Text: PNTR Debate Sharpens in House of Representatives
(Republican, Democrats split on upcoming China vote)Representative David Drier (Republican of California), the chairman of the House Rules Committee, urged fellow lawmakers to support legislation granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status in a speech in the House of Representatives May 11.
But two key Democratic lawmakers were rejecting his arguments for permanent NTR status for China.
And at the end of the day, another Democrat came out against granting China permanent NTR status.
"I hope that every single one of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, will join with the Republican leadership here and President Clinton in bringing about a positive vote on this," Drier said.
Representative David Bonior (Democrat of Michigan) cited a report on sweatshops in China which "shows" that American companies, that are lobbying "all over Capitol Hill" for permanent NTR for China, "consistently deny human and worker rights."
The World Trade Organization, added Bonior, the second highest-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, excludes labor rights from consideration and "so does the bilateral deal reached with China last year. It does nothing to ensure that Chinese workers will be free from this exploitation by American companies."
Representative Sherrod Brown (Democrat of Ohio) also criticized American businesses that see passage of permanent NTR status for China only in economic terms.
"Decisions about the Chinese economy are made by three groups," Brown said, "the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, which controls a significant number of the business that export to the United States, and, third, Western investors.
"Do any of these three want to empower workers?" he asked.
"Does the Chinese Communist Party want the Chinese people to enjoy human rights? No," Brown said.
"Does the People's Liberation Army want to close the labor camps? I do not think so," he added.
"Do Western investors want Chinese workers to bargain collectively? Obviously no," Brown asserted.
After a day that saw numerous press conferences, along with the speeches in the House on the issue, Representative Robert Clement (Democrat of Tennessee) issued a press release saying he would vote "no" to granting China permanent NTR status.
"I am not convinced that the best interests of this nation and of the people of my state are well served by rewarding China with unconditional permanent normal trade relations," Clement said.
"Clearly, China does not meet reasonable standards for human rights, religious freedom, or worker protection. China's record of compliance with existing trade agreements with the United States leaves much to be desired," said Clement, an author of the International Religious Freedom Act.
Following are excerpts of the House speeches from the Congressional Record and the text of Representative Clement's press release:
(begin text)
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 11, 2000)Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out to talk about a very important issue that we are going to be addressing later this month here in the Congress, but I of course would join in extending happy Mother's Day to all of the mothers all over this country and all around the world, for that matter.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that I am talking about is an issue that, according to several of my colleagues, will be the single most important vote that we will cast in our entire careers here in the Congress. The question has to do with whether or not we are going to pry open a market with 1.3 billion consumers in the People's Republic of China and force this very repressive society to live with a rules-based trading system, or are we going to say that the United States of America will have nothing whatsoever to do with that sort of effort.
It seems to me that it is the most important vote that we will cast possibly in this session of Congress at least, because it really says are we going to maintain our role as the paramount global leader, and are we going to maintain our economic prosperity, or are we going to turn our backs on it and cede that to other countries in the world.
Well, I think that we have a responsibility not only to the United States of America, but to the rest of the world. Why? Because the United States of America is the greatest symbol of political pluralism. This building in which I am standing right now is the symbol throughout the world of freedom and democracy. It says to me that we have a responsibility to continue to provide the inspiration and the promotion of those things. And that is a message which I am happy to say is moving widely throughout repressive societies like the People's Republic of China. It is a message which can be sent with even greater enthusiasm if we bring the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization and, as I said, force them to live with a rules-based trading system.
There are many people here who regularly talk about the fact that over the last 20 years we have provided one-way access for China to the U.S. consumer market and they have said why do we not get into their market so that our first class workers and businesses can export goods and services to those 1.3 billion consumers? Well, in the week of May 22, we will have an opportunity right here to cast a vote in favor of opening up that market so that it can benefit our workers and businesses.
But there is an issue which in many way transcends this, and is one that is of great concern to me and I know to many of my colleagues here. That has to do with the question of our western values; the things that we hold here near and dear; the recognition of human rights; as I mentioned earlier, political pluralism, making sure that we have religious freedom. Those things need to expand throughout China.
But guess what, Mr. Speaker. Since we have seen the opening of China, since what was known as the Shanghai Communique in 1972 when Richard Nixon opened China, we have seen improvements take place. There is a great deal of room for improvement. I do not stand here as an apologist for the policies that exist in Beijing, but we do have to recognize that there have been very positive steps taken that move us closer to the kind of China that the world needs.
As was pointed out by President Ford in the event that was held at the White House earlier this week, maintaining stability in Asia is in our U.S. national interest, and this is a very important issue which will play a role in helping to maintain stability there.
I think it is important for us, Mr. Speaker, to take a few moments to look at some of the statements that have been made by outspoken dissidents in China. In this morning's Washington Post, there was an article which talked about three dissidents who actually believe that granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China will do more than almost anything to address the very important concerns of human rights and religious freedom and those other concerns that are out there.
