John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, though called a resolution, this is a sign of irresolution. We have 7,000 to 8,000 troops stationed around Tuzla and Brcko. I visited them last month, and let me tell my colleagues, the work is not easy, and the living is not either. But in the best tradition of our GIs, they are doing their duty. Go there and my colleagues will see that progress has been made. It can be seen; it can be measured. This is not the time to tell our troops that we doubt their mission, to tell our allies that we are rethinking our role, or to tell our adversaries to lay back and wait because we may be leaving sooner than they thought. Even as the strategy for testing the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, this is the wrong move for us to make. If the court were to hold the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional, we would be left empty-handed, deprived of the one useful tool we have to require the President to include us when he gets ready to send our troops into a foreign zone. If we were to repeal it or let the courts nullify it, we would have nothing to put in its place. If my colleagues want to do something about it, if we disagree with it, come up with a better bill. Let us pass the process and take it to the President with the War Powers Resolution still in force, and those circumstances will stand a far better chance of changing the law and keeping an institutional arrangement where we have a rightful role in deciding when and whether our troops are sent into harm's way.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what this bill is about. This bill will allow 42 African countries to ship textile and apparel products, clothing, to this country free of any duties, that run as high as 30 percent and average 18 percent, and free of any quotas now and forever more. How good a deal is this? This is a better deal than Mexico gets under NAFTA. It is a better deal than any of 26 Caribbean countries get under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It is unprecedented. It is unilateral. We get nothing in return. There is no reciprocity for our textile and apparel products entering these 42 countries. It is wide-open access. Let us be clear about this. When we open our ports wide open to exports from these 42 African countries, we will not see African goods coming through our ports. We are going to see goods made in Asia. They may make the labels in Africa, but they will be transshipped through Africa from countries like China and Hong Kong and Pakistan and Macao, who already are notorious for transshipping. The volumes run into the billions and the problems that are sweeping Asia now are only going to make them more prone to transshipment. And the prospect of Africa as a duty-free, quota-free transit point will be too much for them to resist and too much for our Customs Service to police. And who will bear the brunt of all these imports? Sixty percent of all apparel workers, 60 to 70 percent in this country, are women. More than half of them are minorities. Most of them are African-Americans. This bill not only affects textiles and apparel, it also affects carbon and stainless steel, ferroalloys, footwear, leather products and wine. That is because these products now enjoy an exemption from the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and this bill removes that full or limited exemption. Now, everybody knows where I am coming from. I have a constituency with a lot of good, hard-working textile workers who simply want the right to earn their way in our economy, nothing more. So my colleagues know what my interest in it is. But do not take my word for it. Listen to what Randall Robinson said in a scathing critique of this bill. Everybody knows he is an eloquent, outspoken advocate for Africa, and has been for many years. He calls this bill, his words, ``an Africa de facto re-colonization act.'' At the end of his scathing analysis he says, ``Absent significant changes, this bill combines the worst of NAFTA and the harsh IMF structural adjustment program.'' Well, we have significant changes. We have an amendment offered by two Republicans and three Democrats, offered yesterday in the Committee on Rules, which would give Africa special access, give them basically the same kind of access that the Caribbean countries and Mexico enjoy today, gives them substantial privileges and, furthermore, imposes some realistic, tough transshipment remedies here, if indeed the transshipment problem does occur after these special access benefits kick in. Mr. Speaker, all we wanted was a chance to argue the merits of our amendment. It is a sad day in the House when we cannot come here and argue on behalf of our constituents. I urge a ``no'' vote against this rule so we can have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, ``The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act'' will allow textile and apparel imports to come from Africa to our country duty free and quota free Neither Mexico under NAFTA nor the Caribbean countries under the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) enjoy such wide- open access to our markets. Most of the imports will not be made in Africa. They will be made in Asia and transshipped through Africa to avoid quotas and tariffs. Countries like China and Pakistan and Hong Kong are notorious for transshipping now; the financial problems sweeping Asia will make them only more prone to transship; and the prospect of Africa as a duty-free, quota-free transit will be too much to resist. Who will bear the brunt of all these imports? 