16 May 2000
Transcript: Rep. Knollenberg Says Yes, Rep. Kaptur Says No to PNTR
(Rep. Evans also urges denial of China PNTR) (2550) As the time for the vote on whether to grant China permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status draws near, Republicans and Democrats debate the issue in the House of Representatives, and members of President Clinton's party continue to come out against granting China permanent NTR status. Representative Joseph Knollenberg (Republican of Michigan), one of the first lawmakers to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee in favor of granting China permanent NTR status earlier this year, picked up the debate May 15 in the House of Representatives. Permanent NTR status for China, he said, "represents the greatest opportunity that America has had to break down the walls of isolation in China and provide the Chinese people with the tools they need to pursue freedom and democracy." By increasing the exchange of goods, services, and ideas between the United States and China, Knollenberg said, "we will be taking strides to support reform for those who need our support the most." Arguing against that course of action, Representative Marcy Kaptur (Democrat of Ohio), the Democratic woman with the most seniority in Congress, told fellow lawmakers of the plight of American workers in Salina, Ohio, who had made Huffy bikes before that company contracted for production in the Peoples' Republic of China. "What they did to the workers in Salina, Ohio, to me, is repugnant," Kaptur said of Huffy, which has 80 percent of the U.S. bike market. Quoting a recent report by Charles Kernaghan of New York City called "Made in China," Kaptur said that in-depth investigations conducted by individuals in China "clearly demonstrate that Wal-Mart, Nike, Huffy and others and their contractors in China continue to systematically violate the most fundamental human and worker rights, while paying subsistence wages." "I think to have this kind of indentured servitude, for America to approve anything permanent with China, until we fix situations like this, really undermines the fundamental liberties and principles for which this Nation should stand domestically and internationally, Kaptur said. At the end of the day, yet another Democrat said he would vote "no" on whether to grant China permanent NTR status. Representative Lane Evans (Democrat of Illinois), a Marine Corps veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, made his declaration in an extension of remarks. Lane, the ranking Democratic member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said President Clinton was "on the wrong side" of the issue. "President Clinton has said that this is an essential national security issue. He is right -- but he is on the wrong side of the argument," Evans said. "There are just too many incidents where China has acted egregiously against American security interests," the Illinois Democrat continued. Lane challenged the arguments the Clinton Administration has advanced as reasons to approve granting China permanent NTR status. "This vote is one that will have repercussions for generations to come," Evans said. "We can take this opportunity to stand for military security, human and worker rights, the environment, and fair market access, or we can choose to give a `blank check' to China, allowing them to dictate a lower standard," he said. "I urge my colleagues to reject PNTR," Evans said. Following is a transcript from the Congressional Record: (begin transcript) PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO CHINA (House of Representatives -- May 15, 2000) Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, later this month, Members of this House will be casting their votes on one of the most important issues that Congress has faced in recent years. Of course, this is a vote to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China. As a result of decades of negotiations, China will soon become a member of the World Trade Organization. Congress now has the responsibility to extend PNTR to China in order for American workers and businesses to take advantage of this historic opportunity. For those Members, like myself, who have concerns about national security with China, human rights, Taiwan and other issues, we cannot afford to miss this opportunity. PNTR represents the greatest opportunity that America has had to break down the walls of isolation in China and provide the Chinese people with the tools they need to pursue freedom and democracy. By increasing the exchange of goods, services, and ideas between the United States and China, we will be taking strides to support reform for those who need our support the most. PERMANENT TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA (House of Representatives -- May 15, 2000) Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my colleagues and those who are listening this evening of the publication of an excellent new report called Made in China, released by Charles Kernaghan, of New York City. This report can be found at web site www.nlcnet.org. It talks about the role of U.S. companies in denying human and worker rights in China. The report begins, `For years, and now again with renewed vigor, U.S. companies have claimed that their mere presence in China would help open that society to American values.' And it talks about `Recent in-depth investigations,' conducted by individuals in China, at great risk to themselves, `of 16 factories in China producing car stereos, bikes, shoes, sneakers, clothing, TVs, hats and bags for some of the largest U.S. companies clearly demonstrate that Wal-Mart, Nike, Huffy and others and their contractors in China continue to systematically violate the most fundamental human and worker rights, while paying subsistence wages.' The report talks about Kathie Lee handbags being made for Wal-Mart at the Qin Shi factory where 1,000 workers were being held under conditions of indentured servitude in that Communist country forced to work 12-to-14-hour days 7 days a week with only one day off a month while earning an average of 3 cents an hour. However, after months of work, 46 percent of the workers surveyed have earned nothing at all. In fact, they owed money to the company. This report is absolutely amazing, and I would urge all my colleagues to take a look at the firms mentioned in this book. I also want to refer this evening to one in particular, Huffy Bicycles, which had been manufactured in my own State of Ohio, where 2,000 people lost their jobs, people who were earning $11 an hour, making a quality product. They were asked by their company to take a $2 an hour wage cut in Salina, Ohio, and they did, earning $9 an hour, because they wanted to keep their jobs. And I might say that Huffy has 80 percent of the U.S. bicycle market. Those jobs were moved to China. They were testing the waters in China. This is even before this proposal here to have permanent normal trade relations with China. Why should we approve of a system which does the following? Huffy uses a contractor in China, the Taiwanese Zhenzhen Nan Guan Corporation in Bicycle Factory Number 1. There is also a Bicycle Factory Number 2. They assemble these bikes from parts supplied from local materials, from local factories, or from the Fuda Corporation from Taiwan. The workers in this factory work from 8 in the morning until 9:30 or 11:30 at night. They work 7 days a week. They earn 25 cents to 41 cents per hour for a weekly wage of $16.68 for a 66-hour workweek. Think about that. And if they do not work the mandatory overtime, they are penalized double. They lose $6.02 of their weekly wage, or 2 full days of wage if they refuse to work the