support services. Child support programs provide vital assistance in locating parents, establishing paternity and collecting child support payments and a large penalty, such as the one facing Illinois, is extreme and serves only to hurt those we seek to help. The bill before us would still impose a penalty of almost $3 million on Illinois but by reducing the penalty and restoring funding for these programs, we can be certain efforts in Illinois will continue to ensure that more deadbeat parents are located and made accountable. After all, collecting financial support from parents is what this effort is all about. As the father of eight children, I find it personally repugnant that so many parents are unwilling to face their responsibility voluntarily and the federal government is forced to continually address the issue of child support enforcement. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of our children and continuing our efforts to stop irresponsible parents from following cowardly paths of denying their children the financial support they deserve.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on December 31, John DaPonte retired from U.S. Government service and returned to his home state of Rhode Island after having served at the FTZ Board since 1968. The retirement of a federal official happens most every day. However, I believe it is important that John DaPonte's career in government be remembered because of the impact that he and the Foreign-Trade Zones Board have made on U.S. trade policy, U.S. companies in the global marketplace, and the economic development of a wide range of communities in the United States. There are few federal government officials who have made such a direct positive impact on the subject they manage. The agency for which he worked, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, is one of the smallest federal agencies in Washington, DC with only nine employees. It is so small that it does not have a line item in the federal budget. In 1968, zone projects existed in only 6 states and Puerto Rico and were very modest in size; today, Foreign-Trade Zones Board activity is in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. During his tenure at the Board, the Agency's zone projects increased from 9 in 1968 to 586 in 1997, a yearly growth rate of 221%; domestic merchandise receipts grew from $18 million in 1968 to $125.6 billion in 1996, an average yearly rate of 24,933%; and employment increased from 1,200 jobs in 1968 to 370,000 jobs in 1996, an average yearly rate of 1138%. There are few, if any, federal agencies with this growth record. John DaPonte deserves a thank you for managing an important U.S. trade program that grew rapidly over the last 30 years with very modest resources. The Foreign-Trade Zone program is an economic development tool for communities providing financial assistance to many troubled U.S. industries, as well as to foreign-based firms interested in establishing U.S. production operations, by helping them be competitive in the global marketplace. Foreign-trade zones place U.S. production facilities on an equal footing with foreign operations. This benefit requires investment and jobs in the U.S. as opposed to another country. Industry groups become involved in the Foreign-Trade Zone Program in order to solve trade problems. Major industries involved In the program include shipbuilding, motor vehicles, oil refining, pharmaceuticals, information technology, etc. The growth of the Foreign-Trade Zone Program required a very significant amount of effort by the staff of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board. The Foreign-Trade Zones Act or laws pertaining thereto were amended in the 1968 to 1997 period on thirteen (13) occasions. Mr. DaPonte implemented many new procedures at the Foreign-Trade Zones Board including Minor Boundary Modifications and Grant Restrictions to assist in managing the very rapid growth of the program in a balanced manner and without major funding or personnel. In 1968, 2 Applications for new projects were filed; in 1997, 85 Applications were filed. Board Orders approving new zone projects grew during the period from 3 Board Orders issued in 1968 to 78 Board Orders issued in 1997. In order to effectively manage the developing program, a wide range of Customs management changes were necessary. The Board supported these changes when it issued Board Order 103 on November 27, 1974, encouraging Customs to manage zone projects in a new and innovative manner. In 1981, the U.S. Customs Service published its first Foreign- Trade Zone Manual, which has been subsequently updated. In 1986, the U.S. Customs Service Regulations were totally rewritten to reflect the many necessary changes to the zone program. Special new procedures introduced to expedite activity included valuation of manufactured products, recognition of industry inventory methods, Customs audit management, direct delivery, daily CF 214s, and weekly entries. In order to undertake its activities, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board actively interfaces with a wide range of U.S. government agencies. Most importantly, was the Board's continuing involvement with state and local governmental organizations that carried out most zone activity. At a time when Washington is trying hard to empower states and localities, it would do well to look at the positive program developed under John DaPonte's leadership. The Foreign-Trade Zone Program, from the beginning, has been one that actively engaged states, counties, cities, and port authorities on a wide range of bases to encourage local economic development activities. Literally hundreds and thousands of meetings and reports and articles were written over the period that Mr. DaPonte was at the Foreign-Trade Zones Board on all of these issues. It is clear that during John DaPonte's tenture at the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, the program experienced extraordinary growth. He managed this high level of growth effectively with extremely modest personnel and budget resources. No other Federal agency has created such a positive impact on our nation's balance of trade with such limited