60% of all U.S. apparel workers are women, 35% are minorities, mostly African-American. U.S. apparel workers earn better wages than ever and many enjoy health benefits. The local apparel plant is often the anchor business in a small town or one of the few job sources in the inner city. These are the workers this bill will hurt. Eight countries in Africa have been identified by the U.S. Customs Service as transit points for illegal shipments of Chinese textile and apparel goods. This transshipment is occurring now just to evade China's quotas. The Africa Free Trade Bill will increase the rewards of quota evasion by eliminating all tariffs. Profits from transshipment will increase by the amount of the tariffs evaded, which average 18% on apparel and run as high as 30%. The result will be an explosion of transshipment through Africa, which will be all but impossible for customs to police. Another result: rampant transshipment will remove the incentive for investment in African apparel production. This bill not only affects textiles and apparel; it also affects carbon and stainless steel, ferroalloys, footwear, leather, and wine. These products now enjoy either an exemption from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) or limited application of GSP. The Africa Free Trade bill removes all such exemptions, and subjects these products to competition with duty-free imports from sub-Saharan Africa. Included among these countries is South Africa, an industrially developed country which recently completed the world's largest, most modern steel plant. Yesterday, Randall Robinson of TransAfrica blasted this bill as ``an Africa de facto re-colonization act.'' The bill adds a long list of mandates that Africa countries must meet to obtain GSP benefits which no countries anywhere else are required to satisfy. The receive aid and trade benefits under this bill, African countries are required to lower corporate taxes, to sell off government-owned industries, and to give national treatment to foreign capital (aka MAI). But they are not required to protect human rights or religious freedom or the environment. Randall Robinson has written members of the House a letter saying, ``Under the cover of an appealing name and non-binding preamble, this bill contains numerous provisions aimed at benefiting large foreign private investors and multi-national corporations at the expense of true and equitable African development. The bill assaults the sovereignty of African countries in ways not present in our dealings with other countries . . . Absent significant changes, this bill combines the worse of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the harsh International Monetary Fund structural adjustment program.'' Our amendment proposes ``significant changes'' to the bill to protect African workers and American workers alike. Our amendment: Protects U.S. textile workers by limiting duty-free, quota-free access to apparel that is made in Africa out of fabric made and cut in the United States. What we propose is very similar to the ``special access'' benefits enjoyed by Mexico in NAFTA and by Caribbean countries in CBI. Protects U.S. cotton growers and synthetic fiber producers by requiring use of their yarn in apparel that is eligible for duty-free, quota-free access. Protects other industries hurt by changes to GSP made in H.R. 1432, such as ferroalloys, footwear, stainless steel, and wine. Adds accountability to the bill. Every African garment sold in the U.S. can be traced to U.S. fabric pieces shipped to Africa, which greatly reduces the opportunity for transshipment. Adds tough enforcement measures to punish transshipment, including higher penalties for fraud and gross negligence. It limits the mitigation process, which allows Customs to forgive up to 100% of transshipment fines, and restores Customs' authority to seize transshipped goods. Requires African countries to cooperate with U.S. Customs and allow full access in its investigations of transshipment. De-links textile and apparel benefits from GSP benefits, maintaining the textile and apparel exemption from GSP. In summary, our amendment raises the benefits of the bill to Africa by ensuring that apparel imports coming from Africa will be produced in Africa by Africans. Some $43 billion in clothing and apparel were imported into this country last year. This industry has surrendered well over half the domestic market to developing countries. Before we decimate what is left of our domestic market with a new barrage of low-wage imports, or open the door to even more transshipment and evasion, let us have a chance to make the case for our amendment. It allows sub-Saharan Africa special access that is as good in most respects as NAFTA and CBI, and that in some respects is better because it levies no duties at all on eligible textiles and apparel. Our amendment is well conceived and carefully crafted; it deserves to be part of this debate; and members deserve the chance to vote on it. Since the rule denies us this chance, we should vote it down.