William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. At the request of the Senator from Wisconsin and with the approval of the senior Senator from New York, I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated with respect to amendment No. 2406. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate conduct a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to table the amendment. I do so for two reasons. First, as I have stated previously, the goal of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. This amendment would undermine that effort by requiring the difficult negotiations of side agreements that would delay the incentive the bill would create. That, I argue, is of no help to these developing countries and will not lead to any great improvement in their labor standards. The second reason I oppose the amendment is that it essentially depends on economic sanctions to work. Its threat is that the economic benefits of the beneficiary countries will be cut off if the countries do not comply with the terms of some agreement yet to be negotiated. That not only undercuts the investment incentive by increasing the uncertainty of a country's participation in the program, but it also does little to raise labor standards. For that reason, I urge this amendment be tabled.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me renew my request. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to move to table the following amendments, with one show of seconds. The amendments are: Hollings amendment No. 2379, Feingold amendment No. 2428, Hollings amendment No. 2483, Hollings amendment No. 2485, Conrad-Grassley amendment No. 2359, and Feingold amendment No. 2406. I further ask consent that these votes occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 4 o'clock, with the time between now and then equally divided in the usual form, and there be no other amendments in order prior to the votes, and there be 4 minutes equally divided just before each vote, and the votes occur in the order in which the amendments were called up.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. I do so for three reasons. The first reason, as I have stated previously, is that the purpose of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America by offering these poverty-stricken countries a measure of preferential access to our markets. This amendment would undermine that effort by making eligibility explicitly dependent on the offer of reciprocal benefits to the United States equivalent to those that the U.S. is entitled under NAFTA. This is a standard even the WTO members among the beneficiary countries could not currently satisfy. The second reason I oppose the amendment is that the Finance Committee bill already instructs the President to begin the process of negotiating with the beneficiary countries under both programs for trade agreements that would provide reciprocal market access to the United States, as well as a still more solid foundation for the long- term economic relationship between the United States and its African, Caribbean, and Central American neighbors. Finally, let me point out that the bill does encourage reciprocity where it really counts in the context of this bill. By encouraging the use of U.S. fabric and U.S. yarn in the assembly of apparel products bound for the United States, the bill establishes a solid economic partnership between industry in the United States and firms in the beneficiary countries. That provides real benefits to American firms and workers in the textile industry by establishing a platform from which American textile makers can compete worldwide. That is precisely the benefit our industry most seeks in the context of our growing economic relationship with both regions. In short, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. ROTH. Yes; 10 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. That is satisfactory.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. I then change my proposal to 4 o'clock rather than 3:45, with the understanding my colleagues will take 10 minutes for their side of the amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose this Hollings amendment for three reasons. The first reason, as I have stated previously, is that the purpose of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America by offering these poverty-stricken countries a measure of preferential access to our market. The amendment would undermine the effort by making eligibility explicitly dependent on the offer of reciprocal benefits to the United States equivalent to those to which the United States is entitled under NAFTA. The underlying requirements of the African-CBI provisions of the Finance Committee's substitute do encourage the beneficiary countries to remove barriers to trade. The existing requirements also impose an affirmative obligation to avoid discrimination against U.S. products in the beneficiary country's trade. What the Finance Committee substitute does not require is market access equivalent to that of NAFTA, a standard that even the WTO members among these beneficiary countries could not currently satisfy. The second reason I oppose the amendment is that the Finance Committee already instructs the President to begin the process of negotiating with the beneficiary country under both programs for trade agreements that would provide reciprocal market access to the United States as well as a still more solid foundation with a long-term economic relationship between the United States and its African, Caribbean, and Central American neighbors. Under the Africa provisions of the bill, the President is instructed to assess the prospects for such agreement and is called on to establish a regional economic forum. That forum could prove instrumental in solving market access problems that U.S. firms may face currently as well as a forum for any eventual negotiation. Under the CBI provisions of the bill, the Finance Committee sought to encourage our Caribbean-Central American trading partners to join with us in pressing for the early conclusion and implementation of the free trade agreements of the Americas. Each of the beneficiary countries of the CBI program has played an active and constructive role in those talks today. In both Africa and the CBI, we are making progress in opening markets and eliminating barriers to United States trade. The fact that we do not currently enjoy precisely those benefits offered by Canada and Mexico in the context of the NAFTA is no bar to action here. Finally, the bill does encourage reciprocity where it really counts in the context of this bill. By encouraging the use of U.S. fabric and U.S. yarn in the assembly of apparel products bound for the United States, the bill establishes a solid economic partnership between industry and the United States and firms in the beneficiary country. That provides real benefits to American firms and workers in the textile industry by establishing the platform by which American textile makers can compete worldwide. That is precisely the benefit our industry most seeks in the context of our growing economic relationship with both regions. In short, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to move to table the following amendments with one show of seconds. The amendments are: Hollings No. 2379, Feingold No. 2428, Hollings No. 2483, and Hollings No. 2485. I further ask unanimous consent that these votes occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 3:45, with the time between now and then equally divided in the usual form; there be no other amendments in order prior to the votes; there be 4 minutes equally divided just before each vote; and the votes occur in the order in which the amendments were called up.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator give me the number of his amendment?

