William Roth

Mr. ROTH

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. Please proceed.

Mr. ROTH. That is absolutely correct. The distinguished Senator raises a most important point, going back to the need for action being taken now. The meeting of the WTO to be held in Seattle is an extraordinarily important event. It can bring about some very significant progress for this changing world where we are increasingly involved in a global economy. It is incomprehensible that on this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle, and has the support of the President of the United States, no action will be taken, thus giving the wrong signal to our friends, allies, and trading partners around the world as to our seriousness about moving ahead on trade policy. It looks as if we cannot take action. Regarding fast track--and I appreciate the support Senator Moynihan has given in committee--we have certainly tried to push fast track. We believed it was critically important this President, as every other President, have that authority. Unfortunately, it never happened.

Mr. ROTH. Let me say to my distinguished friend, many years ago when the legendary Russell Long was chairman of our committee, the TAA was about to expire and no one was trying to save it. The chairman was about to rap the gavel to move on to other things. I said: Just a minute, sir. We have a commitment. That is exactly what the Senator is claiming now. I am proud and pleased to say the legislation was continued. It is a matter of significant concern to thousands of American workers and their families who are depending upon it. The purpose of this program, of course, is to enable these workers to be trained for new jobs, for new opportunities. We have an economy where there are, indeed, many jobs available. It behooves all to work to expedite action on this important piece of legislation. The other point I want to underscore and emphasize, and it has been addressed eloquently by the distinguished Senator from New York, who brings so much historical background into this picture, if we don't act on this legislation, it is a denial of liberal trade policies of the past how many years--35 years?

Mr. ROTH. I was one of them, I might say.

Mr. ROTH. That is right.

Mr. ROTH. I ask the distinguished Senator what will happen if we do not act on this legislation with respect to these American workers?

