Trade Development Act of 1999
This is an excerpt from the paper...
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 ôAfrican Growth and ôOpportunity 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 ôAfrican Growth and Opportunity Act), had been approved by the Finance Committee as an amended package of trade bills. The SenateÆs 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 American politics into the fray as the whole of the American government struggled to assess AfricaÆs economic path in the modern global context (Dagne, 2000). Positioned at the heart of the debate are the United States and Africa, the former seeking to cultivate a mutually prosperous relationship with the latter, and the latter wary of the true intentions behind and possible repercussions of the legislation being considered by the former. Opponents to the African Growth and Opportunity Act have emerged, voicing concerns on both halves of the planet. Those on the North American side of the debate have posited that such a bill will open
. . .
f enhanced benefits under the re-authorized Generalized System of Preferences program (USSRP, 1999). Regarding textile and apparel importation, however, the House and the Senate departed from one another. The House version of the African Growth and Opportunity Act would have allowed the President to grant duty free treatment to textiles and apparel from eligible countries so long as those products were not determined to be import sensitive. The SenateÆs version of the bill would provide duty free and quota free treatment to beneficiary countries if their apparel products were being assembled from fabric made in the United States by United States yarn (Dagne, 2000).
Obviously, Majority Leader Lott had taken the objections of U.S. apparel and textile manufacturers to heart. These had predicted that transshipment from non-African countries would most definitely occur if textile and apparel imports from Sub-Saharan Africa were given duty free treatment; such a phenomenon would, it was feared, give rise to customs fraud, as well as place competing American workers in jeopardy of being under-priced by their African counterparts (Dagne, 2000).
These objections were expressed emphatically in a floor statement issued by Senator Pa
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Opportunity Act, Sub-Saharan Africa, Senator WellstoneÆs, House Senate, System Preferences, Development Act, Clinton Administration, Growth Opportunity, Africa AfricaÆs, Finance Committee, growth opportunity, african growth, african growth opportunity, opportunity act, growth opportunity act, duty free, dagne 2000, trade development, hr 434, world wide web, web november, retrieved world wide, 20 2000, november 20, wide web november,
Approximate Word count = 2370
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Trade Development Act of 1999
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
