For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
TRADE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999.
Term Paper ID:29970
Essay Subject:
Assessment of the history of the Bill signed by President Clinton in 2000, known as the African Growth & Development Act.... More...
10 Pages / 2250 Words
6 sources, 16 Citations,
APA Format
$40.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Assessment of the history of the bill signed by President Clinton in 2000, known as the African Growth & Development Act. Discusses debate over the Bill between the U.S. & Africa. Intentions, economic issues & concerns on both sides. U.S. foreign policy as articulated by then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Trade with Africa and U.S. jobs. Objections and various Amendments to the orginal Bill.
Paper Introduction:
On May 18, 2000, the Trade Development Act of 1999 was signed by President Clinton, having made its way through the House of Representatives and the Senate. Initially known as the “African Growth and “Opportunity Act(H.R. 434), the bill had been approved by the House with amendments on July 15 of 1999. In the Senate, a comparable bill, S. 1387 (known as the “African Growth and Opportunity Act), had been approved by the Finance Committee as an amended package of trade bills. The Senate’s version of H.R. 434 differed substantially from that which existed in the House, as the amended bill included trade benefits for the Caribbean Basin, reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences program, and several other trade-related provisions. This complicated process experienced several twists and turns, luring many prominent players in
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
markets, two new Overseas PrivateInvestment Corporation funds(which would allow for hundreds of millions ofdollars of new investment), and special preferential access for textilesand other labor-intensive commodities(for those deemed "reform-oriented"countries) would conspire toward this end of economic stability and growth(Albright, 1998). The Senate's versionof the bill would provide duty free and quota free treatment to beneficiarycountries if their apparel products were being assembled from fabric madein the United States by United States yarn (Dagne, 2 ). Dagne, Theodros; and Sek, Lenore. TheAfricans of today, argued Albright, have been "liberated from Cold Wardivisions" and are "ready and increasingly able to assume an equal place atthe world table" (Albright, 1998). And this point is well taken- andeasily defensible from a Republican or a Democratic vantage. A "stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be abetter partner for security and peace", Albright pointed out, commentingthat building real democracies based on open markets and respect for humanrights must be the thrust of our policy toward Africa (Albright, 1998).According to Albright, the African Growth and Opportunity Act is gearedspecifically towards achieving these objectives. The House version of the African Growthand Opportunity Act would have allowed the President to grant duty freetreatment to textiles and apparel from eligible countries so long as thoseproducts were not determined to be import sensitive. Retrieved from the World Wide Web November 2 , 2 : www.senate.gov. In 1994, congressional concerns over the impact of the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act on Africa began to brew. In her speech, SecretaryAlbright discussed the foreign policy rationale driving the African GrowthOpportunity Act. In it, the act is referred to as the "African Re-Colonization Act",and states that the provisions of the bill are "wrapped in rhetoric abouthelping Africa," but are in fact merely "designed to secure U.S. May 1, 2 vol. 434. In mid-June of that year, theClinton Administration formally embraced this new congressional tradeinitiative (Ahearn, 2 ). The ultimate ramificationswill present themselves soon enough, as the effects of legislation such asthe Trade and Development Act of 1999 begin to surface at home as well ashalf a world away. Subsequent passage in the Houseappeared imminent. Retrieved from the World Wide Web November 2 , 2 : www.hillsource.house.gov. Republican Policy Committee. One month later, Senator Lugarintroduced an identical bill in the Senate. American textile and apparel manufacturers may takeheart in the modifications made by the Senate, while those favoring dutyfree trade for African nations may rejoice that their legislation has beendrafted into law. Those on the North American side ofthe debate have posited that such a bill will open the U.S. 1 ). 1 , American jobs depend on tradewith Africa, and given Africa's potential for economic growth, oureconomies would surely benefit by being more intimately and benevolentlyintertwined. In summarizing the philosophy of the act, Albright succinctly stated:"America stands ready to help those African countries that helpthemselves"(1998). TheTrade and Development Act of 1999 has, after bouncing around the House andthe Senate, attempted to satisfy all sides, leaving only the extremistswholly unsatisfied. Wellstone, Paul D. Both also directed the President to report toCongress(or a congressional committee) regarding the possibility of freetrade agreements with Sub-Saharan countries(U.S. "African Growth and Opportunity Act(Conference Report)." Legislative Digest. And, she mentioned, the International TradeCommission had already estimated that the African Growth and OpportunityAct could, at most, only impact 7 U.S. Both the Houseand the Senate versions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act proposeda United States-Sub Saharan African Trade and Economic Forum, which wasgeared towards bringing senior U.S. 434 as a package of trade billsthat included the African Growth and Opportunity Act(S. Opponents on the Africanside fear that the bill, dubbed in some circles the "African re-colonization Act", will actually jeopardize the interests of the majorityof Africans. One month later, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright addressed theSenate Finance Committee in Washington, D.C. "The African Growth and Opportunity Act." US Department of State Dispatch. As for matching theclout of the objectors with her own list of supporters of the act,Secretary Albright mentioned that at the time of her speech, almost everygovernment in Sub-Saharan Africa had gone on record in support of thelegislation. 