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. Kilpatrick asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I will now reclaim my time for a short time. Ron, we go back 15 years. A long time. When I came here in 1983, you had just reached the first plateau of power in the House. You had become a subcommittee chairman. It took you 12 years to rise up the seniority ladder, which tells us a lot about your doggedness, your determination and diligence. Even when you reached this point, you were not really at the pinnacle. You were the chairman of the Subcommittee on Facilities and Installations, better known as the MilCon subcommittee. There was some rumbling in those days among the barons on the committee, the upper tier, about letting this gadfly have the reins of power, even this subcommittee, which was a subordinate subcommittee, because you were not cut from the same bolt as the rest of the committee. You did not always vote, rarely voted for the defense authorization bill, much less supported it on the floor. And they worried you might take the subcommittee chair and use it to roll the committee. Of course, no one dared to breathe these concerns in the open. And it was a good thing, because in a few months time they were totally allayed. They were allayed because you took the chair of the subcommittee with the dignity that comes to you naturally, and you wielded that gavel with such civility that even your opponents came to praise you. I was on the floor, I was on your subcommittee and on the floor when we brought the first military construction bill to the floor under your chairmanship, and I remember it as clearly as yesterday Members like Jack Edwards from Alabama and Sonny Montgomery from Mississippi rising one after the other, not just because they had been accommodated in the bill, but because they had been dealt with fairly and squarely and they felt this was an effective player, expressing their appreciation for the role you had taken. I was always glad to go to your hearings. I was one of the loyal attendees at those hearings, partly because of the way you conducted them, but I found out that Ron Dellums is a lot more than just good form. You chaired this subcommittee, which had a dull, unexciting jurisdiction, but had once been the subcommittee with the only annual authorizing authority in the Committee on Armed Services, because in those days, back in the late 50s, early 50s, base structure affected force structure. It was a critical determinant. So Members wanted to serve on this committee, and you still grasped the significance of that point. You reoriented the committee away from just nickeling and diming the MilCon budget to using the MilCon budget as a fulcrum for asking lot bigger questions about what we were buying and why. We have been lots of places together. We have landed in C-130s in South America that I would not even want to drive up to in a Land Rover. Aguacate. Why were they building this landing strip at Aguacate? We would have found out. It was a CIA headquarters supporting the Contras. Someone, I think it was in the Reagan administration, it might have been outside the administration, suggested that, with enough shovels, survival in a nuclear war would be no problem; civil defense was feasible. And you were, in classic style, indignant. You called this person before the committee to defend his position, and you presented a series of witnesses, the sort of whom we seldom saw on the Committee on Armed Services, Physicians for Social Responsibility. The room was packed that day; and they came and gave dramatic, graphic evidence of what would happen in the event of a nuclear attack and how no hospital in America, even the hospitals in New York City, would be remotely equipped well enough to handle a nuclear attack, even a small nuclear attack. Now others understood these arguments and they made them, but you drove them home relentlessly. So much so that, by the end of the Reagan years, even Ronald Reagan himself would say, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. That was your contribution to this place. Now a lot of folks may say, well, he came from Berkeley. It was easy. You did not have to go home in South Carolina and defend those positions or Texas, which was, I think, originally your native home. You went back to Berkeley, and those things were easy to defend in Berkeley. But they missed an essential point about Ron Dellums. I do not think the subject matter was of your natural bend. I think you could have spent 20 years here far more pleasantly following your own interest in manpower training or maybe even staying on the Committee on International Relations and pursuing questions of foreign affairs or dealing with human rights and civil rights and things that really did inspire you. A lot of Members come here and serve effectively. But most of them come here, including myself, and we carry water for our own constituency. Those are the axes we grind. The significance about your service and one of the examples that you set is that you came here and took up a topic that was really not something that was your natural bend. You stayed with it doggedly. You pursued it, and you never let go of it, and you made an enormous contribution by mastering the subject and being a fair and impartial critic. Throughout the 1980s, we had heard Ed Markey tell the story; and everybody here who lived through that period could come and give an anecdote about those different fights: the MX, not 1 year but 5 or 6 years; the B1; then the B2; the Persian II; SDI; Star Wars; and, of course, apartheid in South Africa and a number of other things. You made an enormous contribution. You saved the country money. You swam against the stream at a time when a lot of people were criticizing you for the course you were taking, and I