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. President, I want to address some of the statements made about the process unfolding, allegations that the majority leader has tied up the process. The truth is, we have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. The majority leader has tried to protect the 80 or 90 Senators who support the bill to make sure we focus on the merits of the bill and not on extraneous issues that are calculated to block progress. My friend and Finance Committee colleague, Senator Conrad, indicated, for example, he wants to raise some amendments on agriculture negotiating objectives and trade adjustment assistance, and these amendments are relevant and should be debated. They could be, if our friends on both sides reach agreement to work together to table nontrade amendments. That is what we should be about. Let's work together on this and begin to focus on our efforts on the bill. Let's not concede the debate to the opponents because of their procedural tactics. Let's focus on getting this bill acted upon, which is good for America as well as the CBI. Time is running out. I think it is critically important that we bring about a process where we can move forward on this most critical piece of legislation. What concerns me is it is time sensitive. For example, GSP has already expired. That not only works against the interests of the Third World developing countries we are trying to help, but it works against the best interests of American companies that depend on this source of supply for their material. Yesterday, the distinguished ranking minority leader of the Senate Finance Committee made a very eloquent statement about the importance of trade adjustment to the workers who are dependent upon it. Let me emphasize, these are American workers--about 200,000.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. First of all, let me thank the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his eloquent remarks. All I can say is, we must not let that happen. And with the kind of bipartisan spirit we had in the Finance Committee, it will not happen.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I was taking the opportunity to address some of the arguments that have been raised during the debate on this bill these past several days. Some of my colleagues have questioned why we are taking this bill up now. Let me help them by putting this in context. Section 134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which passed the Congress in 1994, directed the President to develop a comprehensive trade and development policy for the countries of Africa. That provision originated with Senator Daschle, now the distinguished minority leader. In the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Act, the President made clear that the first measures he intended to consider in complying with that congressional mandate, were measures to: Remove impediments to U.S. trade with and investment in Africa, including enhancements in the GSP program for least- developed countries. Section 134 of the URAA recognized that, as a continent, Africa had been left behind in trade terms. New approaches were needed to integrate Africa fully into the world economy, to allow Africa to take full advantage of the world trading system, and to ensure that Africans themselves had the opportunity to guide their own economic destiny. Now, 5 years after the Congress originally endorsed the idea, this legislation responds directly to that mandate. The legislation offers a down payment on a new and more constructive relationship with the African continent--one as partners with similar interests in expanding economic opportunity and raising living standards in all our countries. The President has for the past 2 years indicated in his State of the Union Address his intent to press ahead with this legislation. He identified this legislation as one of his top trade and foreign policy initiatives. In his trip to Africa this past year, he committed to move the bill as part of a new initiative for Africa. That led to the consideration of this legislation in the 105th Congress. The House passed its counterpart legislation in the spring of this past year, the Finance Committee reported out a bill in all respects the same as that we now have before us, but time ran out before the Senate could act on the bill. This year the House once again acted, this time in June. By that point, the Finance Committee had already reported out the legislation now on the Senate floor. The Africa bill is timely--indeed, it is past time we acted on this important measure. The same holds true for the CBI. A proposal for establishing parity between the preferences granted Mexico under the NAFTA and those granted the Caribbean and Central America has been before Congress in one form or another almost since the NAFTA was implemented in late 1993. In the 105th Congress, there was considerable effort invested by both the Ways and Means and Finance Committees in moving counterpart bills. That work was renewed in the 106th Congress with hearings and markups before both committees. The CBI title enjoys the same bipartisan support as does the Africa title. Indeed, the President's CBI bill, introduced in this session at his request, is virtually identical to the bill reported from the Finance Committee bill in both the 105th and 106th Congresses. The Finance Committee bill enjoys the backing of the leadership and members on both sides of the aisle. It is, in fact, a testament to the bipartisan support for this legislation and the considerable push by the White House that we have been given time to debate this bill now. It is time to reject the isolationist label, the instinct to ignore the broader world around us, and the tendency for focus exclusively inward. It is time to affirm the constructive role that the United States can play in the wider world and fulfill the leadership the world expects from the United States. It is time to act. It is time to act because it is time we made good on the unfulfilled promises made to both Africa and the Caribbean. An October, 1998, report of the International Trade Commission makes clear, Africa faces daunting economic challenges. The ITC report highlights the economic and structural problems Africa faces in attracting productive investment. For all that, the ITC report also reflects the positive changes under way in Africa. The region's GDP rose by 4.8 percent from 1995 to 1997. Since 1990, the region has reached a number of agreements eliminating trade and investment barriers and harmonizing economic policies. Most of the governments of the region have ``introduced economic reforms to control budget deficits, and inflation, and to stabilize currencies.'' They have liberalized ``regulations on trade and investment,'' reduced tariffs and other import charges and abolished most price controls. In addition, many of the governments have begun significant programs of privatization. In fact, the governments of sub-Saharan Africa raised ``an estimated $5.8 billion from privatization, primarily through divestitures of utilities and telecommunication firms.'' What this legislation tries to do is meet those governments half way. It is an effort to open our markets to their products as a way of reinforcing their own efforts