House Approves Sub-Sahara Trade Measure

The House passed controversial trade legislation Wednesday designed to aid poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa, despite vigorous opposition from some American blacks and liberals who fear that it would threaten low-wage jobs in the United States.

The measure, approved 233-186, would grant full access to U.S. markets--free of most import quotas or duties--to those sub-Saharan African countries that are deemed to be moving toward democracy and free-market economies.

President Clinton wanted the legislation--described as the most sweeping economic initiative for Africa in years--to get through the House before his scheduled trip to Africa begins March 22. He is to visit Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa and Botswana.

However, the measure’s prospects for Senate approval are uncertain. While some senators have said they will support the legislation, congressional strategists say there is little real momentum in the chamber to put the measure to a vote.

The bipartisan measure would provide special trade preferences for a broad range of African-made products--including textiles and apparel, which are restricted by import quotas--along with $650 million in guarantees for investments and construction projects in the region.

It would also require the president to open talks on a free-trade agreement between the U.S. and the sub-Saharan African countries. However, in an effort to encourage democracy and open markets in the sub-Saharan region, the benefits would apply only to countries deemed to be reducing their trade barriers, protecting patent and trademark rights, cutting taxes and reducing corruption.

Many of the nearly 50 countries in the sub-Saharan region, whose population exceeds 500 million, have begun moving toward reforms.

Participating countries would also have to follow international human rights policies. The president would have to certify eligibility for trade preferences each year.

Sponsors of the measure portrayed it as a way to stimulate economic development and investment in the region, which traditionally has been one of the world’s poorest. Most of the countries are former European colonies that won independence in the early 1960s.

Opponents, including the Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, contend that the bill would hurt U.S. workers by reducing the number of jobs held by low-skilled workers here.

They also argue that it would give countries such as China and Japan the opportunity to flood the United States with cheap goods by shipping their products to Africa and then reexporting them to U.S. ports as though they were manufactured in sub-Saharan countries.

Although the measure contains several provisions designed to prevent such end runs in textiles and apparel, critics say the safeguards are inadequate. They also want to require participating countries to follow stricter labor and environmental standards.

Wednesday’s debate was dominated by black lawmakers, who were split over the measure. Some have been pushing for increasing benefits to the area for several years, while others warned that the bill would hurt African American workers in low-wage jobs in the textile industry and elsewhere.

Proponents cited a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission concluding that the potential job impact in the U.S. from freer trade with Africa, which now accounts for less than 1% of American textile and apparel imports, would be minimal.

Southern California is home to the nation’s largest apparel and textile manufacturing industry, employing more than 150,000 workers, according to economists.

Times staff writer Don Lee in Orange County contributed to this report.