William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely, I say to my distinguished friend, at least 75.

Mr. ROTH. At least 75.

Mr. ROTH. What kind of signal are we giving to the rest of the world? People are talking about isolationism. What does this vote represent? Does it mean we can't act effectively when the welfare of thousands of people both here and abroad is at stake? I say to my distinguished colleague and ranking member of the Finance Committee, for whom I have the greatest respect, that we will not consider this to be a dead issue.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I agree with you.

Mr. ROTH. As you and I have pointed out, a majority of the Senators on both sides of the aisle are supportive of this legislation. I do wish some of those who are supportive would come down and give their reasons why it is so important that we move ahead with this legislation. It would be a shame if we lost this opportunity to take a step forward. Because, if I might say so, we are not only losing the opportunity to act on this legislation, which in and of itself is so important, but it helps give what I think is the mistaken message to the world that we are no longer interested in liberal trade policy, particularly in view of the fact that we will be going, hopefully, out to Seattle in a few weeks to take the next step forward in broadening and liberalizing markets, making them more accessible to everyone, which, of course, is particularly in our interest because the United States has the lowest tariffs, the most open markets. It is important that we move ahead and begin to negotiate access to other markets.

Mr. ROTH. But I think the----

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. Please proceed.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. I could not agree more with what the Senator just said. I think this is one of the brightest periods in history with respect to our country. I think there is enough credit for everyone to claim.

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely.

Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Mr. ROTH. I point out it is projected by the industry itself that adoption of this legislation will create in the next 5 years approximately 121,000 jobs, that it will result in markets exceeding roughly $8.8 billion. The purpose of this legislation is not only to enable the textile industry, for example, to compete better at home but also to be in a better position to compete abroad in other markets. If we do nothing, as has happened in the past, we see, for example, the Chinese exports increasing.

Mr. ROTH. What we are trying to do is make us more competitive in the industry so that it not only helps the economy but, most important, creates jobs within the industry.

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, I say to Senator Moynihan. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, yesterday, I began making some comments in answer to critics of the proposed legislation, and I want to take a few minutes to continue to answer those negative comments. One of the questions that has been asked is: Won't this legislation result in the further erosion of America's manufacturing sector? None of my colleagues who have risen in opposition to this bill have addressed its specifics. The reason is that, unlike the House-passed Africa bill, the Finance Committee measures are drafted in a way that ensures a benefit to the American industry as well as our African, Caribbean, and Central American trading partners. I made passing reference just now to the specifics and how it would impact on the industry and the American worker. What my colleagues who oppose the bill have done is raise several general arguments against trade that I thought might still be helpful to address. One of the arguments that falls in that category is the argument that trade has led to an irreversible decline in U.S. manufacturing, and that any trade measure, even this one, would simply worsen that decline. Let me take that head on. America is not losing its manufacturing sector. By any measure, it is doing a lot better than some of my distinguished colleagues seem to think. There is no question that manufacturing has declined as a percentage of the U.S. economy. Manufacturing, as a portion of GDP, has declined steadily since 1960, from 27 percent of GDP to 17 percent of GDP by 1996. But does that mean the United States is losing in the international arena? The answer is no. According to the International Trade Commission, all industrial countries have faced a similar percentage decrease in manufacturing as a share of GDP from about 28 percent in 1970 to about 18 percent in 1994. Does the decline in manufacturing as a percentage of GDP mean that American industry is in decline and output is falling? Again, the answer is no. In fact, America's industrial output expanded 62 percent for the period from 1977 through 1996. Let me repeat. The fact is, America's industrial output expanded 62 percent from 1977 through 1996, a period that critics of our trade policy think of as the worst stages of our industrial decline. American manufacturing added a net figure of 4.4 million new jobs during that same period, or an increase of 31 percent in employment in the manufacturing sector. These are very important statistics, I believe. It bears out what the distinguished Senator from New York was just pointing out. Are we being beaten in this measure of international competition? Again, the answer is no. According to a most recent edition of the Economist, which I think is one of the best periodicals available today, American industrial production is up by 35 percent over 1990. During that same period, Japanese industrial growth fell by 5 percent. What a contrast. Ours grew by 35 percent; Japan's fell by 5 percent. This was the world where our country was going to be down and Japan was going to take over. Industrial output in Germany has remained a sluggish 4 percent over the same 10 years, while French and British industrial production grew by only 8 and 9 percent, respectively. Is there employment available for those workers who have lost their jobs due to an increase in productivity? As Senator Moynihan and I were commenting earlier, the answer is yes. We have never seen such low unemployment as this country is enjoying today. The American economy currently enjoys the lowest unemployment in history and rising wages across the board, even for the unskilled who have dropped out of school rather than finishing their education.

Mr. ROTH. In 1934. How can you explain the prosperity of this country, which has the most open markets of any, if not put it on the basis that a liberal trade policy does work? Unfortunately, there are some industries and some workers who do suffer. That is the reason we have TAA, to help them make the adjustment.

Mr. ROTH. But overall, our country has never had a longer period of growth and prosperity than we are enjoying and have enjoyed. It has been enjoyed under two Presidents. Isn't it ironic we are here debating whether or not we should extend these policies that have worked so well to a few countries that are in need of some support and help? It will not only work in their interests, but again it will work in our interest, as I think the Senator pointed out, starting with the growers of cotton, people who make the fabrics, the apparel, the wholesalers, the retailers, and the consumers. It seems to me it is almost unbelievable anyone would argue to the contrary, that we should not continue on this path of a liberal trade policy.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. Can I make one further observation and get the Senator's reaction to it? The irony of what is before us is, if we enact this legislation, it will help the very industries about which we are concerned.

Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Mr. ROTH. It is, as we have said before, a win-win situation.

Mr. ROTH. Could I ask a question of the distinguished professor? We are enjoying, today, one of the greatest periods of prosperity, 8, 9 years or so, this country has undergone. Unemployment is lower than anyone would ever have predicted a few years ago. The future of this country is bright. It was only about 10 years ago everybody was predicting the United States was going down the drain and Japan was becoming No. 1. But the contrary has happened. In this period of time, we have enjoyed the liberal trade practices that began many, many years ago--what was the year?

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I think that is a fair statement.