to encourage productive investment and economic growth. The legislation is designed to reinforce a growing, the growing interest in Africa among U.S. businesses. Direct investment by U.S. firms more than quadrupled in 1997 alone to $3.8 billion, according to the ITC. We want to encourage that positive trend. Some may argue that, because this is a grant of unilateral preferences, it is one-sided--that there will be no benefits to the United States. What that ignores is the track record of the last several decades. Where U.S. investment goes, U.S. trade follows. Significantly, while U.S. investment was increasing in 1996 and 1997 in sub-Saharan Africa, our exports to the region experienced a corresponding growth in capital goods, particularly exports of machinery for use in agriculture and infrastructure projects. Africa represents an important opportunity to our farmers as well. While agricultural exports fell in dollar terms, largely because of the lower prices available on world markets for all commodities, Africa represents an important potential market for U.S. food exports as the continent increasingly looks offshore to meet its needs. The real issue is whether or not the region will have the wherewithal to buy what it needs to offset the steady decline in per capita caloric intake that has accelerated in the last 2 to 3 years. The legislation before us would help address that problem. By opening our markets to their products, sub-Saharan African countries can earn the foreign exchange needed to purchase food on world markets, including from U.S. exporters. Will that be enough? Will this legislation alone be the answer to Africa's problems? Plainly not. As Senator Grassley indicated in his eloquent statement opening the debate on this bill last Thursday, this legislation is no panacea. It is instead a small, but significant step toward a new economic relationship between the United States and sub- Saharan Africa. Should this legislation be supplemented by other initiatives? It should and it must if it is going to work. But, the fact that it is not the whole answer to Africa's problems or does not reflect all that the United States might do to help Africans secure their own economic destiny is no argument against action. It is time to move ahead and engage constructively with our African partners in the transition they themselves have begun. The same holds true for the Caribbean and Central America. Through the original CBI program, the United States and U.S. private businesses have played a significant role in the economic progress the region has made over the past 15 years. This past year, however, natural disasters eliminated much of the progress made in the Caribbean and Central America in recent years. The devastation began with the eruption of a long-dormant volcano that nearly depopulated the island of Montserrat and nearly erased its economy in the summer of 1998. In September of that year, Hurricane Georges severely damaged both the Dominican Republic and Haiti. An even more devastating hurricane-- Hurricane Mitch--struck Central America in late October and early November late in the hurricane season. Honduras and Nicaragua were particularly hard hit, but the hurricane also did considerable damage to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. Hurricane Mitch left 11,000 dead and an even greater number homeless. Much of the resulting damage was long-term--massive property damage and soil erosion, the devastation of crop lands and manufacturing sites, putting thousands out of work. The region will take years to recover. Those devastating circumstances have given renewed impetus to an idea that surfaced almost immediately after the implementation of the NAFTA--the expansion of tariff preferences under the CBI to match those offered under the NAFTA to Mexico. Will it work? I am confident it will because the legislation is modeled on existing production-sharing arrangements in textiles and apparel and other industries that already account for nearly half of all imports from the CBI beneficiary countries. In other words, the program has a proven track record. Indeed, bilateral trade in textiles and apparel under existing production- sharing partnerships between U.S. and Caribbean or Central American firms already accounts for 36 percent of current two-way trade between the United States and the CBI region. For all those reasons, the legislation merits our support. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his leadership on agricultural trade issues. I congratulate him for his knowledge, for his leadership on these issues, and the effectiveness with which he deals with them. I want him to know I rise in strong support of his amendment. The USTR has had an agricultural ambassador at USTR. In my judgment, it has been a most effective tool for furthering our agricultural trade interests. It is my position that making this a permanent position would be good policy, well deserved by the agricultural sector which, of course, has consistently fought for trade liberalization. Again, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Missouri and say I look forward to working with him on this critical issue. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to address some of the arguments that have been raised during the debate today and earlier. They were worthy arguments that merit our attention. But I do believe the proponents of this legislation have a more than adequate response. One of the questions that has been raised is, Why take this bill up now? Some of my colleagues have questioned why we are. Let me help them by putting this in context. Section 134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which passed the Congress in 1994, just 5 years ago, directed the President to develop a comprehensive trade and development policy for the countries of Africa. That provision originated with Senator Daschle, now the distinguished minority leader. In the statement of administrative action that accompanied the act, the President made it very clear the first measures he intended to consider in complying with that congressional mandate were measures to: . . . remove impediments to U.S. trade with and investment in Africa, including enhancements in the GSP program, for the least developed countries. Mr. President, I see the distinguished leader here. I am happy to yield to the distinguished leader.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment No. 2335 be temporarily laid aside in order for Senator Ashcroft of Missouri to offer an amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I regret that objection because I think it is important that we be able to proceed with this most important legislation. This is legislation that has the support of both the Republican and Democratic leadership. It has the support of the White House and the President. I am disappointed that we are unable to reach agreement to begin the amendment process so that this most important legislation can be acted upon in the remaining days. I point out to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina that this legislation was reported out by the Finance Committee in June of this year. We had hoped action could be taken earlier, but the schedule did not permit that. Does the Senator from Missouri wish to speak?