Mr. ROTH. All these amendments are going to be disposed of by a tabling motion.

Mr. ROTH. Before or after the vote?

Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to add the Conrad-Grassley amendment to the list if it is all right with my colleague.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me add that the Senator from Wisconsin has done nothing to address my concerns regarding the constitutional infirmity of his amendment. As I have already stated, my colleague's amendment would expose individuals to criminal and civil penalties without the due process required by the U.S. Constitution. That is simply unconscionable. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote to table the amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Hollings amendment No. 2483 and I do so for two reasons. First, as I have stated previously, the goal of this legislation is to encourage investment in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. The amendment undermines that effort by requiring the difficult negotiation of side agreements on both labor and the environment that delays the incentive that the bill is intended to create. This is bad for labor and environmental conditions in the beneficiary countries as well as their economies. The available research suggests labor and environmental standards rise with a country's level of economic development. This is because for countries that are on the edge of famine, enforcing labor standards and protecting the environment are a luxury. The Finance Committee bill helps economically and in improving labor and environmental standards by giving these countries an opportunity to tap private investment capital as a means of encouraging economic development and economic growth. That is a most certain way to ensure that these countries have the wherewithal to pay for environmental protection. The second reason I will oppose the amendment is that it essentially depends on economic sanctions to work. It threatens to cut off a series of economic benefits if the countries do not comply with the terms of some agreement yet to be negotiated. That not only undercuts the investment incentive by increasing the uncertainty of a country's participation in the program, it also does little to raise labor and environmental standards. As we have heard during the extended debate we have had on economic sanctions in the past, they do, actually, little to affect the behavior of the target country. Indeed, in the case of the intended beneficiaries of these tariff preference programs, they would have the opposite effect on labor and environmental protections by discouraging investment in economic growth. What is needed, as I said earlier, is a cooperative approach, bilaterally between the United States and the particular developing country and among the countries of the regions as a whole. The experience under the NAFTA side agreement reinforces my point. The sanctions mechanisms have done little to encourage better labor and environmental practices. What has worked under the NAFTA agreement is the cooperative ventures of the three participants on both the labor and the environmental front. The NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation, for example, advises all three countries on how to tackle common environmental problems. That advice has helped ensure coordination rather than conflict among the NAFTA partners over environmental issues. The Senate substitute before us does not preclude these sorts of constructive efforts by the President. Indeed, the President would do well to pursue a similar model in the context of our broader relations with our African, Caribbean, and Central American neighbors. The model offered by the pending amendment would not help us towards that goal. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask that it be tabled. First, the Finance Committee bill already contains the specifically enhanced transshipment provisions beyond those contained in the House bill. The Finance Committee bill would suspend exporters and importers from the benefits of the program for 2 years if found to have transshipped in violation of the rule. Second, the Customs Service already has extensive power to combat transshipment. Let me be clear what transshipment is. It is Customs law. Customs already has the enforcement power to address these concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. I applaud and congratulate the Senator from New York for his leadership, not only during the current session but down through the years in this most important trade policy. We look forward to bringing home the bacon in the next 30 hours on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROTH. Unfortunately, there has not been strong leadership from the White House on this matter. It seems to me it is a matter of grave concern. But since that has not happened, I do agree with what my colleague has just said, that it is important we act on this legislation so it becomes clear to our friends and neighbors around the world that we continue to plan to provide leadership in this most important area of trade.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support Miscellaneous Amendments of 1999. This legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Moynihan, Voinovich, Feinstein, Roberts, Boxer, Enzi, Thomas, Gramm, and Kerrey. This bill would provide a more appropriate penalty for States that have not met the deadline for establishing a State Disbursement Unit (SDU). The 1996 welfare reform law (P. L. 104-193) made a number of important changes to the nation's child support system, including a requirement that States establish and operate a State Disbursement Unit (SDU) to receive child support payments and distribute the money in accord with State child support distribution rules. In general, States had until October 1st of this year to establish an SDU. States that have not met this deadline will lose all Federal funds for the administration of their child support enforcement programs, and also may be in jeopardy of losing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds. Although most States have met the deadline, for various reasons about seven States may not. This bill provides that States may apply for an alternative smaller, graduated penalty, as described in the ``Description of the Child Support Miscellaneous Amendments of 1999.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.