William Roth

Mr. ROTH

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. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of H.R. 434 at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, notwithstanding rule XXII, and the yeas and nays be vitiated on the motion to proceed.

Mr. ROTH. In light of this agreement, there will be no further votes this evening.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the African trade bill with a cloture vote on the motion to proceed scheduled to occur at 10 a.m. Following the vote, it is hoped that the Senate can start debate on the bill so that Senators can begin to offer their amendments. Completion of the bill is expected to occur midweek so that the Senate can move to other items on the calendar prior to adjournment. The conference committees are working to complete action on the two remaining appropriations conference reports, and the Senate will consider these conference reports as soon as they become available.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to proceed to H.R. 434. As I indicated on Friday, when we proceeded to the bill, I will offer a substitute to the House language that consists of the Finance Committee-reported bills on Africa, CBI, GSP renewal, and the reauthorization of our Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. Each one of these measures deserves our support. What each represents in its own way is an attempt to reach out and provide not just a helping hand, but an opportunity--an opportunity for millions around the world to seize their own economic destiny. Africa has for too long suffered from our neglect. The continent faces daunting political, economic, and social challenges. Yet, African leaders are seizing the opportunity to press for political and economic change. The goal of the Finance Committee's Africa bill is to meet Africa's leaders half way. It is not a panacea for Africa's problems; rather, it is a small downpayment--an investment--in a partnership that I hope we can foster through our actions here. The Finance Committee's CBI bill does much the same. It builds on an economic foundation begun with the passage of the original CBI in 1983, but responds as well to the efforts of Caribbean and Central American leaders to rebuild their economies in the face of incalculable devastation their countries faced this past year. The bill would afford the same basic package of enhanced trade preferences offered to Africa under the Finance Committee's bill. The economic opportunities offered by the Finance Committee Africa and CBI bills extend to U.S. industry as well. According to the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, the Finance Committee bills would lead to an increase in their sales of $8.8 billion over 5 years and an increase in employment of 121,000 jobs. The bills are expressly designed to ensure that they are a benefit to Africa and the Caribbean, and to the United States as well. The renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences would continue the longstanding policy of the United States of opening our market to create economic opportunity throughout the developing world and merits our continued support. The renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs is entirely consistent with the theme of creating economic opportunity, but it is focused on home. I have always maintained that those who benefit from trade should help those who are adversely affected. The TAA programs have lapsed and must be renewed if we are to fulfill that commitment. Now, much has been made in this debate of the fact that Finance Committee bills entail a unilateral grant of preferences. The implication is that there is nothing in this for the United States. In fact, the economic growth fostered by this legislation create new markets for our goods and services, as well as help create more prosperous and stable neighbors. That is an investment I will make any time. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the cloture motion and the motion to proceed to H.R. 434. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, today is a sad day for America; today is a sad day for the Senate, for Rhode Island, but especially for John Chafee's family. Senator Chafee was, indeed, a remarkable man and a good friend. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family--his wife Ginny and five children--as they pass through this most difficult time. I believe it can be said without hesitation that few individuals have served America with the distinction that John Chafee exhibited in his many years of public service. From his active duty in the Marine Corps--where he saw action in both the Second World War and Korea--to his early years as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, to his years as Governor and his work as Secretary of the Navy, to, of course, his 23 years of service in the Senate, John's patriotism was beyond philosophical; it was pragmatic and it was concrete. He had a keen sense of duty--a profound sense of responsibility. As a Senator, he knew his constituents, and he served them with such devotion that he was elected in 1976 and returned to Washington four times, despite the fact that he was a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic State. Much of his effectiveness was in his ability to find bipartisan cooperation, and to stand fast on issues that were important to the individuals and families he represented. Among these issues was a deep concern for the environment and for quality and affordable health care. He was a tireless advocate of the underprivileged and a strong proponent of American leadership and economic opportunity. I understand how important these issues were to John--not only because we served for so many years as colleagues and friends on the Senate Finance Committee--but because, like John, I represent a small coastal State in the Northeast, much like you, Madam President. Many of the issues and concerns we faced were the same. In fact, one of the truly great honors I have received as a Senator is to be given the Ansel Adams Award by the Wilderness Society. It is the highest award that prestigious organization gives out, and there are only two Republican Senators who have ever received it. And I must say that it was awarded to John first--2 or 3 years before me. Madam President, along with you and all our colleagues, I am saddened by his death. But I am grateful for the time we spent together; I am grateful for his leadership and example; and I am grateful for his supportive family. Along with all my colleagues, I express my condolences to them as well as my most profound gratitude for sharing Senator Chafee with America. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want the record to be clear that this Government has been of help to the apparel and textile industry, as well as others, including agriculture and aerospace. The claim was made that the A&T sector has not benefited, but that is not correct. Let me give one example. The question of the R&E tax credit--a most important credit in that it encourages research by various industries and I think helps keeps us on the cutting edge of technology--I point out this is a matter, as a matter of fact, being discussed and debated in the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on the other side as part of extenders. The point I want to make is the R&E tax credit is of great benefit to the textile and apparel industry. As a matter of fact, the CRS report for Congress of August 24, 1999, states that the R&E tax credit may be even more important to the A&T sector. This is probably because more technology-intensive industries consider R&D spending a fixed cost of their sector activity that must be undertaken to maintain competitiveness regardless of public policy. While in the A&T sector, the amount of R&D engaged in is variable depending on the expense. It concludes, for these reasons, this credit is probably of more benefit to this industry than many others. I conclude by saying that as Congress has recently displayed a preference in favor of tax credits over direct funding for R&D, the future of the R&D tax credit may be determined, to a large degree, by the rate of continued technical progress in the A&T sector. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first, let me make the observation that textile jobs are being lost to China and India, not to Mexico. NAFTA has helped increase U.S. textile shipments. But I think it is particularly important to understand that it is not I who is saying that the legislation before us will help the textile industry; rather, it is the textile industry itself. It is the President of the American Textile Manufacturing Institute that is telling us that the Finance Committee will raise textile shipments by $8.8 billion over the next 5 years. That is what is significant, Mr. President--that it is the textile industry itself that is asserting that the legislation before us will help the textile industry to the tune of $8.8 billion and, most important of all, it will increase employment by 121,000 jobs. That is the reason I made the comment that it is win-win because we are not only helping the countries such as the sub-Saharan Africa CBI, but we are helping the workers here at home. We are not talking about what happened in the past; we are talking about what will happen in the future. And what we are seeking to do is to enact legislation that will both create jobs and help the industry. I should also point out, most importantly, it will be of benefit to the retailers, the wholesalers, as well as the people who acquire the goods. So I reiterate what I said earlier, that this is good legislation. It accomplishes what I think we all want--a stronger economy in the textile area. Now, on the immigration issue, my distinguished colleague says NAFTA hasn't helped. What that statement overlooked is the strong flow of illegal immigration. But, again, as I said earlier, it is not from Mexico; rather, it is from Central America and the Caribbean, which is precisely the reason that the Finance Committee bill will help. In other words, by strengthening their economy, there will be jobs there, and as a result of that, there won't be the need for the illicit immigration that has occurred in the past. As to who would benefit, my distinguished colleague cannot possibly claim that Korean and Taiwanese firms will benefit. As I explained before, the only fabric that will benefit is American fabric. It is U.S. textiles that will benefit and U.S. export of textiles. So my colleague argues that we are losing in manufacturing. In fact, it is increasing, and that is the purpose of this legislation. Mr. President, I think it is important that the record reflect what has happened to productivity in the textile industry. In a CRS report for Congress dated August 24, 1999, the point is made on page CRS-3 that: Labor productivity growth in the textiles industry has actually outstripped [I think that is important] that of the economy as a whole, increasing at 2.8% per year from 1970 to 1996, compared with 1.2% per year for the aggregate economy. In other words, the economy as a whole, its productivity, has been growing at the rate of 1.2 percent per year, whereas the textile industry, in contrast, has been growing as rapidly as 2.8 percent. Textile productivity growth was fast even compared to the rest of the manufacturing sector. The figures are given that it grew at 2.8 percent versus 2.3 for the rest of the manufacturing sector and has maintained the high growth of labor productivity even in the 1990s. Again, it is 4 percent versus 3.5 percent. Much of the increase in the textile industry productivity was due to capital deepening that occurred beginning in the 1970s. Over this decade, capital expenditures by textile producers outstripped their profit with almost $3 billion invested annually in new plant and equipment. The same publication points out that exports have grown 12.1 percent in the textile sector from 1989 to 1996 but has shrunk very slightly, 1.2 percent, since 1997 due primarily to lingering effects of foreign currency devaluations that have been induced by the Asian crisis. I urge anyone who has an opening statement or comment on the legislation to come down to the floor as soon as possible while there is an opportunity to speak on this matter. