[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           IN OPPOSITION OF AFRICA GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 434, the 
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. The more accurate name would be the 
NAFTA for Africa Act.
  H.R. 434 does little to improve the lives of people in sub-Saharan 
Africa. In fact, there are no binding labor, environmental, human 
rights or other public interest provisions in this legislation but 
plenty of measures to ensure easy access to the region's human and 
material resources for U.S. corporations.
  I understand the frustration of Africa's supporters. We have seen our 
government side too often with the worst dictators in Africa, respond 
all too slowly to the evil of apartheid, and turn its back on the 
victims of genocide in Rwanda.
  More pertinent, we have seen Members of Congress who are the 
staunchest supporters of NAFTA for Africa vote again and again and 
again against increased aid for that continent.
  But a bad bill, Mr. Speaker, is worse than no bill. Last session, 
this Congress did the right thing in defeating fast track not once but 
twice, defeated the efforts of some to extend NAFTA to the rest of 
Latin America. Unfortunately, H.R. 434, NAFTA for Africa, would undo 
that victory. It completely ignores the all-important test that we 
established in our fight against fast track: No trade agreement unless 
labor and environmental problems are written into the core agreement. 
This bill puts us back where we started.
  The supporters of H.R. 434 claim the bill contains labor rights and 
standards because some of the bill's trade provisions are based on the 
Generalized System of Preferences, GSP. In fact, GSP labor rights 
provisions are hampered by weak enforcement mechanisms.
  Under GSP, the President merely has to certify that the affected 
country is ``taking steps'' towards the protection of labor rights. 
This vague language has allowed notorious labor rights abusers like 
Guatemala to be certified as eligible for benefits.
  Moreover, GSP labor rights cannot be enforced through private action, 
meaning that when a country is clearly not taking steps to protect 
worker rights but nonetheless is certified as doing so, no legal action 
can be taken by U.S. citizens to force presidential decertification. 
The only alternative is a time-consuming petition process which 
ultimately results in the rejection of the petition in every case with 
no right of appeal.
  Finally, GSP labor rights provisions impose no obligations on 
corporations, just on governments. Corporations that violate worker 
rights will continue, as they have, to enjoy market access benefits 
just as long as the country in which they are operating in has been 
certified as eligible for benefits.
  A recent amendment to H.R. 434 offered by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), placed labor rights on the list of 
criteria that African countries are supposed to meet in order to obtain 
benefits under this bill. While this amendment was a step in the right 
direction, it simply does not provide sufficient protection for 
workers.
  There is no labor enforcement mechanism. Instead, the well-being of 
African workers rests on the President's determination that the country 
is making progress toward respecting labor rights.
  The amendment that I offered in the Committee on International 
Relations markup attempted to correct this problem by adding strong 
enforcement language and giving U.S. citizens the right to challenge 
the President's country eligibility determination in U.S. district 
court. Unfortunately, because the backers of H.R. 434 opposed this 
amendment, it was ruled out of order by the chair.
  We need trade agreements that act as if people mattered. Considering 
the devastating effects that NAFTA has had on Mexico's small, 
independent manufacturing and retail enterprises and on its small 
agricultural producers and on the country as a whole, it seems less 
than generous to expand this regime to Africa. It is certainly not in 
the interest of the African people. It is certainly not in the interest 
of the American people.
  This Congress should not inflict a rejected and backward trade model 
on the continent of Africa. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, 
to support the Jackson trade bill for Africa which includes unambiguous 
and meaningful enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights and the 
well-being of African workers.

                          ____________________