[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      EXPLOITATION OF CHINESE LABOR STANDARDS BY U.S. CORPORATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, as we debate whether or not to renew MFN 
status for China, we must remember that the debate is not simply over 
whether China has committed human rights abuses. It has been well-
documented by international human rights groups, such as Asia Watch, 
that China has and continues to abuse the basic rights of its own 
people. As reported by the Washington Post, New York Times, all the 
networks--China continues to export products made by prison labor; 
China continues to routinely round up and jail political dissidents; 
China continues to persecute Christians and other people who believe in 
something more than the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Government 
does not even bother to deny its actions. In reality, there is very 
little to debate in terms of the Chinese Government's human rights 
policy.
  No, the debate over renewal of China MFN status should be seen in the 
wider context of our economic and trade relationship with China; and 
further how that trade relationship affects the progress toward 
democracy-building and respect for individual citizens in both China 
and here in this country. The debate should be over whether America 
wants to be an active supporter, by renewing MFN status, of labor 
abuses in China and the continued loss of jobs in the United States. 
The debate should be over who actually is benefitting from the renewal 
of China MFN status--what U.S. corporations have a stake in China. And 
the debate should be over which democratic values this nation is 
willing to champion on the international scene. Because I ask you: Is 
the average Chinese worker benefitting from China's MFN status? As 
reported in the Wall Street Journal, Chinese workers earn a ``living 
wage'' of a few dollars a day, toil 15 hours a day, get few holidays, 
have overtime forced upon them, live in ``dank dormitories'' and are 
made to eat food not fit for human beings. One Chinese worker was 
quoted as saying, ``Two people died from the food! And if you complain, 
they fire you! The worker is the lowest person in China!''
  The Chinese worker does not seem to benefit from extending China MFN 
status. In fact, during this latest phase of Chinese economic growth, 
China's Labor Ministry recorded more than 8,000 strikes in China. The 
Chinese worker would seem to be more angry than content with the 
working conditions in China.
  Does the average American worker fare any better with China MFN? The 
Administration and the U.S. corporations who support renewal of China 
MFN constantly state that exports create American jobs. That China is a 
$9 billion dollar market for U.S. exports. What they do not say is that 
the U.S. actually runs a $23 billion dollar trade deficit with China. 
$23 billion dollars worth of lost jobs. A trade deficit that has 
increased by 335 percent over the last 10 years. The vast majority of 
American workers certainly do not benefit from trade with China.
  So then, if the average Chinese and American worker does not 
benefit from China MFN status, who does?

  Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the true beneficiaries of China MFN 
status are those same U.S. corporations who are fighting tooth and nail 
for the renewal of China MFN status today.
  Let's just take one example of a U.S. corporation which has profited 
immensely from China MFN. A brand name that seems to all of us as the 
essence of American business and culture: Nike. As reported in the 
Washington Post on May 23, nearly 30 percent of Nike's shoes are 
produced in China. Not a single Nike shoe is made in the United States. 
Nearly one out of every three pairs of Nike sports shoes is cut, 
stitched and glued together in factories in China, the single largest 
foreign source country, out of many source countries for Nike, in Asia.
  Nike, a supposedly ``American'' company, employs roughly 300 
administrative personnel in Seattle, Washington. But Nike employs 
thousands of Chinese workers in provinces such as Guangdong, China. 
While Nike would be required to pay a decent wage to an American 
worker, Nike gets by with paying only $10 a week to its workers in 
China. This ``American'' company then imports the tennis shoes to the 
United States at the lowest possible tariff rates under China's current 
MFN status.
  Nike's production costs average approximately $8 per pair of shoes 
made in China. The last time I checked at my local Foot Locker outlet, 
a pair of Charles Barkley basketball shoes--a Nike brand--sold for 
$135.99, not including tax. So you can see who makes the money.
  It is clear who stands to benefit from the renewal of China MFN 
status. It is not the Chinese worker who earns $0.25 cents an hour in 
the apparel industry in China. It is not the American footwear worker 
in Maine who has lost his or her job only because they would be paid a 
decent, living wage in our country. It is those ``American'' companies, 
like Nike, who profit immensely from low tariffs under China MFN 
status. These are the same ``American'' companies which have increased 
their investments in China by over 1,000 percent since 1990. About $5.5 
billion of investments taken out of the United States and placed in 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, while China's human rights policy is a great cause for 
concern, the debate over whether or not to link human rights and trade 
is simply not reflective of the larger debate which needs to be waged 
in the United States. The link to be pointed out between both the 
United States and China is the abuse of people for the profit of a few 
U.S. corporations and foreign governments such as the Chinese Communist 
Party. The debate should be about building democracy as essential to 
free trade. At the very least, what should be debated is NOT how trade 
agreements will benefit a few U.S. corporations but rather how trade 
can improve the lives of the many individual workers that trade affects 
and nations in which they live.

                              {time}  2210

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Payne of Virginia). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the vote on health 
care reform which took place in the Labor-Management Relations 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor on May 25, 1994:

  Committee on Education and Labor--Subcommittee on Labor Management 
                               Relations


                   Health Care Mark-up, May 25, 1994

       The following recorded vote was taken on May 25, 1994 in 
     the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor during consideration of 
     Chairman Williams' substitute proposal for H.R. 3600, the 
     Health Security Act of 1994:
       1. A motion by Mr. Kildee to favorably report H.R. 3600 as 
     amended by the Williams Substitute (as amended in 
     Subcommittee). The motion was agreed to 17-10


                               Democrats

       Mr. Williams, Yea; Mr. Ford (ex officio), Yea; Mr. Clay, 
     Yea; Mr. Kildee, Yea; Mr. Miller (CA), Yea by proxy; Mr. 
     Owens, Yea; Mr. Martinez, Yea; Mr. Payne, Yea; Mrs. Unsoeld, 
     Yea; Mrs. Mink, Yea; Mr. Klink, Yea; Mr. Murphy, Yea; Mr. 
     Engel, Yea; Mr. Becerra, Yea by proxy; Mr. Green, Yea; Mrs. 
     Woolsey, Yea; Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Yea;


                              Republicans

       Mrs. Roukema, Nay; Mr. Goodling (ex officio), Nay; Mr. 
     Gunderson, Nay; Mr. Armey, Nay by proxy; Mr. Barrett, Nay by 
     proxy; Mr. Boehner, Nay by proxy; Mr. Fawell, Nay; Mr. 
     Ballenger, Nay; Mr. Hoekstra, Nay; Mr. McKeon, Nay by proxy.

                          ____________________