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to proceed to H.R. 434. As Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee's Trade Subcommittee, indicated last night, I will offer a manager's amendment--to be titled the Trade and Development Act of 1999--as a substitute for the House-passed language. That act will include 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. I want to explain the intent behind these measures and my reasons for supporting their passage. Let me begin with Africa. No continent suffers more from poverty, hunger, and disease. Those problems have been compounded by colonialism, cold war politics, corruption, social division, and environmental disaster. Our daily news records the desperate images of starving mothers and their children, small boys employed as the dogs of war, and the slaughter of wildlife as poachers attempt to eke out a living on the bare plains of Africa. The result has been the lowest living standards and the lowest life expectancy of any in the world. Those conditions have too often reinforced a dangerous cycle of war, political instability, and economic decay. What the daily news has too often overlooked are the efforts of so many of our African neighbors to restore political freedom, guarantee human rights, and foster economic hope. In the past decade, we have seen an end to apartheid in South Africa and the peaceful transition to black majority rule. We have seen Nelson Mandela go from political prisoner to president. We have witnessed the more recent restoration of economic links between South Africa and the former ``front-line states,'' between Uganda and Tanzania, and between the sub-Saharan region and the rest of the world. We have benefited from the example of courage and dedication that many sub-Saharan African states have provided as they have confronted the daunting challenges they face. We have also seen nothing short of a revolution in economic thinking. Africa has too frequently been the beneficiary of bad economic advice from well-meaning international institutions, technical advisers, and even creditors. That advice often encouraged crushing debt, confiscatory taxation, growth-killing devaluations, inefficient state-owned enterprises, and economic mismanagement. For too long, our African neighbors have been encouraged to adopt models of economic development that have, in fact, wasted their most valuable resource--their people. That era has now come to an end. The new Africa is tackling its own problems and the new Africa can be the master of its own economic destiny. It is in that context that the African title of the Trade and Development Act is relevant. It offers tariff preferences to sub- Saharan Africa that will encourage economic foundation on which the eligible countries can build their own future. Equally important, it reflects a belief in the power of markets, incentives to investment, and human potential. That approach enjoys broad bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress and by the President, who mentioned the bill as one of his top foreign policy and trade priorities in this year's State of the Union Address. As the chart behind me attests, the legislation also enjoys broad support in the business community, among U.S. and foreign opinion leaders, as well as, most importantly, from the potential African beneficiaries themselves. Numerous U.S. businesses and business groups have expressed their support for moving this legislation. That group includes companies as diverse as Oracle, Cargill, General Motors, Enron, and The Limited. The list of supporters includes the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the National Council of Churches. It includes opinion leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Coretta Scott King, the Reverend Leon Sullivan who led much of the fight in this country to force change in South Africa under apartheid, and Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television who appeared before the Finance Committee in support of the legislation. And, most importantly, the legislation is endorsed by all 47 of the potential beneficiaries in sub-Saharan Africa. The bill deserves our support as well. The Trade and Development Act of 1999 would do much the same of the Caribbean and Central America that it would do for sub-Saharan Africa. It expands the existing benefits available under the Caribbean Basin Initiative to include the duty-free and quota-free treatment of the value added in the Caribbean to apparel made from U.S. yarn and U.S. fabric. It is no understatement to say that the countries of the Caribbean and Central America have faced problems similar to those faced in Africa, and often-times on a similar scale. It was only a decade or so ago that Nicaragua was an avowedly Marxist state harboring guerrillas that sought to undermine the governments and economies of Central America. It was only a decade or so ago that El Salvador was confronted with bloody civil strife and a mass migration of its people northward to escape the conditions of poverty and hopelessness that recurring civil war had brought. More recently, the region has been hit by natural disasters, rather than the man-made variety. This past year, Hurricane Mitch devastated the islands of the Caribbean and the countries of Central America. Among the hardest hit were Honduras and Guatemala, where farms and factories were