Summary:

All articles in House section

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
(House of Representatives - July 16, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5699-H5747] {time} 1045 AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 250 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 434. {time} 1046 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub- Sahara Africa, with Mr. Ewing in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill? The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the chairmen and the ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on International Relations. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that request. Time must be yielded by the Members who control the time under the special order adopted by the House, the ranking members and the chairmen of the appropriate committees. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Members that do oppose this bill on certain grounds, and I believe they should be afforded an opportunity that the Chair could, in fact, make accommodations for, and I urge the House to do that. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do? Mr. TRAFICANT. I think there should be a reasonable amount of time presented for the opportunity for those who oppose this bill to be able to speak on this issue. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will suspend. The rule provides that the time will be yielded by the chairmen and the ranking members of the two appropriate committees, and that is the way the Committee of the whole will proceed under the rule approved by the House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This bill is the product of years of bipartisan congressional efforts to promote increased trade and investment between our Nation and sub- Saharan Africa. This measure authorizes a new trade and investment policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and expresses the willingness of our Nation to assist the eligible countries of that region with a reduction of trade barriers, the creation of an economic cooperation forum, the promotion of a free trade area, and a variety of other trade and related mechanisms. This bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has broad support in the Committee on International Relations and was ordered to be reported in February of this year. [[Page H5700]] Yesterday, in the meeting of the Committee on Rules, one of our distinguished colleagues, one who has demonstrated a long and passionate commitment to humanitarian issues, expressed concerns that this bill does not do enough for the people of Africa. Mr. Chairman, although this is indeed a modest bill, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate its strength. Both its power and its modesty, Mr. Chairman, come from the fact that this bill does not attempt to do anything for the people of Africa but rather it proposes to encourage beneficial trade with the countries and peoples of Africa. This act recognizes a universal and independent desire of individuals everywhere to improve their lives and those of their families. Adam Smith recognized this power back in 1776 when he wrote, ``The desire of a man to better himself comes to him in the womb of his mother.'' A fundamental belief in individual aspiration is reflected in nearly all of the domestic legislation that we consider in this body, from tax laws, to education subsidies, to natural resource management. That principle must not be ignored in our policies toward other nations. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Africa, but much economic activity there goes unrecorded and underreported. Ghanaian women with little formal education grow their crops and sell them in cooperative rural markets every week, season after season. Senegalese merchants travel to cities all across the globe selling their wares and remitting the bulk of their profits. Somalis, working together throughout the Middle East, spend their salaries on products which are in high demand back home and ship them to family members. In turn, they trade them for profit in the markets of Hargeisa and Mogadishu. It may come as a surprise to some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that on any given day a visitor to Hargeisa can stand on a street corner and exchange Deutschemarks, francs, pounds and dollars at international exchange rates. These activities, and countless others like them, are happening and they are happening right now, as we speak, all over the African continent. They are not driven by any giant multinational corporations nor by international banks. They are not supervised by the Agency for International Development or by the IMF. This work occurs because people have discovered that it puts food on the table and clothes on the backs of their children. Make no mistake, my colleagues, I strongly support U.S. foreign aid to Africa, and my record of that support is clear. In recent years, I have been supportive of the Development Fund for Africa, the Seeds of Hope Act, the International Financial Institutions, debt relief and the work of the United Nations. But foreign aid cannot serve as a backbone of any modern economy. At best, it can jump-start independently sustainable economic activity and help individuals gain a foothold. As I have said, H.R. 434 is a modest bill. One can think of many problems confronting the people and the countries of Africa that this bill does not specifically address, and we have heard some of them already in the debate on the rule. But it would be a mistake to reject this bill for what it is not without recognizing the significant benefits that it represents. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the extraordinary group of Members who have come together and worked extremely hard in support of this effort before us. Both Democrat and Republican, black and white, conservatives and liberals have found much common ground in the pages of H.R. 434. I would like to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the dean of our New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Chairman, even the often contentious counties of sub-Saharan Africa have come together united in support for this bill. I commend my colleagues for their efforts and their commitments, and I urge favorable consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), be permitted to control the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It will open a new era in U.S. relations with sub- Saharan Africa. This bipartisan bill was reported with little opposition on a bipartisan basis from the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, sub-Saharan Africa today is very different from what it was just a few short years ago. In the 1990s, more than two dozen of the 48 countries in the region have held democratic elections and 30 have undertaken specific economic reforms. {time} 1100 Increasing numbers of Africans have embraced the principles of democracy and free markets, which enable people and nations to improve the course of their futures. Last year I traveled to Gabon. I believe President Omar Bongo and his country are an example of the changes under way across the African continent. President Bongo has set out on a plan to energize his country. He has brought a high level of prosperity to his country and actually developed an empowered middle class. And to ensure economic opportunity for the Gabonese people, the president is also directing the country's efforts in infrastructure building and privatization of state-owned industries. Gabon is a good example of what is happening in Africa today. And here, in this body, we are laying the legislative groundwork that will help support the steps Gabon and other nations are taking in Africa. Today, we adapt U.S. policy in response to the African renaissance. Specifically, this legislation will add a trade component to U.S. policy toward the region to mutually improve the standard of living of Americans and the African people. It is unfortunate that the tremendous potential of sub-Saharan Africa has not been reflected in U.S. trade policy to date. But this bill fills that gap. I commend many members of the Committee on Ways and Means on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to where we are today on the floor in developing this legislation. In developing this legislation, I particularly compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, who are the lead sponsors of this bill. They have done great work. In addition, I must mention the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) particularly who have expended enormous effort in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time may be managed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that he may be able to yield and assign the time as he chooses. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement I may yield the time controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Democratic side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? [[Page H5701]] There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first take one moment to remind our colleagues where this legislation began. The genesis was with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). I have yet to see a bill with as strong bipartisan support with people on both sides of the aisle supporting it, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many of my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on the Republican side. There are many of us who would like to do more today. Africa is a continent that we have often ignored. The United States, with its often European and Middle Eastern-focused policies it is attempting to engage, the economic stage of Africa has been left behind. A continent with the poorest people on this planet, devastated by illness, famine, and economic hardship, America's foreign assistance has given the least to this continent that needs it the most. There is more that we should be doing. We should be doing more in almost every category, from assistance to health, education, and in trade. For my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not an easy vote. Some of our core constituencies are divided. Concern for labor protection, the concern for the environment, things that we cherish, are not as significant and powerful as they should be. I am among those who believe we should be doing more in every trade bill to include labor and environmental rights. We need to make sure that when we work to lift these other nations that we lift all of their citizens and not just a few. The provisions of this bill are as good as we can get in this compromise. I can assure my colleagues, if this was a different Congress, we would have more protection for labor, we would have more committed to the poorest of the poor, and we would do more for the environment. But our choice is not that today. We do not decide the composition of this House. What we have to do is do the best we can for these people who have suffered so much, with the legislature that the American people have given us. GSP is a good program. It forces countries to address the ILO standard. And when we take a look at its history, almost a dozen countries have lost GSP preference because they did not follow those rules. In another number of cases, countries that had failed to follow the ILO standard when challenged and threatened with the removal of GSP ended up accepting the better standard for labor. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stretch politically today. There are tough questions here. There are concerns that we all have about why we are not doing more for Africa in aid, in health care, in education, in trade and assistance. But the choice before us is this bill or nothing. Will Africans be better off if we kill this bill today? I think not. I think, if we can move this bill forward today, we will be able to build on its strength in the future. Lastly, for my friends who have had a bad experience with NAFTA, this bill is not about NAFTA. This bill does not take away tariffs in a permanent manner, irrespective of countries' actions. The countries that deal with us under this bill will have to make improvements on how they treat their working men and women. They will have to address these issues that so many on our side care about. This is a bill that begins an engagement that we should have undertaken long ago. I again commend all those involved, but particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for their great efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly, emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed. Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way, not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for most of us today, that we are on the brink of history. It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with any other country except our great United States of America. As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of these African countries and recognizing that they know that if everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we would not be able to take this one giant step. But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state. I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations, saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing. For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that they are going to take our jobs away from us. Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of our technology and our consumer appetite. So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that before we went into that next century, where every country we have had some agreement with, with this European country through the European Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel, every continent except Africa. Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great Republic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Over the last several years, many Members of this body have been working hard to improve America's relationship with Africa. We have done this because what happens in Africa matters. It matters to Africans, and it matters to our country. The United States has real interests in seeing that Africa begins to reach its considerable potential. Such an Africa would offer limitless cultural and economic opportunity to Americans. Already our exports to Africa are some $6.5 billion. This is greater than our exports to the former Soviet Union. It is greater than our exports to all of Eastern Europe. And the volume is growing. U.S. exports to Africa are [[Page H5702]] growing by more than 8 percent per year. This is 130-some thousand American jobs. As this map shows, businesses in my home State of California have been part of this. California is one of the top States in the country when it comes to exports to Africa, as is Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas. We can see the result of the growing exports here to Africa. On the other hand, if Africa fails to meet its potential with the United States of America, then the United States will not escape the negative economic political and security implications. There would be lost economic opportunities, yes, but there would be more. The reality is that terrorism and environmental degradation know no bounds. Simply put, this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, is critical to the United States' relationship with Africa. The Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs recently said, ``No other U.S.-Africa issue can be taken seriously until the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act is passed.'' As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I second that. But so do all the African ambassadors here in Washington, everyone who has unanimously supported this legislation. The African ambassadors understand the importance of this legislation, and they have rejected in no uncertain terms the efforts of critics to speak authoritatively for Africans. So I say to my colleagues, if they care about the future of the continent, if they care about the future of 700 million people, support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well. He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined in that effort. We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement with sub-Saharan Africa. {time} 1115 That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S. trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and who have given of their time and their energies so graciously. This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May, Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in nearly two decades. As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R. 434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework for United States-African trade relations. In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia- Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy discussions. It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions. It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria. H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30 percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent. The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub- Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation. A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in 1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past several years. As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to codify many significant initiatives already under way in the administration. I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of U.S. aid where it is needed. I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill. I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to suggest that we know better for Africa than Africans do. If people are concerned about whether the trade will be fair, if people are concerned about whether the working conditions will be fair, I think it is reasonable to say, let the African countries and their leadership determine those issues, worker protection and the like. It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected. Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism. This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty- free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive. Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the U.S. market. We also [[Page H5703]] have protections in this bill to ensure that import sensitive items are not brought in under the provisions of this legislation. For those who believe we will be hurting our textile markets, I think if we look at the bill, we find that that is not true. There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we do with other countries. The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition. The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations, including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned, there is a provision that the President must certify that any product that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP. The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights, including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a different standard applied, and I will fight for that. I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core worker rights. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) who serves on the Subcommittee on Africa. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I note his superb leadership in this area. I note the superb leadership of the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee as well the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). There are two arguments against this bill, the first that it is really bad for Africa. The gentleman from Maryland was quite eloquent in making the case how wrong it is to apply such an assumption that the representatives of each African nation are selling their people short, that they do not care about worker exploitation, that somehow they do not care about environment. These are the assumptions one must be making if one says that the support of this legislation by every government in the African continent is somehow to be discounted. As to the second argument that it hurts the United States, the gentleman from Maryland's argument was also quite persuasive. On what assumption do we base the fear that African nations are not reliable? On what assumption do we base the prejudice that an African nation will not be able to comply with its obligations under the trade agreements not to have massive transshipments? In our trading arrangements with other nations around the world, we assume that they honor their obligations, including the prohibitions against mislabeling and transshipments. Why do we throw this assumption out when we are dealing with Africa? It seems to me that the assumption is fair in this case, even if there were a much larger percentage of textiles than there is. Lastly, let me conclude by pointing out that we give less in direct aid to Africa per capita than any other part of the globe with the possible exception of India depending how it is measured. This is not an aid bill. This is a bill to open up a reciprocal relationship of trade and respect. Other countries we give more than $30 per capita. To the people of sub-Saharan Africa, we give less than 17 cents per capita. Is that right? Is that fair? If you wish to change it but you have constraints with the budget, at least open up trade, open up hope. That is what this bill does. I am proud to support it. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for me to rise in support of this legislation. America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to encourage this. By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment. The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the top 10 States in exports to the region. Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term relationship with Africa. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first a recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region in respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer Saul Alinsky was that an aggrieved, neglected or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before hope for progress can be ignited. {time} 1130 For the 17 years that I have been in Congress, there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. Like many of my colleagues, I am the cosponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only African relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge the full support for this landmark piece of legislation. Progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region with respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer, Saul [[Page H5704]] Alinsky, was that an aggrieved, neglected, or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before the hope for progress can be ignited. For the seventeen years that I have been in Congress there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. This long overdue bill stands alone--and despite its imperfections and incompleteness, this legislation deserves our full support. Hope for Africa begins with today's recognition of Africa as a deserving trade partner. Like many of my colleagues I am the co-sponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only Africa relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me also note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the much highlighted textile industry the Sub-Saharan African countries have less than one percent. On the other hand, China has almost 10 percent of the U.S. textile market. In the seventeen years that I have served on the Education and Labor Committee no union has yet complained to me about losing textile industry jobs to China. Just transfer one percent of the textile trade from China to Africa and you will do nothing to hurt American jobs--you merely maintain the status quo. Why are the same people who are yelling about trade with the infant economies of Africa so wimpish or silent on trade with China. In the final analysis we have a problem here similar to the one faced by King Solomon when two women claiming to be the mother of one baby came before him. There are some who are proclaiming that, never mind the pleas of the African leaders, it would be better to vote this bill down and do nothing for Africa. Following the wisdom of King Solomon, it is clear that these negative opponents do not understand what is best for Africa. I urge a yes vote on this landmark legislation. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding this time to me, for his hard work and commitment to Africa and to America. I rise in opposition to H.R. 434. This is one of the most difficult no votes which I again will cast today, but I have attempted to dig beneath the surface of this legislation and analyze what its true impact will be. I was compelled to vote against this bill when it was examined in the House Committee on International Relations. As one who has historically encouraged and worked for a comprehensive trade and development policy for Africa, this is not a vote which I cast lightly. In opposing this legislation I part company with the President I strongly support and a number of congressional colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect. Now very troubling to me, the African Growth and Opportunity Act fails to respect African sovereignty. It threatens the rights of African nations to determine for themselves the economic priorities that are in the best interests of their people. H.R. 434 continues to carry harsh eligibility requirements. To obtain trade benefits, countries must reorder their spending priorities to suit the preferences of foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund. Now, considering the mystery and the destructive nature of many of the IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa, this eligibility requirement is one which I cannot in good conscience support. Other provisions in this legislation require countries to reduce taxes for corporations while at the same time cut domestic spending which will inevitably lead to further reductions in vital health care and education programs which are already starved for funds. Africa has been neglected for too long, and as I listened to this debate, the supporters of this bill say that it is a modest first step. Well, it should be a major first step. It should not be symbolic, as many are saying. Africa deserves better. In our enthusiasm to promote American business opportunities and forge new relationships with countries in Africa, we must remain focused on the paramount need at hand to support a free and fair trade policy which benefits Africa and America. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens. Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace and significantly raise their standard of living. It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope legislation. This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a balanced trade and aid program. Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are supportive of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth in Africa. With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa, their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their free-market system that has served this country so well. These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great benefit to our country. I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this morning. So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa. [[Page H5705]] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1 percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little sliver of red is African imports to this country. While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile industry. If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build the industrial base in that country. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists and farmers and government can stand together.'' President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global economy.'' I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese workers into sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999] A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers (By R.C. Longworth) As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on the outskirts of the global village. ``Global inequalities in income and living standards have reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program said in its annual global overview, the Human Development Report. For instance: The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20 percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income, 91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have about 1 percent of each. The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140 billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43 least-developed countries and their 600 million people. The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh. The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to $518 from $661 in 1980. In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30 times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1. The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people and communities, not just markets and their manipulators. ``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said. ``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human development. ``Many activities and goods that are critical to human development are provided outside the market, but these are being squeezed by the pressures of global competition. ``When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and corporations, marginalizing the others. ``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but also to provide enough space for human, community and environmental resources to ensure that globalization works for people, not just for profits.'' The gap between people, like the one between nations, also is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said. Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations-- especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe. One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly dominated by a few countries and companies. Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and- development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same 10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S. government over the past 20 years, it said. Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70 percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical products, it said. The major countries and the global corporations may have earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly of power is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the economic pie and, often, from decent health care and education. ``The privatization and concentration of technology are going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.'' Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,'' are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking the ability of developing countries to develop their own products. Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said. The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said. Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries-- Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome severe levels of human poverty.'' The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global economy in a backlash of public resentment. Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the past two years only the first of many upheavals. At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.'' [[Page H5706]] They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.'' The UNDP report called instead for a ``global architecture'' that would include: A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets. A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term investments. New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti- monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from dominating industries. New rules on global patents that would keep the patent system from blocking the access of Third World countries to development, knowledge or health care. New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks that failed last year, would include development countries and respect local laws. More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing countries to impose capital controls to protect their economies. A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel, the toy company. The leading industrial nations already are considering new global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations. ____ Introducing H.R. 772, ``HOPE for Africa'' (By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.) To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated business, investment and trade that gave us slavery, colonialism and widespread human and economic exploitation, today we introduce H.R. 772, ``The HOPE for Africa Act of 1999,'' based on Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment as the basis for a new respectful and mutually beneficial human and economic relationship. Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse. This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic regimes; and economic and political instability. We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade. We are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists. By introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a new principle that should underlie every trade bill in the United States--that the benefits of trade must be shared widely by the majority of the common working people in every participating society, not just benefit the business and financial interests of an elite few. We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our business development and trade provisions are more expansive than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to organize for their own protection and economic security; has the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so business development and economic growth can be sustained indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be able to work their way out of their poverty and underdeveloped condition with dignity. The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies that can be embraced by both working Americans and working Africans because it raises the living standards of both. It does not raise some African living standards at the expense of lowering some American living standards. It is also good for long-term business development and economic investment because average workers on both continents will be able to buy the goods and services that they produce and, in the process, build a fairer and more perfect economic world. First, H.R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation is built on the principles and goals developed by African finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization or African Unity, and with input by African workers' organizations such as COSATU in South Africa. Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's crushing $230 billion debt--unconditional, comprehensive debt forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20 percent of sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt service, few res