overtime. Not only that, but the quality of the bicycle has gone down. If we go to Kmart, if we go to these retail outlets and we buy a Huffy bike, it still costs $100, but look at the welds. The double welds that used to exist on the fenders, which our workers were very proud of their work in the State of Ohio, they know good metal and they know good quality workmanship, that does not exist any more. The quality of metals has gone down. And when we try to find if the bearings are good or we try to figure out before we buy it whether the bike is of quality, everything is sprayed with paint now. We really cannot tell the quality of the workmanship until we buy the bicycle. Huffy does not stand for quality any more. I will never get one of their campaign contributions, but what they did to the workers in Salina, Ohio, to me, is repugnant. And I think to have this kind of indentured servitude, for America to approve anything permanent with China, until we fix situations like this, really undermines the fundamental liberties and principles for which this Nation should stand domestically and internationally. And let me add a word as a graduate of the University of Michigan. Two weeks ago the University of Michigan Board of Trustees, along with Brown University and the University of Oregon, refused to sign contracts with Nike Corporation, which is also talked about in this excellent report. And they did that because all the university boards of trustees asked to do was that the sports departments not buy sports equipment from sweat shop labor in places like China. Those companies were so angry that they cut off $26 million to the University of Michigan's endowment as well as the University of Oregon and Brown University. Well, Mr. Speaker, my hat is off to those university boards. The presidents of those universities, including Gordon Gee of Brown University. They did the right thing for the world, the right thing for America. Their moral courage will stand on its own. VOTE NO ON PNTR -- HON. LANE EVANS (Extension of Remarks - May 15, 2000) HON. LANE EVANS in the House of Representatives MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000 Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I oppose granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. It is clearly the wrong step to take if we want meaningful change from China on a wide variety of issues that are important to all Americans. It must be noted that Chinese leaders have broken every previous trade agreement they have signed with the United States. What makes us believe that this time will be any different? During the last decade alone, China violated four major trade agreements: the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding on Prison Labor, the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding on Market Access, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement on Textiles, and the 1996 Bilateral Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights. Most recently, after signing the current bilateral in November, China turned its back on the agreement. Their Chief Negotiator stated, `it is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain.' These governments are not ventures in theory--these agreements should be unbreakable. Another argument for supporting PNTR is that US businesses will introduce the Chinese people to democracy and human rights. However, when we look at how Chinese workers are already being treated by corporations such as Wal-Mart, Timberland, Nike, Alpine and others, it becomes clear that is not the case. Wal-Mart and Nike's operations in China have become synonymous with child labor, forced labor and hazardous working conditions. These are not the values we want to bring to other countries. By granting PNTR, we give up any hope of influencing the PRC's policy on worker and human rights. We are inviting US companies to leave the US to produce goods in a country which does not support a minimum wage, basic safety regulations, or the right of association. Let's export our values--not our jobs. It is not only workers who are oppressed by China. Religious groups too often are denied basic human rights. Recent examples include prison sentencing of Falun Gong members without trials for undetermined sentences. The United States Catholic Conference expressed their opposition to PNTR by stating, `we have urged that the well-documented violations of the Chinese peoples' human rights, and notably their lack of true religious freedom be seriously addressed and reversed.' Religious freedom is one of the most important freedoms guaranteed to US citizens. Let us not reward a country who so blatantly disregards this right. The agreement also omits any statement on environmental protections. Having just celebrated the 30th anniversary of Earth Day in the United States, we should continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of a healthy international ecosystem. We would send a message that protecting the world's natural resources and pollution control are not important if we agree to PNTR. According to the Sierra Club, `nothing was done in the WTO/PNTR package to mitigate the increased risks to endangered wildlife.' They also note the State Department's 1999 Report of China's Human Rights Practices, `the China Development Union (which works for environmental and political reforms) virtually was shut down by arrests of its members during the year.' This agreement is not just an affront against the environment, but also against the Chinese who press the government to protect their natural resources. Some members of the agricultural community are looking favorably on this agreement. However, it should be noted that China already has had overall agricultural surpluses and is still producing a glut of agricultural goods. China has already backtracked on tariff and market-access portions of the bilateral. The PRC will not allow American farmers to participate in a competitive marketplace. Charles McMillion, a founder of the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, wrote, `China's agricultural glut is likely to continue with WTO membership.' Even the National Farmers Union, opposes giving this permanent status: `We must not unilaterally disarm our Nation's ability to respond if China fails to comply with commitments contained in this agreement.' Make no mistake, international markets are critical to our farmers. However, we must not engage in agreements with countries who frequently renege on past agreements and who do not believe in the type of fair trade that will benefit American agriculture. President Clinton has said that this is an essential national security issue. He is right -- but he is on the wrong side of the argument. There are just too many incidents where China has acted egregiously against American security interests. In recent years, China fired several live missiles in the Taiwan Straight. At the same time, the PRC has supplied other rogue nations with weapons that could be used against U.S. soldiers abroad. Already, five major military organizations -- the American Legion, the Fleet Reserve Officers Association, the National Reserve Association, the Warrant Officers Associations, and the Reserve Officers Association--have publicly agreed that it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant PNTR. This vote is one that will have repercussions for generations to come. We can take this opportunity to stand for military security, human and worker rights, the environment, and fair market access, or we can choose to give a `blank check' to China, allowing them to dictate a lower standard. I urge my colleagues to reject PNTR. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