literally washed away overnight. Both countries confronted the need to rebuild their economic infrastructure from the ground up. Since 1983, the countries of the region have been eligible for enhanced tariff preferences under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The CBI was expressly designed to encourage private investment and an economic partnership between the firms in the United States and firms in the Caribbean. The CBI accomplished that objective. In 1993, however, with the conclusion of the NAFTA, the margin of preference enjoyed by the CBI beneficiaries was undercut by the preferential treatment accorded Mexican goods under that agreement. That was particularly significant in the area of textiles and apparel, where the NAFTA rules of origin gradually encouraged a shift in United States investment and trade from the region to the Mexico. In order to make good on the initial promise of the CBI, the Caribbean title of the manager's amendment would encourage the manufacture in the Caribbean of apparel articles made from U.S. fabric woven with U.S. yarns. In effect, the bill would simply restore the margin of preference it previously enjoyed in the region in such manufacturing. At this point, it is worth outlining the reasons why the Finance Committee settled on the particular package of benefits extended to textiles and apparel under both the Africa and CBI titles of the manager's amendment. For many years, we have employed a program that encouraged production sharing between the United States and many countries in the developing world. That program--generally known as the ``807'' program--allowed for the export of U.S.-manufactured components off-shore for assembly. Under the 807 program, when the assembly was complete and the goods were returned to the United States, the importer paid duty only on the amount of value added offshore in the assembly process. Do such programs work? The answer, based on the latest reports of the International Trade Commission, is an unequivocal yes. They work for both the beneficiary countries and for American firms. Production sharing programs, according to the ITC, are used by American companies ``to minimize their overall costs and improve competitiveness.'' Indeed, in most instances, American firms experience ``enhanced overall competitiveness'' that ``allows companies to maintain higher U.S. production and employment levels that might otherwise be possible.'' In short, the programs reflected in both the Africa and CBI titles of the manager's amendment are designed to create a ``win-win'' outcome for the regions and for American firms. The American textile industry's latest analyses vindicate the approach we adopted in the Finance Committee. I think it is fair to say that when we started the process of considering these programs for Africa and the Caribbean in the 105th Congress, the textile industry was lukewarm at best. What they have found in the intervening three years is that the bill proposed by the Finance Committee would help create a competitive platform from which American firms could compete effectively on a global basis even in the face of fierce competition from exporters such as China and India. According to the respected industry consultant, Nathan Associates, the Finance Committee bill would ``increase U.S. textile shipments by $8.8 billion and increase U.S. textile and textile-related employment by 121,400 by the end of five years.'' That result led the president of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Doug Ellis of Southern Mills, to conclude that the Senate Finance Committee bill would have a ``very strong and direct positive impact . . . on U.S. textile production and jobs.'' He indicated that the legislation will ``significantly enhance'' trade between the United States and the beneficiary countries. For that reason, ATMI, urged the Congress to support the Finance Committee's bill. What is more, U.S. wholesalers, retailers, and consumers benefit as well. The direct effect on the duty preferences extended under the manager's amendment will be to lower the cost of apparel products sold in the United States as cost savings are passed on to the consumer. The indirect effect is that, by ensuring the continuing competitiveness of the U.S. industry, the bill would also encourage continuing competition well into the future. That competition ultimately means a broader range of higher quality goods available to the consumer at lower prices. I want to pause here to reemphasize my basic point. Under the manager's amendment, everyone in the U.S. textile and apparel market-- from the farmer growing cotton to the yarnspinner to the fabric-maker to the apparel manufacturer to the retailer to the consumer--wins under the Finance Committee bill. The same holds true for the beneficiary countries. Now, I would be remiss if I failed to mention two other particularly important provisions of the manager's amendment. The first is the renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences. The GSP program lapsed in June of this year. Much depends on its renewal. The program was designed to create an incentive to investment in the developing world. Since its inception in 1975, the GSP program has done just that. Now, however, in the absence of the renewal of the program, that needed incentive to productive capital investment will be cut off. Many American firms that depend on the GSP program will be hurt along with the beneficiary countries. The second additional item is the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. The TAA programs are designed to help U.S. workers and firms adjust to new levels of import competition. I have always maintained that those that benefit from trade should care for those who are hurt by the economic adjustment trade can engender. For that reason, I rushed to the floor to object when there was an initiative to do away with these programs in the past. In my view, the TAA programs represent a down payment on the commitment we must make to workers as the United States if we want them to join us in support of the benefits trade brings. In closing, let me urge my colleagues to listen carefully to the debate they will hear in the coming hours on the motion to proceed to H.R. 434. I firmly believe that my colleagues will hear no meaningful objection to the Senate Finance Committee's approach to providing additional trade incentives to sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, or the developing world generally through the renewal of GSP. Nor can there be any principled objection to the renewal of the TAA programs. This is a significant step in favor of engagement with our neighbors in Africa and the Caribbean to help them surmount their own economic problems. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed to the bill.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the sub-Saharan Africa free trade bill. Any Senator desiring to debate the motion to proceed is encouraged to come to the floor to make their statement. As announced last night, there will be no rollcall votes today or during Monday's session of the Senate. The next vote will be on the morning of Tuesday, October 26. The Senate may also consider appropriations conference reports or any other legislative or executive matters that can be cleared. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I concur with the Senior Senator from Maryland that HHS could use its section 1115 waiver authority to address Maryland's concerns.

Mr. ROTH. I understand the Senator from Maryland's concerns. It is my view that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority, without additional legislative direction, to determine that children who had been covered under Maryland's expired, limited-benefit demonstration program were not receiving true Title XIX coverage, and could therefore be considered uninsured for the purposes of CHIP eligibility.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, we will review the amendment through the committee process to determine inclusion in any Medicare BBA package that the Finance Committee takes up this year. I recognize how important this amendment is to the Senators from Michigan.

Mr. ROTH. I've long been committed to the effective and efficient management of the Medicare program, specifically the detection of fraud and abuse. I supported the creation of the MIP program, established under HIPAA, to provide a stable and increasing funding source for fraud and abuse detection efforts. Prior to MIP, Medicare contractor funding for anti-fraud and abuse activities was often reduced because of other spending priorities in the annual appropriations process. MIP was created to prevent that from happening again. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation is in clear disregard of congressional intent.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to make some brief observations in reference to the debate on the Lautenberg amendment to the Labor/Health and Human Services/Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The Senator from New Jersey suggests that there is an aversion to identifying and addressing tax loopholes. I would point out that in the Finance Committee we have worked in a bipartisan manner to identify and address areas of our tax code which are viewed as candidates for change. These measures have raised tens of billions in revenue over the last few years. Some examples in this area include action the committee took to effect the tax treatment of corporate owned life insurance (COLI), liquidating REITs and tax shelter registration requirements. Indeed, we are required to consistently look for avenues where we can adjust our tax code to enact change going forward. We are faced with just such a situation right now in crafting our so called extender bill. The items we are seeking to go forward with include permanently shielding individuals from the alternative minimum tax--an important item to ensure that our families are able to take advantage of measures designed to advance their education and child care needs. We are looking to create job opportunities with the extension of the work opportunity tax credit, the R&D tax credit and the welfare to work tax credit and to enable working men and women to continue their education both at the undergraduate and graduate level through the employer provided education assistance program. In the environmental area we are looking to continue provisions which enable communities and businesses to address brownfields. I would point out that millions of people benefit from these provisions. I believe it is possible to craft legislation which will provide for programs which have been identified as priorities--health care for our veterans, education, aid for our farmers, environmental programs and health research. We have worked in the Finance Committee to advance these priorities as well and will continue to do so going forward in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 231 and 233; and the nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Monday at 12 noon and be in a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. By previous order, at 3:30 p.m. the Senate will begin consideration of two resolutions that were introduced today regarding education. The Lott and Daschle resolutions will be debated concurrently for 2 hours, and the Senate will then proceed to two stacked votes. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote on Monday at approximately 5:30 p.m. Following the votes, the Senate may begin consideration of any conference reports, appropriations bills, or nominations available for action.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Coverdell.

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

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 283, Senate Resolution 99.