resources. John DaPonte's involvement in the Federal Government is a classic example of the federal government at its best. Today, we remember the positive contributions of John DaPonte in Washington, DC to U.S. trade. This Congress thanks him for his efforts and wishes him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 424, providing for mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. I have opposed gun control laws because they infringe upon this right. Instead, I have strongly supported tough prison sentences for criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime. I believe that this is the correct way to deal with gun violence--punish the criminals. H.R. 424 imposes increasingly stiff penalties for crooks with guns, depending on how the weapon is used in the crime. The bill mandates a 10-year jail term for possessing a firearm in the commission of a crime. If a gun is brandished, the criminal will face a 15-year sentence. If a gun is discharged during the crime, he will receive a 20 year prison term. In addition, the bill provides 20, 25, and 30-year sentences, respectively, for subsequent convictions of the three categories of crimes. Furthermore, the bill prohibits courts from weakening these sentences by eliminating the possibility for probation as well as allowing the sentences to be served concurrently. Gun control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns, not criminals. Rather than laws which do not discriminate between peaceful gun owners and gun toting crooks, H.R. 424 gets tough on the right people, criminals. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 424.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding time to me. As parents we try to teach our children one of the most fundamental elements of decency, thou shalt not lie. If you do not tell the truth, there are consequences. Unfortunately we have before us today an issue that violates that tenet, and the punishment is being undermined by the President's administration. The court case we are talking about brings an almost $286,000 judgment against the Clinton health care task force which was led by Ira Magaziner. The court determined that Mr. Magaziner chose not to tell the truth when he was questioned about the members of the task force. To compensate for his deceit, he and the other task force members must pay the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs. He lied, and now he must pay, a justifiable punishment within our justice system. Instead of making Mr. Magaziner pay for his dishonest action, the administration has said it is appropriate for the American taxpayers to pay the penalty. It is similar to someone robbing a bank, getting caught, not returning the money and using it to pay for his defense. That is wrong, and why this is so difficult for the administration to understand is beyond me. Tax money should not be used to subsidize dishonesty, and I would urge my colleagues to cast their vote in support of honesty and integrity. Vote for H.J. Res. 107.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues to support this resolution honoring our late colleague, Sonny Bono, who was taken from us so tragically. My prayers and condolences go out to his wife and family. I was fortunate to get to know Sonny during his distinguished service here. I, like many of my Republican colleagues, took advantage of his popularity and hosted him for an event with the Lake County Republicans in my district. Sonny's speech was better attended than when I invited different members of our Republican leadership. His witty storytelling brought down the house. I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. Sonny was scheduled to return next month to my district, and he will be missed. His self-deprecating humor belied a sharp intellect. It was not an intellect bred of school and books--it was an intellect borne of the school of hard knocks. Despite his lack of formal education, he succeeded in his every endeavor--songwriter, singer, mayor, Member of Congress. Although he faced many obstacles, his quiet determination overcame them. For all of these unusual achievements, he earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Sonny was a favorite of my children in particular. I was very grateful to Sonny for the time he spent with my daughter Rachel, whom I lost to cancer last month. Last fall, Sonny took Rachel out to lunch and had his picture taken with her. I will treasure that photo of the two of them, each taken from us too early. When my other kids learned of Sonny's death they said they were sure that the first person he would see in heaven would be Rachel. I am sure that the two of them are enjoying life in a better place--in the company of our Lord. Again, I want his dear wife and family to know that they remain in our prayers. I would like to close by thanking the Dean of the California delegation, Jerry Lewis, for sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I was deeply disappointed in the fact that this body was unable to consider and pass the fast-track trade legislation authored by Chairman Bill Archer and myself. In particular, I was disappointed in the petty politics engaged in by fast-track opponents. I fear that, thanks to the campaign waged by big labor and their politician lackeys, the United States will lose its leadership position in world markets. Until now, trade agreements have been negotiated on our terms. My greatest fear is that the defeat of fast track in this session of the 105th Congress will effectively prohibit the consideration of this trade authority until the next millennium. I want to make the point to my colleagues that this will result in future trade agreements being negotiated on the terms of our trading partners. Given the increasingly global nature of markets, this Congress has put U.S. businesses and jobs at a significant economic disadvantage in the world economy. To further illustrate the political demagoguery on this issue, I commend to the attention of my colleagues an article in today's Washington Times by Donald Lambro entitled ``Low Bridge for the Fast Track Flap.'' I will not add to Mr. Lambro's observations, instead I simply say--Amen. [From