434), the bill had been approved by the House with amendments onJuly 15 of 1999. Ideally, the American political process will haveserved each continent well. The bill surfaced withthe support of the African Diplomatic Corps, many business and industrygroups, and Africa advocacy organizations (Jet, 1999, p. In his address, Senator Wellstone read from a letter that had beensigned by many African American religious leaders, a letter articulatingthe crux of the lobbying effort against the African Growth and OpportunityAct. These objections were expressed emphatically in a floor statementissued by Senator Paul D. Truly, the only distinction worth noting betweenthe two opposing sides of this debate is that which was mentioned bySenator Wellstone regarding the need for enforceable labor standards andenvironmental regulations overseas. 1 ). It is interesting to note that in theory,political debates purport to showcase opposing viewpoints. Theapproval of the act had the endorsement of President Clinton and manymembers of both political parties. Retrieved from the World Wide Web November 2 , 2 : www.cnie.org. This complicated processexperienced several twists and turns, luring many prominent players inAmerican politics into the fray as the whole of the American governmentstruggled to assess Africa's economic path in the modern global context(Dagne, 2 ). every day. Wellstone insisted that the African Growth andOpportunity Act would do little more than allow "multinationals to exportjobs overseas so they can avoid complying with American-style labor andenvironmental standards"; ultimately, this would thwart American workers'attempts to form a union while simultaneously facilitating the efforts ofprivate investors to save labor costs. 1387 be incorporatedinto the manager's amendment that had been offered by Senate MajorityLeader Trent Lott during the Senate's original consideration of H.R. Regarding the feared exodus of Americanjobs overseas, she states that the Clinton Administration's commitment to"strenghthening core labor standards around the world" would prohibitAmericans from being undercut. Senator Wellstone spoke for manydetractors of the Bill, including Nelson Mandela, the Reverend JesseJackson, Jr., and many of the Senate's own members (Wellstone, 1999). In regard to the African Growth and Opportunity Act, this has beenprecisely the case. 434.The changes proposed at this time would in fact extend the scope of theAfrican Growth and Opportunity Act in some ways, mandating many new trade-related provisions. Each side also agree thata major function of this relationship must be aid to Africa, most likely inthe form of freer trade. The most obvious difference between theHouse and Senate versions of the African Growth and Opportunity act dealtwith the importation of textiles and apparel (Dagne, 2 ). Neither side of the debate received its due. III. "Senate Oks Africa Trade Act to Aid Continent's Global Trading Practices." Jet. Each side of the debate agree that Africaand America need to reassess their relationship. 434-African Growth and Opportunity Act." U.S. From there, it went back to the Senate, where it was again finalized by avote of 79 to 19. August 29, 2 . "It is a rotten deal for anAmerican worker," stated Wellstone, "and a rotten deal for a low-wageworker in another country"(1999). Points ofdeparture are rarely significant enough to alter a bill radically, butinstead merely water it down. Essentially, Wellstone's concerns hingedupon an apparent lack of commitment in the legislation to enforce labor andenvironmental standards abroad. Nov 22, 1999 v96 i25 p1 . So began a trend that would prompt many in Congress to reconsiderAmerica's economic ties to Africa. 434 differed substantially from that which existed in the House, asthe amended bill included trade benefits for the Caribbean Basin,reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences program, andseveral other trade-related provisions. 1387); this finalversion of the Bill was entitled the Trade and Development Act of 1999. And yet Senator Wellstone's critique emphasizedsome of the very conditions the Senate had hoped to sidestep in itsrevision of the bill. Inhis statement, Senator Wellstone covered all objections to the AfricanGrowth and Opportunity Act, ranging from those that anticipated an Americaneconomic disruption to those that predicted the further exploitation, notemancipation, of the African economy. Wellstone of Minnesota in October of 1999. Positioned at the heart of the debate are the United States andAfrica, the former seeking to cultivate a mutually prosperous relationshipwith the latter, and the latter wary of the true intentions behind andpossible repercussions of the legislation being considered by the former.Opponents to the African Growth and Opportunity Act have