[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.
____________________