Mr. ROTH. I would say, if I might, to my distinguished colleague that while it takes unanimous consent for me to ask this, the leader of course could come down and accomplish the same result. So I hope the distinguished Senator will not object.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' amendment to H.R. 434. That substitute includes the Senate Finance Committee- reported bills on Africa, an expansion of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, an extension of the Generalized System of Preferences, and the reauthorization of our trade adjustment assistance programs. It is critically important that we move this legislation. Let me say a few words, in particular, about the Africa trade portion of the bill. The last decade has been a period of great change in Africa. Some of these changes have been quite heartening to those of us who have been watching the countries in that continent for many years. The failed economic policies of socialism and central planning have begun to give way to market reforms, bringing economic growth and an improvement of living standards with it. There have been positive changes on the political front as well. The tragedy of apartheid has, thankfully, come to an end in South Africa. At the same time, democracy has begun to flower in South Africa and in a number of other sub-Saharan countries. The picture, however, is not all positive. As we know all too well, the countries in Africa continue to suffer through more than their share of difficulties. War, disease and hunger are still very significant parts of the story of that region. Africa is a continent that is on the brink of a new and more positive future, but still has a number of significant hurdles that it must overcome. For the Senate, the question is what we can do--what this great country can do--to help the African nations obtain the peace and prosperity that they have been working so hard to achieve. In other words, what can we do to help them complete the work that they have already begun. The manager's amendment is clearly not a panacea; the challenges that the Africans face are too great for any single piece of legislation or any single act to cure. This legislation is, however, an important start towards building an economic partnership between the United States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. This partnership, in my view, is a significant first step towards giving the African nations the opportunities they need to continue the progress that many of them have made over the past decade. I am proud of the support that this legislation has received among the African-American community and among the Africans themselves. I say this because a few of my colleagues have suggested that the African- American community and the African nations themselves are divided in their support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am standing here to say that nothing could be further from the truth. If there was any doubt, it should have been put to rest with the Roll Call ad which ran last week. The ad, appropriately, stated the following: To the United States Senate, Setting the Record Straight. We endorse legislation that provides social and economic opportunity in Africa and we, the undersigned, are working together to achieve this goal. Can we count on you? The signatories to this Roll Call ad are a very distinguished collection of religious, civic, political and business organizations and individual leaders. I will name just a few: the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the National Council of Churches, AfriCare, the Council of National Black Churches, which represents 65,000 churches and 20,000,000 members, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The list of individuals signing this ad includes such notables as Bishops Donald Ming and Garnett Henning of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Mrs. Coretta Scott King, Mr. Martin Luther King III, Ambassador Andrew Young, former mayor David Dinkins, the Honorable Kweisi Mfume, and Mr. Robert Johnson, the head of Black Entertainment Television. I want to note that Mr. Johnson testified eloquently about the need to create new economic opportunities in Africa when he appeared before the Finance Committee last year. He, like the others listed in this ad, have spoken powerfully on the pressing importance of this legislation. Let me read a quote in the ad from just one of these individuals. That individual is the very distinguished Rev. Leon Sullivan of the nearby city of Philadelphia. Rev. Sullivan is quoted in the ad as saying that: The African Growth and Opportunity Act will open new markets for American products and will create additional jobs for Americans and Africans. For every $1 billion in exports to Africa, 14,000 jobs are created or sustained in the United States. Those are powerful and important words. Let us not forget that this legislation is also good for Africa. That is why every single one of the 47 African nations covered under this the legislation have publicly stated their support. Let me repeat that, because it is important. Every single one of the countries covered under this legislation supports this legislation. I think it is fair to say that these countries have the judgment to decide what is in their interest. In this instance, they have spoken loudly and clearly. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is good for Africa. I am proud to say that President Clinton is also a strong supporter of this legislation. He recently said, and it is quoted in the Roll Call ad, that: Our administration strongly supports the African Growth and Opportunity Act which I said in my State of the Union Address we will work to pass in this session of Congress. That, Mr. President, is exactly why we are here. We are here to work on a bipartisan basis to work for passage of an important piece of legislation that is good for the American people and good for Africa. I was honored to have representatives of many of the groups and individuals I mentioned join me in a press conference this past week to express their support for this legislation. What these individuals and groups understand--and stated at the press conference--is that Africa has for too long been neglected in our trade policy. They also understand that the African Growth and Opportunity Act is the right legislation to begin the strengthening of our economic relationship with that continent. Let me emphasize that these individuals and groups support the African Growth and Opportunity Act and not the HOPE bill. They support this bill because it is good legislation. It is the right thing to do. It is good for the American people, and it is good for the people of Africa. There is, of course, much more that is part of the manager's amendment. The enhancement of the CBI program is long overdue. It is also a vital step to strengthening the economic compact begun with that region by President Reagan with the original CBI initiative. The reauthorizations of the Generalized System of Preferences and Trade Adjustment Assistance programs are also of critical importance. These measures are essential for ensuring that the benefits of the global economy are felt as broadly as possible and to ensure that workers and firms displaced by trade receive the assistance and training that they need. The effort to move the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. But, it is long overdue. The House of Representatives passed the Africa legislation by an overwhelming vote of 234-163 in July of this year. It is now time for the Senate to Act. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434, as amended. The time to act is now.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I object.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.