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
(House of Representatives - July 16, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5699-H5747] {time} 1045 AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 250 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 434. {time} 1046 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub- Sahara Africa, with Mr. Ewing in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill? The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the chairmen and the ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on International Relations. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that request. Time must be yielded by the Members who control the time under the special order adopted by the House, the ranking members and the chairmen of the appropriate committees. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Members that do oppose this bill on certain grounds, and I believe they should be afforded an opportunity that the Chair could, in fact, make accommodations for, and I urge the House to do that. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do? Mr. TRAFICANT. I think there should be a reasonable amount of time presented for the opportunity for those who oppose this bill to be able to speak on this issue. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will suspend. The rule provides that the time will be yielded by the chairmen and the ranking members of the two appropriate committees, and that is the way the Committee of the whole will proceed under the rule approved by the House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This bill is the product of years of bipartisan congressional efforts to promote increased trade and investment between our Nation and sub- Saharan Africa. This measure authorizes a new trade and investment policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and expresses the willingness of our Nation to assist the eligible countries of that region with a reduction of trade barriers, the creation of an economic cooperation forum, the promotion of a free trade area, and a variety of other trade and related mechanisms. This bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has broad support in the Committee on International Relations and was ordered to be reported in February of this year. [[Page H5700]] Yesterday, in the meeting of the Committee on Rules, one of our distinguished colleagues, one who has demonstrated a long and passionate commitment to humanitarian issues, expressed concerns that this bill does not do enough for the people of Africa. Mr. Chairman, although this is indeed a modest bill, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate its strength. Both its power and its modesty, Mr. Chairman, come from the fact that this bill does not attempt to do anything for the people of Africa but rather it proposes to encourage beneficial trade with the countries and peoples of Africa. This act recognizes a universal and independent desire of individuals everywhere to improve their lives and those of their families. Adam Smith recognized this power back in 1776 when he wrote, ``The desire of a man to better himself comes to him in the womb of his mother.'' A fundamental belief in individual aspiration is reflected in nearly all of the domestic legislation that we consider in this body, from tax laws, to education subsidies, to natural resource management. That principle must not be ignored in our policies toward other nations. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Africa, but much economic activity there goes unrecorded and underreported. Ghanaian women with little formal education grow their crops and sell them in cooperative rural markets every week, season after season. Senegalese merchants travel to cities all across the globe selling their wares and remitting the bulk of their profits. Somalis, working together throughout the Middle East, spend their salaries on products which are in high demand back home and ship them to family members. In turn, they trade them for profit in the markets of Hargeisa and Mogadishu. It may come as a surprise to some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that on any given day a visitor to Hargeisa can stand on a street corner and exchange Deutschemarks, francs, pounds and dollars at international exchange rates. These activities, and countless others like them, are happening and they are happening right now, as we speak, all over the African continent. They are not driven by any giant multinational corporations nor by international banks. They are not supervised by the Agency for International Development or by the IMF. This work occurs because people have discovered that it puts food on the table and clothes on the backs of their children. Make no mistake, my colleagues, I strongly support U.S. foreign aid to Africa, and my record of that support is clear. In recent years, I have been supportive of the Development Fund for Africa, the Seeds of Hope Act, the International Financial Institutions, debt relief and the work of the United Nations. But foreign aid cannot serve as a backbone of any modern economy. At best, it can jump-start independently sustainable economic activity and help individuals gain a foothold. As I have said, H.R. 434 is a modest bill. One can think of many problems confronting the people and the countries of Africa that this bill does not specifically address, and we have heard some of them already in the debate on the rule. But it would be a mistake to reject this bill for what it is not without recognizing the significant benefits that it represents. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the extraordinary group of Members who have come together and worked extremely hard in support of this effort before us. Both Democrat and Republican, black and white, conservatives and liberals have found much common ground in the pages of H.R. 434. I would like to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the dean of our New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Chairman, even the often contentious counties of sub-Saharan Africa have come together united in support for this bill. I commend my colleagues for their efforts and their commitments, and I urge favorable consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), be permitted to control the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It will open a new era in U.S. relations with sub- Saharan Africa. This bipartisan bill was reported with little opposition on a bipartisan basis from the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, sub-Saharan Africa today is very different from what it was just a few short years ago. In the 1990s, more than two dozen of the 48 countries in the region have held democratic elections and 30 have undertaken specific economic reforms. {time} 1100 Increasing numbers of Africans have embraced the principles of democracy and free markets, which enable people and nations to improve the course of their futures. Last year I traveled to Gabon. I believe President Omar Bongo and his country are an example of the changes under way across the African continent. President Bongo has set out on a plan to energize his country. He has brought a high level of prosperity to his country and actually developed an empowered middle class. And to ensure economic opportunity for the Gabonese people, the president is also directing the country's efforts in infrastructure building and privatization of state-owned industries. Gabon is a good example of what is happening in Africa today. And here, in this body, we are laying the legislative groundwork that will help support the steps Gabon and other nations are taking in Africa. Today, we adapt U.S. policy in response to the African renaissance. Specifically, this legislation will add a trade component to U.S. policy toward the region to mutually improve the standard of living of Americans and the African people. It is unfortunate that the tremendous potential of sub-Saharan Africa has not been reflected in U.S. trade policy to date. But this bill fills that gap. I commend many members of the Committee on Ways and Means on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to where we are today on the floor in developing this legislation. In developing this legislation, I particularly compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, who are the lead sponsors of this bill. They have done great work. In addition, I must mention the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) particularly who have expended enormous effort in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time may be managed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that he may be able to yield and assign the time as he chooses. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement I may yield the time controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Democratic side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? [[Page H5701]] There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first take one moment to remind our colleagues where this legislation began. The genesis was with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). I have yet to see a bill with as strong bipartisan support with people on both sides of the aisle supporting it, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many of my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on the Republican side. There are many of us who would like to do more today. Africa is a continent that we have often ignored. The United States, with its often European and Middle Eastern-focused policies it is attempting to engage, the economic stage of Africa has been left behind. A continent with the poorest people on this planet, devastated by illness, famine, and economic hardship, America's foreign assistance has given the least to this continent that needs it the most. There is more that we should be doing. We should be doing more in almost every category, from assistance to health, education, and in trade. For my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not an easy vote. Some of our core constituencies are divided. Concern for labor protection, the concern for the environment, things that we cherish, are not as significant and powerful as they should be. I am among those who believe we should be doing more in every trade bill to include labor and environmental rights. We need to make sure that when we work to lift these other nations that we lift all of their citizens and not just a few. The provisions of this bill are as good as we can get in this compromise. I can assure my colleagues, if this was a different Congress, we would have more protection for labor, we would have more committed to the poorest of the poor, and we would do more for the environment. But our choice is not that today. We do not decide the composition of this House. What we have to do is do the best we can for these people who have suffered so much, with the legislature that the American people have given us. GSP is a good program. It forces countries to address the ILO standard. And when we take a look at its history, almost a dozen countries have lost GSP preference because they did not follow those rules. In another number of cases, countries that had failed to follow the ILO standard when challenged and threatened with the removal of GSP ended up accepting the better standard for labor. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stretch politically today. There are tough questions here. There are concerns that we all have about why we are not doing more for Africa in aid, in health care, in education, in trade and assistance. But the choice before us is this bill or nothing. Will Africans be better off if we kill this bill today? I think not. I think, if we can move this bill forward today, we will be able to build on its strength in the future. Lastly, for my friends who have had a bad experience with NAFTA, this bill is not about NAFTA. This bill does not take away tariffs in a permanent manner, irrespective of countries' actions. The countries that deal with us under this bill will have to make improvements on how they treat their working men and women. They will have to address these issues that so many on our side care about. This is a bill that begins an engagement that we should have undertaken long ago. I again commend all those involved, but particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for their great efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly, emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed. Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way, not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for most of us today, that we are on the brink of history. It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with any other country except our great United States of America. As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of these African countries and recognizing that they know that if everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we would not be able to take this one giant step. But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state. I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations, saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing. For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that they are going to take our jobs away from us. Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of our technology and our consumer appetite. So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that before we went into that next century, where every country we have had some agreement with, with this European country through the European Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel, every continent except Africa. Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great Republic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Over the last several years, many Members of this body have been working hard to improve America's relationship with Africa. We have done this because what happens in Africa matters. It matters to Africans, and it matters to our country. The United States has real interests in seeing that Africa begins to reach its considerable potential. Such an Africa would offer limitless cultural and economic opportunity to Americans. Already our exports to Africa are some $6.5 billion. This is greater than our exports to the former Soviet Union. It is greater than our exports to all of Eastern Europe. And the volume is growing. U.S. exports to Africa are [[Page H5702]] growing by more than 8 percent per year. This is 130-some thousand American jobs. As this map shows, businesses in my home State of California have been part of this. California is one of the top States in the country when it comes to exports to Africa, as is Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas. We can see the result of the growing exports here to Africa. On the other hand, if Africa fails to meet its potential with the United States of America, then the United States will not escape the negative economic political and security implications. There would be lost economic opportunities, yes, but there would be more. The reality is that terrorism and environmental degradation know no bounds. Simply put, this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, is critical to the United States' relationship with Africa. The Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs recently said, ``No other U.S.-Africa issue can be taken seriously until the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act is passed.'' As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I second that. But so do all the African ambassadors here in Washington, everyone who has unanimously supported this legislation. The African ambassadors understand the importance of this legislation, and they have rejected in no uncertain terms the efforts of critics to speak authoritatively for Africans. So I say to my colleagues, if they care about the future of the continent, if they care about the future of 700 million people, support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well. He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined in that effort. We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement with sub-Saharan Africa. {time} 1115 That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S. trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and who have given of their time and their energies so graciously. This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May, Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in nearly two decades. As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R. 434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework for United States-African trade relations. In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia- Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy discussions. It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions. It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria. H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30 percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent. The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub- Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation. A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in 1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past several years. As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to codify many significant initiatives already under way in the administration. I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of U.S. aid where it is needed. I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill. I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to suggest that we know better for Africa than Africans do. If people are concerned about whether the trade will be fair, if people are concerned about whether the working conditions will be fair, I think it is reasonable to say, let the African countries and their leadership determine those issues, worker protection and the like. It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected. Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism. This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty- free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive. Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the U.S. market. We also [[Page H5703]] have protections in this bill to ensure that import sensitive items are not brought in under the provisions of this legislation. For those who believe we will be hurting our textile markets, I think if we look at the bill, we find that that is not true. There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we do with other countries. The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition. The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations, including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned, there is a provision that the President must certify that any product that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP. The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights, including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a different standard applied, and I will fight for that. I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core worker rights. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) who serves on the Subcommittee on Africa. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I note his superb leadership in this area. I note the superb leadership of the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee as well the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). There are two arguments against this bill, the first that it is really bad for Africa. The gentleman from Maryland was quite eloquent in making the case how wrong it is to apply such an assumption that the representatives of each African nation are selling their people short, that they do not care about worker exploitation, that somehow they do not care about environment. These are the assumptions one must be making if one says that the support of this legislation by every government in the African continent is somehow to be discounted. As to the second argument that it hurts the United States, the gentleman from Maryland's argument was also quite persuasive. On what assumption do we base the fear that African nations are not reliable? On what assumption do we base the prejudice that an African nation will not be able to comply with its obligations under the trade agreements not to have massive transshipments? In our trading arrangements with other nations around the world, we assume that they honor their obligations, including the prohibitions against mislabeling and transshipments. Why do we throw this assumption out when we are dealing with Africa? It seems to me that the assumption is fair in this case, even if there were a much larger percentage of textiles than there is. Lastly, let me conclude by pointing out that we give less in direct aid to Africa per capita than any other part of the globe with the possible exception of India depending how it is measured. This is not an aid bill. This is a bill to open up a reciprocal relationship of trade and respect. Other countries we give more than $30 per capita. To the people of sub-Saharan Africa, we give less than 17 cents per capita. Is that right? Is that fair? If you wish to change it but you have constraints with the budget, at least open up trade, open up hope. That is what this bill does. I am proud to support it. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for me to rise in support of this legislation. America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to encourage this. By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment. The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the top 10 States in exports to the region. Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term relationship with Africa. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first a recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region in respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer Saul Alinsky was that an aggrieved, neglected or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before hope for progress can be ignited. {time} 1130 For the 17 years that I have been in Congress, there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. Like many of my colleagues, I am the cosponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only African relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge the full support for this landmark piece of legislation. Progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region with respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer, Saul [[Page H5704]] Alinsky, was that an aggrieved, neglected, or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before the hope for progress can be ignited. For the seventeen years that I have been in Congress there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. This long overdue bill stands alone--and despite its imperfections and incompleteness, this legislation deserves our full support. Hope for Africa begins with today's recognition of Africa as a deserving trade partner. Like many of my colleagues I am the co-sponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only Africa relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me also note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the much highlighted textile industry the Sub-Saharan African countries have less than one percent. On the other hand, China has almost 10 percent of the U.S. textile market. In the seventeen years that I have served on the Education and Labor Committee no union has yet complained to me about losing textile industry jobs to China. Just transfer one percent of the textile trade from China to Africa and you will do nothing to hurt American jobs--you merely maintain the status quo. Why are the same people who are yelling about trade with the infant economies of Africa so wimpish or silent on trade with China. In the final analysis we have a problem here similar to the one faced by King Solomon when two women claiming to be the mother of one baby came before him. There are some who are proclaiming that, never mind the pleas of the African leaders, it would be better to vote this bill down and do nothing for Africa. Following the wisdom of King Solomon, it is clear that these negative opponents do not understand what is best for Africa. I urge a yes vote on this landmark legislation. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding this time to me, for his hard work and commitment to Africa and to America. I rise in opposition to H.R. 434. This is one of the most difficult no votes which I again will cast today, but I have attempted to dig beneath the surface of this legislation and analyze what its true impact will be. I was compelled to vote against this bill when it was examined in the House Committee on International Relations. As one who has historically encouraged and worked for a comprehensive trade and development policy for Africa, this is not a vote which I cast lightly. In opposing this legislation I part company with the President I strongly support and a number of congressional colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect. Now very troubling to me, the African Growth and Opportunity Act fails to respect African sovereignty. It threatens the rights of African nations to determine for themselves the economic priorities that are in the best interests of their people. H.R. 434 continues to carry harsh eligibility requirements. To obtain trade benefits, countries must reorder their spending priorities to suit the preferences of foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund. Now, considering the mystery and the destructive nature of many of the IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa, this eligibility requirement is one which I cannot in good conscience support. Other provisions in this legislation require countries to reduce taxes for corporations while at the same time cut domestic spending which will inevitably lead to further reductions in vital health care and education programs which are already starved for funds. Africa has been neglected for too long, and as I listened to this debate, the supporters of this bill say that it is a modest first step. Well, it should be a major first step. It should not be symbolic, as many are saying. Africa deserves better. In our enthusiasm to promote American business opportunities and forge new relationships with countries in Africa, we must remain focused on the paramount need at hand to support a free and fair trade policy which benefits Africa and America. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens. Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace and significantly raise their standard of living. It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope legislation. This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a balanced trade and aid program. Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are supportive of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth in Africa. With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa, their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their free-market system that has served this country so well. These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great benefit to our country. I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this morning. So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa. [[Page H5705]] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1 percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little sliver of red is African imports to this country. While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile industry. If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build the industrial base in that country. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists and farmers and government can stand together.'' President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global economy.'' I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese workers into sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999] A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers (By R.C. Longworth) As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on the outskirts of the global village. ``Global inequalities in income and living standards have reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program said in its annual global overview, the Human Development Report. For instance: The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20 percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income, 91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have about 1 percent of each. The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140 billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43 least-developed countries and their 600 million people. The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh. The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to $518 from $661 in 1980. In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30 times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1. The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people and communities, not just markets and their manipulators. ``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said. ``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human development. ``Many activities and goods that are critical to human development are provided outside the market, but these are being squeezed by the pressures of global competition. ``When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and corporations, marginalizing the others. ``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but also to provide enough space for human, community and environmental resources to ensure that globalization works for people, not just for profits.'' The gap between people, like the one between nations, also is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said. Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations-- especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe. One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly dominated by a few countries and companies. Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and- development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same 10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S. government over the past 20 years, it said. Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70 percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical products, it said. The major countries and the global corporations may have earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly of power is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the economic pie and, often, from decent health care and education. ``The privatization and concentration of technology are going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.'' Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,'' are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking the ability of developing countries to develop their own products. Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said. The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said. Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries-- Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome severe levels of human poverty.'' The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global economy in a backlash of public resentment. Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the past two years only the first of many upheavals. At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.'' [[Page H5706]] They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.'' The UNDP report called instead for a ``global architecture'' that would include: A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets. A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term investments. New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti- monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from dominating industries. New rules on global patents that would keep the patent system from blocking the access of Third World countries to development, knowledge or health care. New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks that failed last year, would include development countries and respect local laws. More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing countries to impose capital controls to protect their economies. A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel, the toy company. The leading industrial nations already are considering new global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations. ____ Introducing H.R. 772, ``HOPE for Africa'' (By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.) To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated business, investment and trade that gave us slavery, colonialism and widespread human and economic exploitation, today we introduce H.R. 772, ``The HOPE for Africa Act of 1999,'' based on Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment as the basis for a new respectful and mutually beneficial human and economic relationship. Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse. This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic regimes; and economic and political instability. We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade. We are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists. By introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a new principle that should underlie every trade bill in the United States--that the benefits of trade must be shared widely by the majority of the common working people in every participating society, not just benefit the business and financial interests of an elite few. We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our business development and trade provisions are more expansive than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to organize for their own protection and economic security; has the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so business development and economic growth can be sustained indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be able to work their way out of their poverty and underdeveloped condition with dignity. The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies that can be embraced by both working Americans and working Africans because it raises the living standards of both. It does not raise some African living standards at the expense of lowering some American living standards. It is also good for long-term business development and economic investment because average workers on both continents will be able to buy the goods and services that they produce and, in the process, build a fairer and more perfect economic world. First, H.R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation is built on the principles and goals developed by African finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization or African Unity, and with input by African workers' organizations such as COSATU in South Africa. Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's crushing $230 billion debt--unconditional, comprehensive debt forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20 percent of sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt service, few resources are left to devote to development and urgent local needs.

