Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, and I do not see any Member seeking to oppose the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to control the time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have put a lot of time in in crafting this bill, and I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish here, but I want to make a couple of points. The bill does not now require compliance with each criteria, which represent at any rate general guidelines and are not specific in the sense of quantifiable percentages or levels of compliance. The criteria call for countries to make, as we say, and let me quote, ``continual progress toward establishing a market-based economy'' relative to the 12 items listed in the bill. The application of the criteria have been left somewhat vague, even though the parameters are specific. The intention is to reward nations that are making progress without requiring they meet a specific target. However, it is expected that nations will make a good-faith effort to address all the concerns expressed as participation criteria. To delete the need to address them all says that they can do well in some areas and absolutely ignore others. This would be our concern. Would we be satisfied in seeing nations participate in this process if they made reforms in governance but failed to reform human rights? Would we find it acceptable to accept a nation that made changes in tax laws but refused to honor the rule of law? So let me explain our concerns, and that is, by waiving the need to deal with all the criteria, we would encourage African nations to pick and choose what reforms they will address, which could result in their failing to take advantage of potentially valuable opportunity. That is why I speak in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will close and respond by saying that I guess partly it is a question of perspective. From the perspective that many of us who have worked on the bill have, the bill itself gives that flexibility. The bill itself says, as I said, ``continual progress towards establishing a market-based economy'' relative to 12 different items. So in our view it is general guidelines that are in the bill itself at this time. We have a difference of perspective, but let me just close at this time and thank the gentlewoman from California for bringing her concerns to us.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) from the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me close by noting that by earmarking a set level of spending for Africa aid, we would take away the ability of Congress to discuss and debate for the next decade what the level of aid spending should be. Earmarking a specific level of aid to Africa for 9 years also locks up dollars that requires the administration to go forward with a level of spending on Africa that might be contrary to U.S. policy at some point during the next 9 years. The administration has consistently opposed setting minimum levels for regional accounts, including Asia, Africa and Latin America. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by making a couple of points that I think need to be made. It makes no sense to authorize 9 years down the line.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. ROYCE. But let me make the point, since this bill does not require a cutoff of aid to Africa, the aid floor is unnecessary in the bill. I will close by saying that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, opposes this amendment to the bill as well. I close, in opposition, with that argument.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken previously about my perception that this bill does allow flexibility. We do have concerns about equal access to U.S. firms. And, yes, there are guidelines in the bill regarding equal access to U.S. firms. But let us go to the subject of this amendment. I applaud the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for this good amendment to the bill. Many Members have visited Africa and have spoken with African and American businesses, both large and small, on the issue of U.S.-Africa trade. Indeed, the gentlewoman and myself were on a CODEL where we met with business interests across the continent in Africa. It is entirely appropriate that language be included to support joint ventures between large and small businesses. So this is a good amendment and I support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for a statement that he would like to make on the bill at this time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make the point, cash-poor African governments must balance many needs for expenditures, and new air traffic control equipment is not at the top of their list. U.S. obsolete equipment is not obsolete for smaller, less busy African airports, and therefore this is a good amendment to the bill. We support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), on the Subcommittee on Africa.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is long overdue. This African Growth and Opportunity Act is long overdue. For too many years, we have thought of Africa in terms of aid only. All of our attempts to promote economic development in Africa have been a matter of sending aid and more aid. Yet many African countries are poorer today than they were at the time of their independence in the early 1960s. There are many reasons for this. Some African countries have been crippled by civil wars, some which were fueled by the Cold War. Some African countries have been hit by natural disasters, including droughts. Downward changes in the world prices of some African commodities have hurt. But our aid has been part of the problem, too, part of the problem because it has often sustained what have proven to be unsustainable economic policies in Africa. Like other areas of the world, Africa went the route of socialism in the 1960s and 1970s. It was fashionable then for African governments to nationalize industries, to close economies to imports, to try to manage commerce down to setting the price on a bag of corn and otherwise kill the entrepreneurial spirit in Africans that is common to people all over the world. Africa's poverty today has much to do with these disastrous policies. Like other regions of the world, though, Africa has been changing. Over the last 10 years, many African countries have been reforming their economies, allowing everyday Africans to seize their own economic destinies. State-controlled companies have been sold, commerce- crippling red tape has been cut, and partnerships with foreign investors have been permitted. In short, African nations have begun to give themselves a chance to develop just like other countries in the world. There have been impressive results. Many of my colleagues today will tell the story of what some are calling the African Renaissance. Many African countries are having real economic growth of up to 10 percent for the first time in years. One country, Uganda, probably the most aggressive economic reformer in Africa, has been growing at 10 percent for several years running. Uganda is now being called the African lion. This growing economy means that the development, better health, nutrition, education, the things that everyone in this House wants to see for Africa, is beginning to happen. And it does not take too many years of 10 percent economic growth to make some real progress. That is why Americans are thinking about Africa in new terms. All this is a new beginning for Africa. Though we should not ignore the real challenges these countries face, more reforms are needed, and economic reform can be trying, but if African countries meet this challenge, then the Africa of the 21st century will be a far different Africa than the Africa of the recent past. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is all about helping these countries along with this reform plan. It does this by identifying those countries that are committed to reform as the countries the United States wants to develop a special economic relationship with. These countries, those that are giving themselves the best chance to develop, that are giving U.S. businesses the chance to take part in their development through American exports and investment, will take part in annual trade forums with the United States. They will also have greater opportunities to sell some of their goods to American consumers. These are real benefits, benefits that should be incentives to African countries to continue their reform path, allowing their citizens to reach their potential, and helping American businesses too. Now, this bill will not cure all of Africa's ills, but it helps in a big way. It also puts Africa on the map for America, not as a place of famine and poverty and of endless aid spending, but as a place where growth is offering American businesses new opportunities. Africa is changing. It is time for U.S. policy to change too. This is what this bipartisan act is about. For the sake of a brighter future for Americans and a brighter future for Africans, let us pass this very significant legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).