the Washington Times, Nov. 13, 1997] Low Bridge for the Fast Track Flap (By Donald Lambro) If we learned anything from the fast-track trade fight, it is that demagoguery is alive and well in Washington, economic ignorance runs deeper than ever in Congress and the news media, and the business community still doesn't know how to sell the benefits of the global economy. Even by past legislative battle standards, this one reached a new low in fear-mongering and deceit. The tools of big labor, Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt and Reps. David Bonior and Bernie Sanders, a socialist, came up with every hyperbolic attack line they could muster. Mr. Gephardt even blamed increased drug trafficking in the United States on the North American Free Trade Agreement--not on its true cause, President Clinton's abandonment of the war on drugs. In the final weeks of debate, the AFL-CIO's paid congressional army of trade protectionists waged one of the most dishonest lobbying campaigns that this reporter has seen in 30 years of covering Washington. In one of the battle's most skillful bits of anti-trade demagoguery, aired on the CBS Evening News, Bonior and Sanders went down to Juarez, Mexico, with a CBS film crew in tow. Visiting one of its worst slums, which predates NAFTA, Mr. Bonior pointed to the shacks and said, ``This is the global economy.'' It was a totally one-sided editorial against trade by two veterans, big government leftists that could have been produced at the AFL-CIO, and probably was. Similarly one-sided stories filled the news programs of the past several weeks, bashing NAFTA and repeating big labor's protectionist line. Nowhere was it reported that U.S. exports to NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada had reached nearly $200 billion last year--an all-time record; that both have become America's biggest export markets, with Mexico's market bigger than Japan's; that the North American economy is forecast to grow by 3.5 percent this year, higher than the other industrialized countries of the world; or that all those predictions of a ``giant sucking sound'' of jobs leaving the United States have not come true. Despite all the doom and gloom fears that trade expansion will destroy jobs, the obvious fact is that trade has helped to create millions of new, higher-paying jobs, driving the U.S. unemployment rate to the lowest level in nearly a quarter of a century. Last week's Labor Department unemployment report showed the jobless rate falling to 4.7 percent, flattened by the creation of an astonishing 284,000 jobs in October alone. Since 1993 the U.S. economy has created more than 13.5 million new jobs. ``Clearly, NAFTA has not hurt the U.S. economy,'' trade analyst Rebecca Reynolds Bannister writes in a study for the Progressive Policy Institute. And contrary to the Gephardt-Bonior-Sanders disinformation campaign that the United States is losing higher-paying manufacturing jobs, the most robust job gains last month were in manufacturing. Half the 54,000 jobs in this sector alone were in machinery, transportation and construction. Big U.S. companies like Boeing have hired 32,000 workers in the last 18 months and will add another 11,000 jobs to its factory lines. Other companies like Caterpillar were expanding their payrolls to keep up with mounting exports to Latin America. Rather than worry about losing jobs, the biggest complaint among U.S. business leaders in the country today is the lack of labor, qualified or otherwise. But too little or none of this is getting reported to the American people. One reason is an abysmal level of ignorance in much of the news media and in Congress about trade and the global economy. An otherwise intelligent editor of a major newspaper recently told me that ``America doesn't make much of anything anymore.'' This common perception, wholly untrue, reflects what many Americans think of the U.S. economy. Combined with the belief that imports destroy jobs and a misunderstanding about the global economy's benefits, this is what is now driving so much of the public mistrust about NAFTA and other trade deals. The truth is we will begin losing jobs if we don't negotiate lower trade barriers abroad because U.S. companies will move plants to these countries to avoid paying import tariffs. But the myth of U.S. deindustrialization goes on despite all the evidence against it. Our gross domestic product, the measure of all the goods and services we produce, stands at nearly $8 trillion, bigger than any nation on Earth. If you want to see what America makes, look at the New York Stock Exchange listings or the NASDAQ in your local newspaper. Millions of privately owned businesses add to the nation's growth rate, which was expanding at a 3.5 percent annualized rate in the third quarter--faster than any other industrialized nation. We are the biggest producer of food on the planet. We are the biggest producer of farm and industrial machinery, of airplanes, of computers and of software. At our present rate of growth, it is quite possible that our GDP will reach $10 trillion by the beginning of the next decade. Americans have produced this level of GDP. But because we produce more products and services than we can possibly buy ourselves, we sell the rest in global markets. And those sales have been a major factor in our robust job-creation rate that is higher than any industrialized nation on Earth. Mr. Clinton complained this week that ``this is no- brainer.'' Trade has not destroyed jobs, it has created them. U.S. leadership in the global economy is one of the great success stories of the 20th century. Sadly, the U.S. business community had done a very poor job of promoting this story to its workers, to Congress and to the media. Mr. Clinton deserves a lot of the blame for not beginning early enough to get the votes needed to pass fast-track. But I think American business is also much to blame for this week's setback. Until corporate America gets into the trenches and begins doing a better job of combating the demagogues and educating the country about the benefits of global trade, we're going to have even more trouble getting trade bills through Congress in the future.