Summary:

All articles in House section

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
(House of Representatives - July 16, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5699-H5747] {time} 1045 AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 250 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 434. {time} 1046 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub- Sahara Africa, with Mr. Ewing in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill? The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the chairmen and the ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on International Relations. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that request. Time must be yielded by the Members who control the time under the special order adopted by the House, the ranking members and the chairmen of the appropriate committees. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Members that do oppose this bill on certain grounds, and I believe they should be afforded an opportunity that the Chair could, in fact, make accommodations for, and I urge the House to do that. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do? Mr. TRAFICANT. I think there should be a reasonable amount of time presented for the opportunity for those who oppose this bill to be able to speak on this issue. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will suspend. The rule provides that the time will be yielded by the chairmen and the ranking members of the two appropriate committees, and that is the way the Committee of the whole will proceed under the rule approved by the House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This bill is the product of years of bipartisan congressional efforts to promote increased trade and investment between our Nation and sub- Saharan Africa. This measure authorizes a new trade and investment policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and expresses the willingness of our Nation to assist the eligible countries of that region with a reduction of trade barriers, the creation of an economic cooperation forum, the promotion of a free trade area, and a variety of other trade and related mechanisms. This bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has broad support in the Committee on International Relations and was ordered to be reported in February of this year. [[Page H5700]] Yesterday, in the meeting of the Committee on Rules, one of our distinguished colleagues, one who has demonstrated a long and passionate commitment to humanitarian issues, expressed concerns that this bill does not do enough for the people of Africa. Mr. Chairman, although this is indeed a modest bill, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate its strength. Both its power and its modesty, Mr. Chairman, come from the fact that this bill does not attempt to do anything for the people of Africa but rather it proposes to encourage beneficial trade with the countries and peoples of Africa. This act recognizes a universal and independent desire of individuals everywhere to improve their lives and those of their families. Adam Smith recognized this power back in 1776 when he wrote, ``The desire of a man to better himself comes to him in the womb of his mother.'' A fundamental belief in individual aspiration is reflected in nearly all of the domestic legislation that we consider in this body, from tax laws, to education subsidies, to natural resource management. That principle must not be ignored in our policies toward other nations. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Africa, but much economic activity there goes unrecorded and underreported. Ghanaian women with little formal education grow their crops and sell them in cooperative rural markets every week, season after season. Senegalese merchants travel to cities all across the globe selling their wares and remitting the bulk of their profits. Somalis, working together throughout the Middle East, spend their salaries on products which are in high demand back home and ship them to family members. In turn, they trade them for profit in the markets of Hargeisa and Mogadishu. It may come as a surprise to some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that on any given day a visitor to Hargeisa can stand on a street corner and exchange Deutschemarks, francs, pounds and dollars at international exchange rates. These activities, and countless others like them, are happening and they are happening right now, as we speak, all over the African continent. They are not driven by any giant multinational corporations nor by international banks. They are not supervised by the Agency for International Development or by the IMF. This work occurs because people have discovered that it puts food on the table and clothes on the backs of their children. Make no mistake, my colleagues, I strongly support U.S. foreign aid to Africa, and my record of that support is clear. In recent years, I have been supportive of the Development Fund for Africa, the Seeds of Hope Act, the International Financial Institutions, debt relief and the work of the United Nations. But foreign aid cannot serve as a backbone of any modern economy. At best, it can jump-start independently sustainable economic activity and help individuals gain a foothold. As I have said, H.R. 434 is a modest bill. One can think of many problems confronting the people and the countries of Africa that this bill does not specifically address, and we have heard some of them already in the debate on the rule. But it would be a mistake to reject this bill for what it is not without recognizing the significant benefits that it represents. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the extraordinary group of Members who have come together and worked extremely hard in support of this effort before us. Both Democrat and Republican, black and white, conservatives and liberals have found much common ground in the pages of H.R. 434. I would like to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the dean of our New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Chairman, even the often contentious counties of sub-Saharan Africa have come together united in support for this bill. I commend my colleagues for their efforts and their commitments, and I urge favorable consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), be permitted to control the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It will open a new era in U.S. relations with sub- Saharan Africa. This bipartisan bill was reported with little opposition on a bipartisan basis from the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, sub-Saharan Africa today is very different from what it was just a few short years ago. In the 1990s, more than two dozen of the 48 countries in the region have held democratic elections and 30 have undertaken specific economic reforms. {time} 1100 Increasing numbers of Africans have embraced the principles of democracy and free markets, which enable people and nations to improve the course of their futures. Last year I traveled to Gabon. I believe President Omar Bongo and his country are an example of the changes under way across the African continent. President Bongo has set out on a plan to energize his country. He has brought a high level of prosperity to his country and actually developed an empowered middle class. And to ensure economic opportunity for the Gabonese people, the president is also directing the country's efforts in infrastructure building and privatization of state-owned industries. Gabon is a good example of what is happening in Africa today. And here, in this body, we are laying the legislative groundwork that will help support the steps Gabon and other nations are taking in Africa. Today, we adapt U.S. policy in response to the African renaissance. Specifically, this legislation will add a trade component to U.S. policy toward the region to mutually improve the standard of living of Americans and the African people. It is unfortunate that the tremendous potential of sub-Saharan Africa has not been reflected in U.S. trade policy to date. But this bill fills that gap. I commend many members of the Committee on Ways and Means on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to where we are today on the floor in developing this legislation. In developing this legislation, I particularly compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, who are the lead sponsors of this bill. They have done great work. In addition, I must mention the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) particularly who have expended enormous effort in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time may be managed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that he may be able to yield and assign the time as he chooses. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement I may yield the time controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Democratic side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? [[Page H5701]] There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first take one moment to remind our colleagues where this legislation began. The genesis was with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). I have yet to see a bill with as strong bipartisan support with people on both sides of the aisle supporting it, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many of my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on the Republican side. There are many of us who would like to do more today. Africa is a continent that we have often ignored. The United States, with its often European and Middle Eastern-focused policies it is attempting to engage, the economic stage of Africa has been left behind. A continent with the poorest people on this planet, devastated by illness, famine, and economic hardship, America's foreign assistance has given the least to this continent that needs it the most. There is more that we should be doing. We should be doing more in almost every category, from assistance to health, education, and in trade. For my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not an easy vote. Some of our core constituencies are divided. Concern for labor protection, the concern for the environment, things that we cherish, are not as significant and powerful as they should be. I am among those who believe we should be doing more in every trade bill to include labor and environmental rights. We need to make sure that when we work to lift these other nations that we lift all of their citizens and not just a few. The provisions of this bill are as good as we can get in this compromise. I can assure my colleagues, if this was a different Congress, we would have more protection for labor, we would have more committed to the poorest of the poor, and we would do more for the environment. But our choice is not that today. We do not decide the composition of this House. What we have to do is do the best we can for these people who have suffered so much, with the legislature that the American people have given us. GSP is a good program. It forces countries to address the ILO standard. And when we take a look at its history, almost a dozen countries have lost GSP preference because they did not follow those rules. In another number of cases, countries that had failed to follow the ILO standard when challenged and threatened with the removal of GSP ended up accepting the better standard for labor. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stretch politically today. There are tough questions here. There are concerns that we all have about why we are not doing more for Africa in aid, in health care, in education, in trade and assistance. But the choice before us is this bill or nothing. Will Africans be better off if we kill this bill today? I think not. I think, if we can move this bill forward today, we will be able to build on its strength in the future. Lastly, for my friends who have had a bad experience with NAFTA, this bill is not about NAFTA. This bill does not take away tariffs in a permanent manner, irrespective of countries' actions. The countries that deal with us under this bill will have to make improvements on how they treat their working men and women. They will have to address these issues that so many on our side care about. This is a bill that begins an engagement that we should have undertaken long ago. I again commend all those involved, but particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for their great efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly, emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed. Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way, not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for most of us today, that we are on the brink of history. It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with any other country except our great United States of America. As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of these African countries and recognizing that they know that if everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we would not be able to take this one giant step. But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state. I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations, saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing. For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that they are going to take our jobs away from us. Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of our technology and our consumer appetite. So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that before we went into that next century, where every country we have had some agreement with, with this European country through the European Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel, every continent except Africa. Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great Republic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Over the last several years, many Members of this body have been working hard to improve America's relationship with Africa. We have done this because what happens in Africa matters. It matters to Africans, and it matters to our country. The United States has real interests in seeing that Africa begins to reach its considerable potential. Such an Africa would offer limitless cultural and economic opportunity to Americans. Already our exports to Africa are some $6.5 billion. This is greater than our exports to the former Soviet Union. It is greater than our exports to all of Eastern Europe. And the volume is growing. U.S. exports to Africa are [[Page H5702]] growing by more than 8 percent per year. This is 130-some thousand American jobs. As this map shows, businesses in my home State of California have been part of this. California is one of the top States in the country when it comes to exports to Africa, as is Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas. We can see the result of the growing exports here to Africa. On the other hand, if Africa fails to meet its potential with the United States of America, then the United States will not escape the negative economic political and security implications. There would be lost economic opportunities, yes, but there would be more. The reality is that terrorism and environmental degradation know no bounds. Simply put, this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, is critical to the United States' relationship with Africa. The Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs recently said, ``No other U.S.-Africa issue can be taken seriously until the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act is passed.'' As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I second that. But so do all the African ambassadors here in Washington, everyone who has unanimously supported this legislation. The African ambassadors understand the importance of this legislation, and they have rejected in no uncertain terms the efforts of critics to speak authoritatively for Africans. So I say to my colleagues, if they care about the future of the continent, if they care about the future of 700 million people, support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well. He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined in that effort. We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement with sub-Saharan Africa. {time} 1115 That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S. trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and who have given of their time and their energies so graciously. This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May, Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in nearly two decades. As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R. 434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework for United States-African trade relations. In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia- Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy discussions. It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions. It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria. H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30 percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent. The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub- Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation. A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in 1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past several years. As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to codify many significant initiatives already under way in the administration. I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of U.S. aid where it is needed. I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill. I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to suggest that we know better for Africa than Africans do. If people are concerned about whether the trade will be fair, if people are concerned about whether the working conditions will be fair, I think it is reasonable to say, let the African countries and their leadership determine those issues, worker protection and the like. It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected. Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism. This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty- free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive. Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the U.S. market. We also [[Page H5703]] have protections in this bill to ensure that import sensitive items are not brought in under the provisions of this legislation. For those who believe we will be hurting our textile markets, I think if we look at the bill, we find that that is not true. There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we do with other countries. The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition. The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations, including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned, there is a provision that the President must certify that any product that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP. The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights, including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a different standard applied, and I will fight for that. I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core worker rights. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) who serves on the Subcommittee on Africa. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I note his superb leadership in this area. I note the superb leadership of the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee as well the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). There are two arguments against this bill, the first that it is really bad for Africa. The gentleman from Maryland was quite eloquent in making the case how wrong it is to apply such an assumption that the representatives of each African nation are selling their people short, that they do not care about worker exploitation, that somehow they do not care about environment. These are the assumptions one must be making if one says that the support of this legislation by every government in the African continent is somehow to be discounted. As to the second argument that it hurts the United States, the gentleman from Maryland's argument was also quite persuasive. On what assumption do we base the fear that African nations are not reliable? On what assumption do we base the prejudice that an African nation will not be able to comply with its obligations under the trade agreements not to have massive transshipments? In our trading arrangements with other nations around the world, we assume that they honor their obligations, including the prohibitions against mislabeling and transshipments. Why do we throw this assumption out when we are dealing with Africa? It seems to me that the assumption is fair in this case, even if there were a much larger percentage of textiles than there is. Lastly, let me conclude by pointing out that we give less in direct aid to Africa per capita than any other part of the globe with the possible exception of India depending how it is measured. This is not an aid bill. This is a bill to open up a reciprocal relationship of trade and respect. Other countries we give more than $30 per capita. To the people of sub-Saharan Africa, we give less than 17 cents per capita. Is that right? Is that fair? If you wish to change it but you have constraints with the budget, at least open up trade, open up hope. That is what this bill does. I am proud to support it. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for me to rise in support of this legislation. America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to encourage this. By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment. The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the top 10 States in exports to the region. Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term relationship with Africa. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first a recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region in respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer Saul Alinsky was that an aggrieved, neglected or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before hope for progress can be ignited. {time} 1130 For the 17 years that I have been in Congress, there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. Like many of my colleagues, I am the cosponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only African relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge the full support for this landmark piece of legislation. Progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region with respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer, Saul [[Page H5704]] Alinsky, was that an aggrieved, neglected, or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before the hope for progress can be ignited. For the seventeen years that I have been in Congress there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. This long overdue bill stands alone--and despite its imperfections and incompleteness, this legislation deserves our full support. Hope for Africa begins with today's recognition of Africa as a deserving trade partner. Like many of my colleagues I am the co-sponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only Africa relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me also note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the much highlighted textile industry the Sub-Saharan African countries have less than one percent. On the other hand, China has almost 10 percent of the U.S. textile market. In the seventeen years that I have served on the Education and Labor Committee no union has yet complained to me about losing textile industry jobs to China. Just transfer one percent of the textile trade from China to Africa and you will do nothing to hurt American jobs--you merely maintain the status quo. Why are the same people who are yelling about trade with the infant economies of Africa so wimpish or silent on trade with China. In the final analysis we have a problem here similar to the one faced by King Solomon when two women claiming to be the mother of one baby came before him. There are some who are proclaiming that, never mind the pleas of the African leaders, it would be better to vote this bill down and do nothing for Africa. Following the wisdom of King Solomon, it is clear that these negative opponents do not understand what is best for Africa. I urge a yes vote on this landmark legislation. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding this time to me, for his hard work and commitment to Africa and to America. I rise in opposition to H.R. 434. This is one of the most difficult no votes which I again will cast today, but I have attempted to dig beneath the surface of this legislation and analyze what its true impact will be. I was compelled to vote against this bill when it was examined in the House Committee on International Relations. As one who has historically encouraged and worked for a comprehensive trade and development policy for Africa, this is not a vote which I cast lightly. In opposing this legislation I part company with the President I strongly support and a number of congressional colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect. Now very troubling to me, the African Growth and Opportunity Act fails to respect African sovereignty. It threatens the rights of African nations to determine for themselves the economic priorities that are in the best interests of their people. H.R. 434 continues to carry harsh eligibility requirements. To obtain trade benefits, countries must reorder their spending priorities to suit the preferences of foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund. Now, considering the mystery and the destructive nature of many of the IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa, this eligibility requirement is one which I cannot in good conscience support. Other provisions in this legislation require countries to reduce taxes for corporations while at the same time cut domestic spending which will inevitably lead to further reductions in vital health care and education programs which are already starved for funds. Africa has been neglected for too long, and as I listened to this debate, the supporters of this bill say that it is a modest first step. Well, it should be a major first step. It should not be symbolic, as many are saying. Africa deserves better. In our enthusiasm to promote American business opportunities and forge new relationships with countries in Africa, we must remain focused on the paramount need at hand to support a free and fair trade policy which benefits Africa and America. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens. Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace and significantly raise their standard of living. It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope legislation. This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a balanced trade and aid program. Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are supportive of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth in Africa. With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa, their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their free-market system that has served this country so well. These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great benefit to our country. I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this morning. So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa. [[Page H5705]] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1 percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little sliver of red is African imports to this country. While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile industry. If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build the industrial base in that country. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists and farmers and government can stand together.'' President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global economy.'' I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese workers into sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999] A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers (By R.C. Longworth) As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on the outskirts of the global village. ``Global inequalities in income and living standards have reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program said in its annual global overview, the Human Development Report. For instance: The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20 percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income, 91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have about 1 percent of each. The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140 billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43 least-developed countries and their 600 million people. The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh. The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to $518 from $661 in 1980. In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30 times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1. The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people and communities, not just markets and their manipulators. ``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said. ``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human development. ``Many activities and goods that are critical to human development are provided outside the market, but these are being squeezed by the pressures of global competition. ``When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and corporations, marginalizing the others. ``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but also to provide enough space for human, community and environmental resources to ensure that globalization works for people, not just for profits.'' The gap between people, like the one between nations, also is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said. Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations-- especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe. One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly dominated by a few countries and companies. Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and- development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same 10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S. government over the past 20 years, it said. Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70 percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical products, it said. The major countries and the global corporations may have earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly of power is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the economic pie and, often, from decent health care and education. ``The privatization and concentration of technology are going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.'' Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,'' are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking the ability of developing countries to develop their own products. Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said. The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said. Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries-- Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome severe levels of human poverty.'' The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global economy in a backlash of public resentment. Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the past two years only the first of many upheavals. At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.'' [[Page H5706]] They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.'' The UNDP report called instead for a ``global architecture'' that would include: A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets. A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term investments. New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti- monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from dominating industries. New rules on global patents that would keep the patent system from blocking the access of Third World countries to development, knowledge or health care. New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks that failed last year, would include development countries and respect local laws. More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing countries to impose capital controls to protect their economies. A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel, the toy company. The leading industrial nations already are considering new global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations. ____ Introducing H.R. 772, ``HOPE for Africa'' (By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.) To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated business, investment and trade that gave us slavery, colonialism and widespread human and economic exploitation, today we introduce H.R. 772, ``The HOPE for Africa Act of 1999,'' based on Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment as the basis for a new respectful and mutually beneficial human and economic relationship. Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse. This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic regimes; and economic and political instability. We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade. We are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists. By introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a new principle that should underlie every trade bill in the United States--that the benefits of trade must be shared widely by the majority of the common working people in every participating society, not just benefit the business and financial interests of an elite few. We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our business development and trade provisions are more expansive than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to organize for their own protection and economic security; has the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so business development and economic growth can be sustained indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be able to work their way out of their poverty and underdeveloped condition with dignity. The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies that can be embraced by both working Americans and working Africans because it raises the living standards of both. It does not raise some African living standards at the expense of lowering some American living standards. It is also good for long-term business development and economic investment because average workers on both continents will be able to buy the goods and services that they produce and, in the process, build a fairer and more perfect economic world. First, H.R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation is built on the principles and goals developed by African finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization or African Unity, and with input by African workers' organizations such as COSATU in South Africa. Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's crushing $230 billion debt--unconditional, comprehensive debt forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20 percent of sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt service, few res

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
