[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON KLINK

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 16, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 434) to 
     authorize a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara 
     Africa:

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 434, and I am proud to say I 
was an original co-sponsor of a much better trade bill, H.R. 772, the 
``HOPE for Africa Act'' introduced by my colleague Jesse Jackson of 
Illinois.
  I supported H.R. 772, and opposed H.R. 434, for reasons centering on 
concerns for labor, the environment, womens' rights, and the HIV/AIDS 
problem faced worldwide.
  First, in labor terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because it is bad for both 
American and African workers. Over the past twelve months, 118,000 jobs 
in the textile and apparel industry have been lost in the United 
States--more jobs than in any other industry. The reason is competition 
with low-wage imports, manufactured in nations where worker 
compensation and working conditions are deplorable. As a result, U.S. 
textile workers are losing their jobs, and African workers work in 
sweat-shop style conditions.
  On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, would have required 
that labor rights be adhered to in the workplace, while the H.R. 434 
has no binding language to protect worker rights. The Teamsters, 
International Longshoremen and Warehousemen, AFSCME, Paper Allied-
Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE), Transport Workers of 
America, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees 
(UNITE) and the United Auto Workers all opposed H.R. 434.
  Second, in environmental terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because the bill 
text does not even mention the environment. The bill contains no 
environmental safeguards in its core text--which is a startling 
oversight. This encourages U.S. firms to move to sub-Saharan Africa in 
order to evade the standards they must meet here at home.
  On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, provided a new model 
for trade by combining expanded trade, open to all sub-Saharan 
countries, with the requirement that multinational corporations 
operating in these countries comply to the same environmental standards 
that apply here in the United States.
  For these reasons, H.R. 434 was opposed by--and H.R. 772 was 
supported by--the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the 
Earth, American Lands Alliance, Earth Island Action, International 
Rivers Network, Native Forest Council, International Law Center for 
Human, Economic and Environmental Defense, and the International 
Primate Protection League.
  Third, in women's rights terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because it simply 
called on the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to give 
special consideration to women entrepreneurs and to investments that 
help women and the poor.
  On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, targeted investment 
financing for small businesses and women-owned and minority-owned 
businesses, including provisions for human rights, labor rights and 
environmental protections.
  Fourth, in HIV/AIDS terms, I opposed H.R. 434 because it completely 
ignored the AIDS crisis. The bill failed to mention the word ``AIDS'' 
nor did it specify any funding to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. 
However, since the beginning of the AIDS crisis, 83% of AIDS deaths 
have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.
  On the other hand, H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, targeted direct 
assistance from the Development Fund for Africa for AIDS education and 
treatment programs. For these reasons, many HIV/AIDS community groups 
opposed H.R. but supported H.R. 772--ranging from the Human Rights 
Campaign Fund to Project Planet Africa.
  In closing, I want to turn for a moment to general trade policy. I 
read a disturbing quote from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and 
Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) given on March 3, 1999: ``Setting up 
assembly plants with Chinese equipment, technology and personnel could 
not only greatly increase sales in African countries but also 
circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin imposed 
by European and American countries.''
  H.R. 434, had very weak transshipment provisions, with no safeguard 
against China using sub-Saharan Africa as a transshipment point for 
Asian manufacturers of textile and apparel products. On the other hand, 
H.R. 772, the Jackson bill, contained strict, enforceable rules 
guarding against transshipment from China and other locales. For these 
reasons, the National Cotton Council and the American Textile 
Manufacturers Institute opposed H.R. 434.
  By passing H.R. 434, which I voted against, nothing was accomplished 
to give relief, and to save the jobs of, American and African textile 
workers; to protect the environment; to


help African women; to give aid to victims of HIV/AIDS; nor to deny 
China the right to circumvent the trade laws which impose quotas on 
Chinese goods.
  This is a sad day for American trade relations with sub-Saharan 
Africa.

                          ____________________