Tong Bao, who is one of the most prominent dissidents, actually lays out a really key distinction that needs to be made here. He talks about the division. He said that there are some in China who believe that things must `get as bad as possible.'
Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is wrong. I do not think that we should have things get as bad as possible, and neither does Tong Bao. He happens to believe that it is important for us to do everything that we can to improve that situation there, and in so doing, I believe that we will create an opportunity to get our western values through Permanent Normal Trade Relations.
So I will simply close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I believe that we have a wonderful chance for success. I hope that every single one of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, will join with the Republican leadership here and President Clinton in bringing about a positive vote on this.
END THE EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS BEFORE CONSIDERING PERMANENT MFN (House of Representatives -- May 11, 2000)
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let me just start by commending the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for all their leadership and work on the pay equity issue. It is a very important issue, not only for women, but for families in this country, and I applaud their leadership.
Having said that, I want to tell my colleagues about another person who works. She is a 16-year-old girl. I want my colleagues to meet her. She is not a criminal. She spends her days locked up behind a 15-foot wall topped with barbed wire.
At the end of the day, she must leave in a single file from her work site like a prisoner. During the day, she assembled sneakers, applying toxic glue with her bare hands. She is not in school to make her life better. Despite all the evidence, my colleagues can see her, she is not in prison.
She works in a shoe factory in China that ships its sneakers to our department stores and our malls. She toils for $70 a month. She could work for a month and barely afford to buy one pair of the shoes that she makes. She works with 1,800 other young women. Ninety percent of them are between the ages of 16 and 25. By the age of 25, most of them are exhausted. In some factories, they are forced to retire.
This scene is played out over and over again throughout China's thousands of American-owned factories. Handbags made for the American market are stitched together by thousands of workers under conditions of indentured servitude, with only 1 day off a month. They work 30 days out of 31 days.
The workers earn an average, listen to this, 3 cents an hour. They are fed two dismal meals a day and are housed in a dormitory, 16 people to one very small room, crammed into this room.
When the workers protested for being forced to work from 7:30 in the morning to 11 p.m. in the evening, 7 days a week for literally pennies, pennies an hour, when they protested, 800 workers were fired.
Now, this is what American companies are doing in China. Instead of trying to create a consumer market for American goods in China, these companies are looking for cheap labor by exploiting Chinese workers.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, we want to expand market for American goods in China, but that is not what this trade deal is all about, and that is not what these companies are doing. These companies are moving jobs to China, exploiting Chinese workers, and shipping these products back here into the United States of America.
China is an export platform. American companies operating in China have an obligation to abide by internationally-recognized standards on wages and working conditions and the right to organize, so they can have a say that they do not have to work 14 hours a day, 16 hours a day for 3 cents an hour, 30 out of 31 days a month.
Regrettably, a new report was issued by Charlie Canahan on sweat shops in China. This new report shows that these companies, who are also lobbying, they are here all over Capitol Hill, lobbying for permanent MFN for China, they consistently deny human and worker rights.
But the WTO excludes labor rights from consideration and so does the bilateral deal reached with China last year. It does nothing to ensure that Chinese workers will be free from this exploitation by American companies, much less than the oppressive regime in Beijing.
If this Congress, Mr. Speaker, passes permanent MFN for China without giving workers the same protection that the WTO calls for software, compact discs, tapes, we will lose our leverage to do anything at all.
We should insist that China and American companies in China abide by internationally recognized worker rights before we even consider permanent MFN for China.
In conclusion, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that if one raises one's voice for worker rights, for human rights, for religious liberties in China, one will end up in prison, where are thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of people are languishing in gulags today because they dare to try to create an atmosphere where they can worship their God, where they can have a decent working condition with decent wages for themselves and their families, and where they can politically participate in a government to change the way of life that is so oppressive for them and their families.
PASSING PNTR WILL ONLY CONFIRM THAT CHINA'S BEHAVIOR WILL CONTINUE AND WORSEN (House of Representatives -- May 11, 2000)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is built upon a common desire to promote democratic ideals throughout the world. But as we strive to encourage democracy in developing nations, something is sorely amiss in our China policy.
When the CEOs of multinational corporations lobby for increased trade with China, they talk about access to 1.2 billion Chinese consumers. What they do not say is that their real interest is 1.2 billion Chinese workers, workers whom they pay 10 cents, 20 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents an hour.
These CEOs will tell us that increasing trade with China will force China to improve, that engagement with China will bring democracy to that Communist dictatorship. But as we engage with developing countries in trade and investment, democratic counties in the developing world are losing ground to more authoritarian countries. Democratic nations such as India are losing out to more totalitarian governments such as China where the people are not free and the workers do as they are told.
In the post-Cold War decade, the share of developing country exports to the U.S. for democratic nations fell from 53 percent in 1989 to 34 percent in 1998. Corporate America wants to do business with countries with docile work forces that earn below poverty wages and are not allowed to organize to bargain collectively.