guess the happy irony is that you served long enough to see the stream actually turn in your direction. I remember one time in the late 1980s or the early 1990s when the administration brought its budget to the House Armed Services Committee and you intercepted the Chairman and said, Mr. Chairman, you have to permit me this leeway so that I can say that this budget seeks less than I sought in the Black Caucus budget just 4 or 5 years ago. That is how much things changed in your direction and how much I think you have indicated. In the end, what you will be remembered for, what we remember you for is not the fight over the MX or the B-2 or any individual episode about that. I remember the trip we took to Central America. We were coming back and you told me why you were in politics, that you had come out of the Vietnam protest movement at Berkeley and Oakland, street fights in the City Council, vehement politics, and you had risen among these who were convinced there was no way to move the system, no way to change the establishment, and insisted against all the odds that rational discourse mattered, that if you were persistent enough and patient enough, that if you tried hard enough and were articulate and passionate and rational, discourse could make a difference. And you wanted to bring that to this institution and institutionalize it in the House of Representatives and American democracy. That is what you will be remembered for because you succeeded. You succeeded because you were passionate, you were indignant, you were forceful, you could easily be raised to anger. But, in the end, you were rational, fair-minded and civil and a classy guy, all and all. I am one of those who say, I am sad to see you are going. We fought some together and fought some against each other, but it has been a great battle along the way. But I know, serving on the committee, that more than any other Member, we will have an omnipresent reminder of Ron Dellums. There is a stunning portrait, almost an icon, of Ron Dellums hanging in that room today; and it will hang there for a long time to come. Indeed, Ron looked around the room not long after it was hung and said, ``You know, this place is filling up. They are going to have to remove some of these portraits one of these days. But I do not think they are going to remove mine,'' he said with a wry smile, ``because I am the only brother hanging on the wall.'' We are not going to remove that. It is going to hang there as a message of a kind of gravatus that we all are called to when we deal with questions of war and peace, of the kind of high mission that we all should be about, not the bazaar where we were swapping off interest and brokering deals and things like this. These are questions of life and survival of war and peace, fundamental questions that are important that you constantly called us to the significance of. That is the message that Ron Dellums will leave in that room. To every witness who sits in that chair, to every Member who comes in the room, that portrait of you will be a call to conscience. You taught us what democracy is about. You made this great institution, the Republic, work a lot better. I am proud I have been your colleague, proud to have been your friend; and I say with a heavy heart that I hate to see you leave. But I will never forget the example that you left for me and all the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. Gilman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to explain to everyone on the floor the situation we find ourselves in. We are down now to 5 minutes about, before 5:20, at which time the time belongs to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). He has already delayed an hour. He will be here to claim the time at 5:20 for an hour. If he is not here, other Members can ask for recognition for 5 minutes until he arrives here, as I understand the procedure, but once he arrives, the procedure for today is over, and those who would like to make a statement will have to come tomorrow. I have a list that I am not going to be able to accommodate in that period of time, but I would ask everybody whom we can reach in the next few minutes to speak as succinctly as possible.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this tribute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Dicks is out here to argue with Dellums about the B-2. He has not buried that axe yet.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no harm done. The study is unnecessary. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization can come right now and paint you the architecture, but the components to fill in the architecture are not systems in being; they are several years off from production. The fact that we are providing the PAC-3 is ample indication that when these systems are available, we will provide them, too. That is enough. You do not have to go this far.