emerged, voicingconcerns on both halves of the planet. July, 1998 v9 n6 p9(3). Retrieved from the World Wide Web November 2 , 2 : www.senate.gov. Both versions also included a system of enhanced benefits under the re-authorized Generalized System of Preferences program (USSRP, 1999).Regarding textile and apparel importation, however, the House and theSenate departed from one another. and African officials together annuallyto discuss economic issues. Of course, these objections fly in the face of Majority Leader Lott'srevisions to H.R. By June of 1999, the SenateFinance Committee ordered that the provisions of S. The spirit of the bill, however, remained the same. On May 18, 2 , the Trade Development Act of 1999 was signed byPresident Clinton, having made its way through the House of Representativesand the Senate. OnMay 4, 2 , the House approved this final version by a vote of 3 9 to 11 . These had predicted thattransshipment from non-African countries would most definitely occur iftextile and apparel imports from Sub-Saharan Africa were given duty freetreatment; such a phenomenon would, it was feared, give rise to customsfraud, as well as place competing American workers in jeopardy of beingunder-priced by their African counterparts (Dagne, 2 ). "RL3 227: Trade Legislation in the 1 6th Congress: An Overview." CRS Issue Brief for Congress. Initially known as the "African Growth and "OpportunityAct(H.R. Secretary Albright's impassioned speech had an effect, though notnecessarily one that she had envisioned. The momentum behind the legislation was cultivated carefullyby key members of the Clinton Administration, and enjoyed a rare boost ofbipartisan support in Congress. House Subcommittee on Africa Chairman Ed Royce (R-California) commented: "The passage of this bill is historic. Albright, Madeleine. "African Trade and Investment: Proposals in the 1 6th Congress." Congressional Research Service; Report for Congress. Among these, Albrighthighlighted the fact that the number of democratically elected governmentsin Sub-Saharan Africa had increased four-fold between 1988 and 1998. workers. In other respects, the Senate changes would be moreprotective of the United States. jobs- a figure that is dwarfed bythe number of jobs created in the U.S. The bill, Albright insists, is designed to encouragethe governments of Africa to place their economies on a sound financialfooting; duty free access to U.S. It is goodfor America and good for Africa"(Jet, 1999, p. businessinterests, often at the expense of the interests and needs of the majorityof African people and at the expense of African nations' sovereignty andself-determination"(Wellstone, 1999). Obviously, Majority Leader Lott had taken the objections of U.S.apparel and textile manufacturers to heart. Senate Republican PolicyCommittee(USSRP), 1999). In the Senate, a comparable bill, S. Secretary Albright's conclusions, together (perhaps oddly) with theSenate's revisions of the bill, seem to have been enough to convince theCongress that America and Africa have nothing to worry about in this newpartnership. "H.R. market withoutproviding reciprocal benefits to U.S. Without these, American workers would bedramatically under-priced by foreign competitors if duty free trade wereallowed to begin in earnest. The Senate's version ofH.R. The politicalreality in the United States today has therefore been showcased rather wellin this instance; in this, opposing sides seem to mimic one another, eachutilizing similar arguments to achieve an identical end. The President was called upon tosubmit five annual reports on American trade and development policy towardAfrica. 1387 (known as the"African Growth and Opportunity Act), had been approved by the FinanceCommittee as an amended package of trade bills. On May 18, 2 , the measure was signed by PresidentClinton (Dagne, 2 ). Namely, that promising duty free trade to Africannations that "choose" to adopt an American-style economy is risky forAmerican workers. "Remarks on the African Growth Opportunity Act and the Wellstone Amendments." October 26, 1999. In this age of party gridlock in the United States of America, thesetrends are becoming more and more frequent. Though some will undoubtedly continue to predict doomfor the continent, or insist that the American Congress has not doneenough, the majority that looms near the middle of the debate has beenappeased. Secretary Albright implored the Senate to consider someinspiring features of the new African continent. On April 24, 1997, a handful of membersfrom the Congressional African Trade and Investment Caucus introduced theAfrican Growth and Opportunity Act. In order to fully understand the nature of the debate, it isprudent to consider the mid-9 s, when the United States' interest inAfrican trade began to pique (Dagne, 2 ). Overall, support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act wasoverwhelming. In this case,both supporters and opponents of the bill have, in many cases, appeared tohave come from the same side. Once the Senate approved the bill the first time around, in Novemberof 1999, the legislative process had reached it's critical juncture. Many of Senator Wellstone's objections had been anticipated over ayear before by Secretary Albright. XXIX, #11, Pt. On November 3, 1999- eight days after Senator Wellstone'sfloor statement- the Senate approved H.R. References Ahearn, Raymond J. Perhaps even more significant, even those African governmentsthat might not initially qualify for the benefits of the African Growth andOpportunity Act had made similar endorsements (Albright, 1998).
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject