[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 154 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13923-S13924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on a modest 
package of trade bills which included the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. As a 
long time supporter of expanding trade opportunities for Vermonters and 
all Americans, as well as people in developing countries, I reluctantly 
cast my vote against this bill.
  Exports are a key component of Vermont's economy. As a small state, 
we must promote our products beyond the Green Mountains. Vermonters are 
reaping the benefits of more open markets around the world and these 
markets are creating new jobs here at home. Not long ago, I led a 
Vermont trade delegation to Ireland which has one of the fastest 
growing economies in Europe.
  Having said that, trade is about more than financial statistics. It 
is about more than increasing market opportunities for American 
products, as important and laudable a goal as that is. In our 
increasingly inter-connected world, trade involves a broad range of 
issues and concerns. As the wealthiest nation, we also have a 
responsibility to do what we can to ensure that the benefits of the 
global economy are enjoyed by people from every walk of life, here and 
abroad. And when we vote, we have a responsibility to ensure that 
legislation entitled the ``African Growth and Opportunity Act'', 
actually benefits African workers and protects their families' health 
and welfare, and the natural environment. The bill that was passed 
yesterday will not do that.
  I have felt for some time that our relationship with Africa needs to 
change. It cannot continue to be based almost exclusively on aid, when 
the real engine of development, as we have seen

[[Page S13924]]

elsewhere in the world, is investment and trade. However, in developing 
a trade policy toward Africa--where poverty is deeply rooted and 
protections for the environment and the rights of workers are virtually 
non-existent--precautions must be taken to ensure that it is a sound 
policy that responds to Africa's unique and urgent needs.
  It used to be that workers' rights and environmental concerns were 
treated separately from trade considerations, or not at all. 
Fortunately, that has begun to change. One of the reasons I voted for 
NAFTA was because it contained side agreements on labor and 
environmental issues.
  However, while those agreements were a step forward, time has shown 
that they did not go far enough. Unfortunately, even the modest labor 
and environmental agreements that we fought hard to include in NAFTA 
were not included in the African Growth and Opportunity Act and 
virtually every amendment to add similar provisions was defeated. Such 
a step backward makes absolutely no sense.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act's provision on workers' 
rights, which has been included in other trade legislation, has 
routinely allowed countries notorious for abuses to escape without 
penalty. Unions have rightly criticized this provision for being vague 
and unenforceable. It is an invitation for exploitation of cheap 
African labor.

  The African Growth and Opportunity Act does not include a single 
provision related to environmental concerns. Multinational 
corporations, especially mining and timber companies, have a long 
history of taking advantage of Africa's weak environmental laws and 
contributing to pollution, deforestation and the uprooting of people. 
If barriers to foreign investment are lowered or eliminated--as the Act 
calls for--and meaningful, enforceable environmental protections are 
not put in place, these problems will only get worse.
  Like the NAFTA debate, however, the rhetoric on both sides of this 
issue was overblown. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is not, as 
some of its supporters claimed, an historic step toward integrating 
Africa into the global economy. At best, this Act will have a modest 
impact. It simply offers limited market access to African countries 
under the Generalized System of Preferences and establishes a U.S.-
African trade and economic forum.
  On the other hand, the African Growth and Opportunity Act will not, 
as some of its opponents claimed, force African countries to cut 
spending on education and health care, and to adhere to stringent 
International Monetary Fund conditions. It rewards African countries 
that are taking steps toward economic and political reforms, as most 
African countries are already doing, but it does not force them to do 
anything.
  In all my time in the Senate, this is the first attempt that has been 
made to redefine our relationship with Africa from one of dependency to 
one which begins to promotes economic growth and self-reliance. This is 
long overdue, and the opportunity to address these issues is not likely 
to come again soon. I had hoped that when the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act reached the floor it would have provided for expanded 
export opportunities for both Africans and Americans while protecting 
African workers and the environment.
  Many of my concerns about the African Growth and Opportunity Act, 
also hold true for the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. I fully 
support efforts to expand U.S. trade with Caribbean Basin countries and 
to provide these countries with trade benefits that will help them 
compete in the global economy. However, again, it is vitally important 
that the trade benefits included in this Act actually benefit those who 
often need them the most--workers and their families. Virtually every 
amendment that would have required Caribbean companies to institute 
fair and enforceable labor standards before they could be eligible for 
trade benefits under the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act was 
defeated, and crucial protections were therefore not included.
  Mr. President, it is disappointing that given the opportunity to 
simultaneously redefine our relationship with Africa, re-examine our 
trade policy toward the Caribbean Basin and expand international 
economic opportunities for Americans, that the approach and the outcome 
was so flawed.

                          ____________________