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns our national security, but it was not heard, it was not debated, it was not marked up, it was not reported by the Committee on National Security because the committee waived jurisdiction. The first time I knew of it was today when the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] called it to my attention. I read the bill, read the report, read the dissenting views and I reluctantly oppose it, reluctantly because I think those who sponsor it are well-intended, but I disagree with the means they are using to advance this particular proposal. On its face, this bill does seem simple. It asks the Pentagon to study the architecture of a theater ballistic missile defense system in the Asia-Pacific region which would protect Taiwan. It asks those who do that study to spell out just how the United States would cooperate with Taiwan and how we would provide Taiwan, specifically Taiwan, with a missile defense system which would not only cover Taiwan but would cover Matsu and Kinmen and the Penghu Islands. The bill asks for the study by July 1 and, even before the bill is completed and the study is started, it throws in a sense of the Congress that this resolution should make clear to the People's Republic of China the commitment of the American people to security in Taiwan. Just what that means, I am not really sure. I would be cautious about the way we broadcast such commitments to the world without clearly knowing what security obligations we are undertaking. The study sought by this bill in my opinion is wholly unnecessary. The BMD or ABM missile defense architecture it asks for is easy enough to spell out right here on the floor of the House. First of all, it would consist of the THAAD, theater high altitude interceptor, on the ground in Taiwan when it becomes operational, maybe 4, 5, 6 years from now. The THAAD would take out incoming missiles in their late mid- phase, as they honed in on Taiwan. It would have to be complemented because there would probably be some leakers that the THAAD would not get by a Navy system called the Upper Tier or Area Defense. This would be based on surface ships like cruisers, the Aegis cruisers specifically, and when and if it becomes operational 4, 5, 6 years from now, its role would be to take out incoming missiles in the ascent phase, right after booster burnout if at all possible. Both of these systems would be complemented by, in the case with the THAAD, ground- based radar, based in Taiwan, and by the SPY radar on Aegis cruisers, and both would likely include some linkage to our DSB satellite for the detection of a missile launch and to queue the interceptors and their radars. Eventually around 2004, 2005 or 2006 this system would probably be tied into our so-called SMTS, low earth orbit satellites, 18 to 24 of them, with infrared seekers that will be in orbit around the whole globe if our plans are carried out today as they are designed. This system is not deployed today, it is not ready for deployment. The THAAD is not deployed today, it is not ready for deployment. The Navy's Upper Tier system is not deployed today. The THAAD and the Upper Tier system have been tested 4 or 5 times each and each has yet to make a successful intercept. They are still in the late phases of engineering development. The SMTS, the low earth orbit satellite, are at least 6 or 7 years off before they can be deployed. Nevertheless, knowing what we know of these components today, doing a little viewgraph engineering, we can design this architecture. We do not have to spend $500,000 to design the architecture. We know basically what it is. So this bill serves no practical purpose that I can see, none whatsoever. If Members want to know what the architecture is, I have just about told them what it can be. If they want anything more elaborate, it is too early to tell because the components are not yet systems in being. To the extent that Members want to know more, they can get it. Write the Ballistic Missile Defense Office a letter, have the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the Committee on National Security write him a letter and he will be over here in a week, not 6 or 7 months. A week. He will tell you essentially what I have just told you except he has got CADCAM, he will bring drawings, he will bring viewgraphs, he will bring anything you want to see on the architecture. You will not have to wait 6 months and it will not cost you $500,000. If you want the United States to cooperate with Taiwan, we are already cooperating with Taiwan in a very discreet manner, but in a very concrete manner as well. The Taiwanese are right now buying and taking delivery of the PAC-II, Patriot II batteries, 8 of them altogether. In addition, we are letting them have our extended range intercept missiles called the PAC-IIIs, the latest thing off the production line. We are making those available to them as well. So we are actually cooperating now. We do not need to wave this red flag, and we can accomplish the same purpose that this resolution proposes without the provocation and without the cost. A wise President once said with respect to our foreign policy that we should speak softly but carry a big stick. A wise Congress would do well to remember that sage advice and vote this resolution down.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no question about that. To the extent they are effective at all, it is what we have got, and we are giving them that right now, number one. Number two, the THAAD and the upper-tier are not available to give. They are not in production.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand. The gentleman is saying we would have nothing other than an offensive option. We are already providing them with the most that we have got.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would respond to a question, is the gentleman aware that we are now providing Taiwan PAC-2 missile defense systems and we also have agreed to sell them PAC-3, and that is state of the art, that is the best we can provide right now?