(House of Representatives - July 16, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5699-H5747] {time} 1045 AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 250 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 434. {time} 1046 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub- Sahara Africa, with Mr. Ewing in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill? The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the chairmen and the ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on International Relations. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that request. Time must be yielded by the Members who control the time under the special order adopted by the House, the ranking members and the chairmen of the appropriate committees. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Members that do oppose this bill on certain grounds, and I believe they should be afforded an opportunity that the Chair could, in fact, make accommodations for, and I urge the House to do that. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do? Mr. TRAFICANT. I think there should be a reasonable amount of time presented for the opportunity for those who oppose this bill to be able to speak on this issue. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will suspend. The rule provides that the time will be yielded by the chairmen and the ranking members of the two appropriate committees, and that is the way the Committee of the whole will proceed under the rule approved by the House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This bill is the product of years of bipartisan congressional efforts to promote increased trade and investment between our Nation and sub- Saharan Africa. This measure authorizes a new trade and investment policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and expresses the willingness of our Nation to assist the eligible countries of that region with a reduction of trade barriers, the creation of an economic cooperation forum, the promotion of a free trade area, and a variety of other trade and related mechanisms. This bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has broad support in the Committee on International Relations and was ordered to be reported in February of this year. [[Page H5700]] Yesterday, in the meeting of the Committee on Rules, one of our distinguished colleagues, one who has demonstrated a long and passionate commitment to humanitarian issues, expressed concerns that this bill does not do enough for the people of Africa. Mr. Chairman, although this is indeed a modest bill, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate its strength. Both its power and its modesty, Mr. Chairman, come from the fact that this bill does not attempt to do anything for the people of Africa but rather it proposes to encourage beneficial trade with the countries and peoples of Africa. This act recognizes a universal and independent desire of individuals everywhere to improve their lives and those of their families. Adam Smith recognized this power back in 1776 when he wrote, ``The desire of a man to better himself comes to him in the womb of his mother.'' A fundamental belief in individual aspiration is reflected in nearly all of the domestic legislation that we consider in this body, from tax laws, to education subsidies, to natural resource management. That principle must not be ignored in our policies toward other nations. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Africa, but much economic activity there goes unrecorded and underreported. Ghanaian women with little formal education grow their crops and sell them in cooperative rural markets every week, season after season. Senegalese merchants travel to cities all across the globe selling their wares and remitting the bulk of their profits. Somalis, working together throughout the Middle East, spend their salaries on products which are in high demand back home and ship them to family members. In turn, they trade them for profit in the markets of Hargeisa and Mogadishu. It may come as a surprise to some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that on any given day a visitor to Hargeisa can stand on a street corner and exchange Deutschemarks, francs, pounds and dollars at international exchange rates. These activities, and countless others like them, are happening and they are happening right now, as we speak, all over the African continent. They are not driven by any giant multinational corporations nor by international banks. They are not supervised by the Agency for International Development or by the IMF. This work occurs because people have discovered that it puts food on the table and clothes on the backs of their children. Make no mistake, my colleagues, I strongly support U.S. foreign aid to Africa, and my record of that support is clear. In recent years, I have been supportive of the Development Fund for Africa, the Seeds of Hope Act, the International Financial Institutions, debt relief and the work of the United Nations. But foreign aid cannot serve as a backbone of any modern economy. At best, it can jump-start independently sustainable economic activity and help individuals gain a foothold. As I have said, H.R. 434 is a modest bill. One can think of many problems confronting the people and the countries of Africa that this bill does not specifically address, and we have heard some of them already in the debate on the rule. But it would be a mistake to reject this bill for what it is not without recognizing the significant benefits that it represents. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the extraordinary group of Members who have come together and worked extremely hard in support of this effort before us. Both Democrat and Republican, black and white, conservatives and liberals have found much common ground in the pages of H.R. 434. I would like to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the dean of our New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Chairman, even the often contentious counties of sub-Saharan Africa have come together united in support for this bill. I commend my colleagues for their efforts and their commitments, and I urge favorable consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), be permitted to control the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It will open a new era in U.S. relations with sub- Saharan Africa. This bipartisan bill was reported with little opposition on a bipartisan basis from the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, sub-Saharan Africa today is very different from what it was just a few short years ago. In the 1990s, more than two dozen of the 48 countries in the region have held democratic elections and 30 have undertaken specific economic reforms. {time} 1100 Increasing numbers of Africans have embraced the principles of democracy and free markets, which enable people and nations to improve the course of their futures. Last year I traveled to Gabon. I believe President Omar Bongo and his country are an example of the changes under way across the African continent. President Bongo has set out on a plan to energize his country. He has brought a high level of prosperity to his country and actually developed an empowered middle class. And to ensure economic opportunity for the Gabonese people, the president is also directing the country's efforts in infrastructure building and privatization of state-owned industries. Gabon is a good example of what is happening in Africa today. And here, in this body, we are laying the legislative groundwork that will help support the steps Gabon and other nations are taking in Africa. Today, we adapt U.S. policy in response to the African renaissance. Specifically, this legislation will add a trade component to U.S. policy toward the region to mutually improve the standard of living of Americans and the African people. It is unfortunate that the tremendous potential of sub-Saharan Africa has not been reflected in U.S. trade policy to date. But this bill fills that gap. I commend many members of the Committee on Ways and Means on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to where we are today on the floor in developing this legislation. In developing this legislation, I particularly compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, who are the lead sponsors of this bill. They have done great work. In addition, I must mention the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) particularly who have expended enormous effort in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time may be managed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that he may be able to yield and assign the time as he chooses. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement I may yield the time controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Democratic side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? [[Page H5701]] There was no objection. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first take one moment to remind our colleagues where this legislation began. The genesis was with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). I have yet to see a bill with as strong bipartisan support with people on both sides of the aisle supporting it, particularly the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many of my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on the Republican side. There are many of us who would like to do more today. Africa is a continent that we have often ignored. The United States, with its often European and Middle Eastern-focused policies it is attempting to engage, the economic stage of Africa has been left behind. A continent with the poorest people on this planet, devastated by illness, famine, and economic hardship, America's foreign assistance has given the least to this continent that needs it the most. There is more that we should be doing. We should be doing more in almost every category, from assistance to health, education, and in trade. For my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not an easy vote. Some of our core constituencies are divided. Concern for labor protection, the concern for the environment, things that we cherish, are not as significant and powerful as they should be. I am among those who believe we should be doing more in every trade bill to include labor and environmental rights. We need to make sure that when we work to lift these other nations that we lift all of their citizens and not just a few. The provisions of this bill are as good as we can get in this compromise. I can assure my colleagues, if this was a different Congress, we would have more protection for labor, we would have more committed to the poorest of the poor, and we would do more for the environment. But our choice is not that today. We do not decide the composition of this House. What we have to do is do the best we can for these people who have suffered so much, with the legislature that the American people have given us. GSP is a good program. It forces countries to address the ILO standard. And when we take a look at its history, almost a dozen countries have lost GSP preference because they did not follow those rules. In another number of cases, countries that had failed to follow the ILO standard when challenged and threatened with the removal of GSP ended up accepting the better standard for labor. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stretch politically today. There are tough questions here. There are concerns that we all have about why we are not doing more for Africa in aid, in health care, in education, in trade and assistance. But the choice before us is this bill or nothing. Will Africans be better off if we kill this bill today? I think not. I think, if we can move this bill forward today, we will be able to build on its strength in the future. Lastly, for my friends who have had a bad experience with NAFTA, this bill is not about NAFTA. This bill does not take away tariffs in a permanent manner, irrespective of countries' actions. The countries that deal with us under this bill will have to make improvements on how they treat their working men and women. They will have to address these issues that so many on our side care about. This is a bill that begins an engagement that we should have undertaken long ago. I again commend all those involved, but particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for their great efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly, emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed. Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way, not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for most of us today, that we are on the brink of history. It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with any other country except our great United States of America. As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of these African countries and recognizing that they know that if everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we would not be able to take this one giant step. But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state. I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations, saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing. For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that they are going to take our jobs away from us. Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of our technology and our consumer appetite. So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that before we went into that next century, where every country we have had some agreement with, with this European country through the European Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel, every continent except Africa. Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great Republic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Over the last several years, many Members of this body have been working hard to improve America's relationship with Africa. We have done this because what happens in Africa matters. It matters to Africans, and it matters to our country. The United States has real interests in seeing that Africa begins to reach its considerable potential. Such an Africa would offer limitless cultural and economic opportunity to Americans. Already our exports to Africa are some $6.5 billion. This is greater than our exports to the former Soviet Union. It is greater than our exports to all of Eastern Europe. And the volume is growing. U.S. exports to Africa are [[Page H5702]] growing by more than 8 percent per year. This is 130-some thousand American jobs. As this map shows, businesses in my home State of California have been part of this. California is one of the top States in the country when it comes to exports to Africa, as is Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas. We can see the result of the growing exports here to Africa. On the other hand, if Africa fails to meet its potential with the United States of America, then the United States will not escape the negative economic political and security implications. There would be lost economic opportunities, yes, but there would be more. The reality is that terrorism and environmental degradation know no bounds. Simply put, this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, is critical to the United States' relationship with Africa. The Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs recently said, ``No other U.S.-Africa issue can be taken seriously until the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act is passed.'' As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I second that. But so do all the African ambassadors here in Washington, everyone who has unanimously supported this legislation. The African ambassadors understand the importance of this legislation, and they have rejected in no uncertain terms the efforts of critics to speak authoritatively for Africans. So I say to my colleagues, if they care about the future of the continent, if they care about the future of 700 million people, support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well. He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined in that effort. We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement with sub-Saharan Africa. {time} 1115 That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S. trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and who have given of their time and their energies so graciously. This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May, Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in nearly two decades. As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R. 434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework for United States-African trade relations. In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia- Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy discussions. It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions. It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria. H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30 percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent. The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub- Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation. A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in 1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past several years. As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to codify many significant initiatives already under way in the administration. I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of U.S. aid where it is needed. I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill. I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to suggest that we know better for Africa than Africans do. If people are concerned about whether the trade will be fair, if people are concerned about whether the working conditions will be fair, I think it is reasonable to say, let the African countries and their leadership determine those issues, worker protection and the like. It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected. Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism. This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty- free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive. Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the U.S. market. We also [[Page H5703]] have protections in this bill to ensure that import sensitive items are not brought in under the provisions of this legislation. For those who believe we will be hurting our textile markets, I think if we look at the bill, we find that that is not true. There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we do with other countries. The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as evolving nations move into the global economy and a major purpose of this bill is to help Africa do that, we have to look upon them as potential consumers but also as potential competitors. We have to look at the impact potentially on American jobs and businesses. We have to look at what are the rules of competition. The main trade provision here spreads GSP to African nations, including textiles, and that is the most sensitive issue. So what are the rules of competition here? First of all, as has been mentioned, there is a provision that the President must certify that any product that is going to come in under GSP, including textiles, not be import sensitive. Secondly, there must be, I deeply believe this, labor market worker rights provisions in trade agreements. There is such in the GSP. The President has to consider in granting eligibility whether a Nation has taken steps or is taking steps to afford core worker rights, including the right to bargain collectively. Private parties can petition if GSP labor provisions are being abused, and 11 nations have had GSP treatment withdrawn from them because of that. Where competition is keener than would be true here, where labor markets are more developed than is true in sub-Saharan Africa, there should be a different standard applied, and I will fight for that. I urge support. In this case it is a first step, a modest step, but it looks at the rules of competition as well as Africa as a potential consumer. We should support this bill and remember as we go on to other issues, we should keep in mind the rules of competition, including core worker rights. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) who serves on the Subcommittee on Africa. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I note his superb leadership in this area. I note the superb leadership of the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee as well the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). There are two arguments against this bill, the first that it is really bad for Africa. The gentleman from Maryland was quite eloquent in making the case how wrong it is to apply such an assumption that the representatives of each African nation are selling their people short, that they do not care about worker exploitation, that somehow they do not care about environment. These are the assumptions one must be making if one says that the support of this legislation by every government in the African continent is somehow to be discounted. As to the second argument that it hurts the United States, the gentleman from Maryland's argument was also quite persuasive. On what assumption do we base the fear that African nations are not reliable? On what assumption do we base the prejudice that an African nation will not be able to comply with its obligations under the trade agreements not to have massive transshipments? In our trading arrangements with other nations around the world, we assume that they honor their obligations, including the prohibitions against mislabeling and transshipments. Why do we throw this assumption out when we are dealing with Africa? It seems to me that the assumption is fair in this case, even if there were a much larger percentage of textiles than there is. Lastly, let me conclude by pointing out that we give less in direct aid to Africa per capita than any other part of the globe with the possible exception of India depending how it is measured. This is not an aid bill. This is a bill to open up a reciprocal relationship of trade and respect. Other countries we give more than $30 per capita. To the people of sub-Saharan Africa, we give less than 17 cents per capita. Is that right? Is that fair? If you wish to change it but you have constraints with the budget, at least open up trade, open up hope. That is what this bill does. I am proud to support it. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. It is a privilege for me to rise in support of this legislation. America has an enormous stake in our long-term relationship with Africa, a relationship which can and must be mutually beneficial. Many will note that our experience in Africa since the colonial period in some respects has been disappointing. Despite our well-intentioned efforts in sending billions in foreign aid to this continent, poverty had over many years increased and economies had stagnated. Yet Africa has recently seen a modest but promising return to economic growth and a growing embrace of economic reforms and market capitalism. We need to encourage this. By opening our markets and looking to Africa as a market for our goods, we can do more to lift Africa out of poverty and help build its economic self-sufficiency while at the same time increasing our exports and creating jobs right here in America. By passing this bill, we can buttress the economic reforms now being embraced by sub-Saharan Africa and stimulate much needed economic growth and investment. The notion of Africa as an export market for America's products is not an exotic one. In the period between 1993 and 1997 in my own congressional district, the city of Erie benefited from $49 million in exports to Africa and the State of Pennsylvania currently ranks in the top 10 States in exports to the region. Our investment in sub-Saharan Africa is a win-win situation that will promote stability in the region, increase economic prosperity and encourage development and growth. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation which I believe is critical in shaping our long-term relationship with Africa. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first a recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region in respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer Saul Alinsky was that an aggrieved, neglected or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before hope for progress can be ignited. {time} 1130 For the 17 years that I have been in Congress, there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. Like many of my colleagues, I am the cosponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only African relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge the full support for this landmark piece of legislation. Progress for African trade and growth can never take place unless there is first recognition that Africa has as much promise as any other region with respect to long-term trade and commerce possibilities. Developing economies in Africa are natural markets for U.S. products and services. Recognition of Africa as a significant part of the global economy is long overdue. One of the principles advocated by the great radical organizer, Saul [[Page H5704]] Alinsky, was that an aggrieved, neglected, or oppressed group or nation must first command recognition before the hope for progress can be ignited. For the seventeen years that I have been in Congress there has been no significant attention focused on African trade. This long overdue bill stands alone--and despite its imperfections and incompleteness, this legislation deserves our full support. Hope for Africa begins with today's recognition of Africa as a deserving trade partner. Like many of my colleagues I am the co-sponsor of several additional measures related to Africa. Unfortunately, other than the foreign aid appropriations, this bill is probably the only Africa relevant bill that will reach the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. Let me also note the fact that some have charged that this legislation is as devastating as NAFTA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the much highlighted textile industry the Sub-Saharan African countries have less than one percent. On the other hand, China has almost 10 percent of the U.S. textile market. In the seventeen years that I have served on the Education and Labor Committee no union has yet complained to me about losing textile industry jobs to China. Just transfer one percent of the textile trade from China to Africa and you will do nothing to hurt American jobs--you merely maintain the status quo. Why are the same people who are yelling about trade with the infant economies of Africa so wimpish or silent on trade with China. In the final analysis we have a problem here similar to the one faced by King Solomon when two women claiming to be the mother of one baby came before him. There are some who are proclaiming that, never mind the pleas of the African leaders, it would be better to vote this bill down and do nothing for Africa. Following the wisdom of King Solomon, it is clear that these negative opponents do not understand what is best for Africa. I urge a yes vote on this landmark legislation. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding this time to me, for his hard work and commitment to Africa and to America. I rise in opposition to H.R. 434. This is one of the most difficult no votes which I again will cast today, but I have attempted to dig beneath the surface of this legislation and analyze what its true impact will be. I was compelled to vote against this bill when it was examined in the House Committee on International Relations. As one who has historically encouraged and worked for a comprehensive trade and development policy for Africa, this is not a vote which I cast lightly. In opposing this legislation I part company with the President I strongly support and a number of congressional colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect. Now very troubling to me, the African Growth and Opportunity Act fails to respect African sovereignty. It threatens the rights of African nations to determine for themselves the economic priorities that are in the best interests of their people. H.R. 434 continues to carry harsh eligibility requirements. To obtain trade benefits, countries must reorder their spending priorities to suit the preferences of foreign investors and the International Monetary Fund. Now, considering the mystery and the destructive nature of many of the IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa, this eligibility requirement is one which I cannot in good conscience support. Other provisions in this legislation require countries to reduce taxes for corporations while at the same time cut domestic spending which will inevitably lead to further reductions in vital health care and education programs which are already starved for funds. Africa has been neglected for too long, and as I listened to this debate, the supporters of this bill say that it is a modest first step. Well, it should be a major first step. It should not be symbolic, as many are saying. Africa deserves better. In our enthusiasm to promote American business opportunities and forge new relationships with countries in Africa, we must remain focused on the paramount need at hand to support a free and fair trade policy which benefits Africa and America. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens. Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace and significantly raise their standard of living. It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope legislation. This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a balanced trade and aid program. Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are supportive of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth in Africa. With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa, their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their free-market system that has served this country so well. These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great benefit to our country. I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this morning. So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa. [[Page H5705]] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1 percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little sliver of red is African imports to this country. While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile industry. If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build the industrial base in that country. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists and farmers and government can stand together.'' President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global economy.'' I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese workers into sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999] A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers (By R.C. Longworth) As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on the outskirts of the global village. ``Global inequalities in income and living standards have reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program said in its annual global overview, the Human Development Report. For instance: The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20 percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income, 91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have about 1 percent of each. The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140 billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43 least-developed countries and their 600 million people. The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh. The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to $518 from $661 in 1980. In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30 times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1. The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people and communities, not just markets and their manipulators. ``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said. ``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human development. ``Many activities and goods that are critical to human development are provided outside the market, but these are being squeezed by the pressures of global competition. ``When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and corporations, marginalizing the others. ``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but also to provide enough space for human, community and environmental resources to ensure that globalization works for people, not just for profits.'' The gap between people, like the one between nations, also is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said. Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations-- especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe. One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly dominated by a few countries and companies. Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and- development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same 10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S. government over the past 20 years, it said. Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70 percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical products, it said. The major countries and the global corporations may have earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly of power is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the economic pie and, often, from decent health care and education. ``The privatization and concentration of technology are going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.'' Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,'' are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking the ability of developing countries to develop their own products. Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said. The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said. Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries-- Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome severe levels of human poverty.'' The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global economy in a backlash of public resentment. Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the past two years only the first of many upheavals. At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.'' [[Page H5706]] They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.'' The UNDP report called instead for a ``global architecture'' that would include: A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets. A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term investments. New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti- monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from dominating industries. New rules on global patents that would keep the patent system from blocking the access of Third World countries to development, knowledge or health care. New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks that failed last year, would include development countries and respect local laws. More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing countries to impose capital controls to protect their economies. A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel, the toy company. The leading industrial nations already are considering new global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations. ____ Introducing H.R. 772, ``HOPE for Africa'' (By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.) To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated business, investment and trade that gave us slavery, colonialism and widespread human and economic exploitation, today we introduce H.R. 772, ``The HOPE for Africa Act of 1999,'' based on Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment as the basis for a new respectful and mutually beneficial human and economic relationship. Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse. This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic regimes; and economic and political instability. We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade. We are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists. By introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a new principle that should underlie every trade bill in the United States--that the benefits of trade must be shared widely by the majority of the common working people in every participating society, not just benefit the business and financial interests of an elite few. We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our business development and trade provisions are more expansive than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to organize for their own protection and economic security; has the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so business development and economic growth can be sustained indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be able to work their way out of their poverty and underdeveloped condition with dignity. The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies that can be embraced by both working Americans and working Africans because it raises the living standards of both. It does not raise some African living standards at the expense of lowering some American living standards. It is also good for long-term business development and economic investment because average workers on both continents will be able to buy the goods and services that they produce and, in the process, build a fairer and more perfect economic world. First, H.R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation is built on the principles and goals developed by African finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization or African Unity, and with input by African workers' organizations such as COSATU in South Africa. Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's crushing $230 billion debt--unconditional, comprehensive debt forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20 percent of sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt service, few resources are left to devote to development and urgent local needs.