In manufacturing goods, developing democracies' share of developing country exports fell 21 percent, from 56 percent to 35 percent. Corporations are relocating their manufacturing to more authoritarian regimes where the workers do not talk back for fear of being punished.
Western corporations want to invest in countries that have below poverty wages, that have nonexistent environmental standards, that have no worker safety standards, that have no opportunities to bargain collectively. As developing nations make progress toward democracy, as they increase worker rights, as they create regulation to protect the environment, American business punishes them by pulling its trade and pulling its investment in favor of other totalitarian governments.
Decisions about the Chinese economy are made by three groups: the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, which controls a significant number of the business that export to the United States, and, third, Western investors. Do any of these three want to empower workers? Does the Chinese Communist Party want the Chinese people to enjoy human rights? No. Does the People's Liberation Army want to close the labor camps? I do not think so. Do Western investors want Chinese workers to bargain collectively? Obviously no. None of these groups, I repeat, none of these groups, the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, and Western investors, none of these groups have any interest in changing the current situation in China. All three profit too much from the status quo to want to see human rights and labor rights improve in China.
The People's Republic of China ignores the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights. The People's Republic of China ignores the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. They ignore the State Department's country reports, and the People's Republic of China has broken almost every agreement they have made with the United States. Why would the Chinese government pay any attention to the congressional task force? Passing PNTR, passing permanent Most Favored Nation status trading privileges for China, will only confirm that China's behavior will continue and worsen.
CONGRESSMAN CLEMENT TO VOTE "NO" ON PERMANENT TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA NATIONAL SECURITY, HUMAN, RELIGIOUS AND WORKER RIGHTS CITED
May 11, 2000
Washington -- Tennessee's Fifth District Congressman Bob Clement announced today that he will vote "no" on legislation to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. His decision came after months of study and discussions about the issue.
"Make no mistake -- I understand the value of international trade, and I am a believer in developing trade opportunities to enhance our economic future," Clement said. "In the final analysis, however, I am not convinced that the best interests of this nation and of the people of my state are well served by rewarding China with unconditional permanent normal trade relations.
"Clearly, China does not meet reasonable standards for human rights, religious freedom, or worker protection. China's record of compliance with existing trade agreements with the United States leaves much to be desired. And the volatile situation involving China and Taiwan raises serious concerns about our own national security interests.
"I believe a more prudent and responsible approach is to continue an annual review of China's trade status. In the past, I have supported granting normal trade relations to China on an annual basis. In this way, we have more and better opportunities to move that country toward a more democratic, free market system, while maintaining a trade relationship that certainly can be beneficial to the people of both nations.
"But granting permanent status to China is a significantly different issue. Such an action would remove China's incentive to make progress on those issues of particular concern to the United States."
Specifically, Clement cited five major reasons for deciding to oppose PNTR at this time:
National Security. The prospects for peace and prosperity in Asia depend heavily on China's role as a responsible member of the international community. Recently, however, China has taken an even more aggressive stance toward Taiwan - to the point of threatening military action. And we have reason to doubt Chinese commitments to help stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We should not reward a nation with PNTR when that same nation is steering a dangerous course that could threaten our national security interests.
Human Rights. As China progresses rapidly in terms of economic power, technological development and international affairs, its progress in human rights has been disappointingly slow. In terms of political freedom, democratic institutions and the guarantee of basic rights, China simply does not meet any reasonable standard.
Religious Freedom. The number of documented cases of religious persecution in China is alarming. China continues to harass, detain, beat and torture Catholics, Protestants, Tibetan Buddhists, and members of the spiritual movement Falun Gong. Clement was an author of the International Religious Freedom Act, the provisions of which have helped document China's unacceptable record on religious persecution.
Labor Concerns. The right for workers to organize and bargain collectively is not only discouraged in China, it is punished by imprisonment or worse. Forced labor camps continue to exist in China; and these camps provide no compensation for work under deplorable conditions. Without real labor standards and protections in place, PNTR could cripple our own apparel and textile industries, placing American jobs at risk and endangering American workers and their families.
China's Record of Noncompliance. To some degree, the Chinese government has avoided full compliance with many of the trade agreements it has made with the United States. While our trade deficit with China continues to grow, China has broken its agreements with us on opening markets, stopping the piracy of intellectual property, and ending the export of goods produced in the forced labor camps. The statements of China's negotiators on PNTR lead Clement to believe that we cannot count on full, good-faith compliance with this agreement, either.
Clement emphasized that his "no" vote will not mean an end to America's trade relationship with China. "The U.S. and China will continue to have a binding trade relationship under international law, governed by the 1979 trade agreement between our two countries and several subsequent bilateral deals.
"I look forward to the day when China fully joins the international community in a commitment to democratic values, human rights, and trade that is truly free and fair," Clement said. "Until that time, we have a duty to use whatever tools we have available to us to influence China to take that path. My vote against PNTR for China is one such tool, and I utilize it in good conscience and with a conviction that it will benefit both the Chinese and American people." (end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to The United States and China.Return to IIP Home Page.