[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1971-S1972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I draw the attention of the Senate to 
a timely Opinion-Editorial, written by former Ambassador Leonard 
Woodcock, that appeared in the March 9, 2000 Los Angeles Times. Long a 
champion of workers' welfare and workers' rights, Ambassador Woodcock 
was also the first United States Ambassador's to the People's Republic 
of China.
  Ambassador Woodcock lays out, in a clear and well-reasoned manner, 
powerful arguments showing how the United States will benefit from 
establishing permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, and 
why it is in our interest to see China in the World Trade Organization 
(WTO). Equally important, the author forces those who profess a concern 
for Chinese workers' rights to take a realistic look at how our 
decision concerning China PNTR will help or harm workers in China.
  I comment Ambassador Woodcock's thought-provoking commentary to all 
my colleagues in the Congress and, even more, to all persons interested 
in understanding the basics of the U.S.-China PNTR debate. I ask 
unanimous consent that Ambassador Woodcock's Opinion-Editorial be 
printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Evolution Doesn't Occur Overnight

     WTO agreement: Organized labor should support it. It's in 
         both U.S. and Chinese interests.

                         (By Leonard Woodcock)

       The recent U.S.-China World Trade Organization bilateral 
     accession agreement appears to be good for workers in both 
     countries. I was privileged, as U.S. ambassador to China, to 
     sign the 1979 trade agreement that provided for most-favored-
     nation trade status to China and have, as a private citizen, 
     been involved with this issue for many years.
       American labor has a tremendous interest in China's trading 
     on fair terms with the U.S. The agreement we signed with 
     China this past November marks the largest single step ever 
     taken toward achieving that goal. The agreement expands 
     American jobs. And while China already enjoys WTO-based 
     access to our economy, this agreement will open China's 
     economy to unprecedented levels of American exports, many of 
     which are high-quality goods produced by high-paying jobs.
       There is reason to fear unfair trade practices. Yet this 
     agreement actually provides better protections than our 
     existing laws allow. It stipulates 12 years of protections 
     against market surges and provides unusually strong anti-
     dumping laws--which aim to counter unfairly priced imports--
     for 15 years.
       I have, therefore, been startled by organized labor's 
     vociferous negative reaction to this agreement. The reality 
     is that the U.S. as a whole benefits mightily from this 
     historic accord. The AFL-CIO argues that nothing in this 
     agreement demands that free trade unions be formed in China. 
     Yet the WTO does not require this of any of its 136 member 
     countries, and the WTO is the wrong instrument to use to 
     achieve unionization.
       We should, instead, be asking a more important question. 
     Are Chinese workers better off with or without this 
     agreement? The answer is that this agreement, in a variety of 
     ways, will be enormously beneficial to Chinese workers.
       On a subtle level, the changes the agreement requires of 
     China's economic system will work in favor of investment by 
     Western firms and take away some of the key advantages Asian 
     firms now enjoy in China. Every survey has demonstrated that 
     working conditions and environmental standards in plants 
     run by West European and North American firms are usually 
     better than those in Asian and in indigenous Chinese 
     firms.
       The greater foreign presence also will expose Chinese 
     workers to more ideas about organization and rights. That is 
     perhaps one reason why almost every Chinese political 
     dissident who has spoken on this issue has called the United 
     States-China WTO agreement good news for freedom in China.
       The trade deficit with China is a troublesome one to the 
     labor movement. We need to put it in perspective in two ways. 
     First, if we were to block access of goods from China to the 
     United States, this would not increase American jobs. That is 
     because the Chinese exports--mostly toys, tools, apparel, 
     cheap electronics, etc.--would be produced in other low-wage 
     countries, not in the United States. Yet if China stopped 
     buying from us, we would lose about 400,000 jobs, mostly 
     high-wage.
       Second, a large portion of exports from ``China'' are goods 
     produced in the main in Hong Kong. Taiwan and Southeast Asia. 
     The major components are then shipped to China for final 
     assembly and packaging, but the entire cost of the item 
     (often only 15% of which was contributed in China) is 
     attributed to China's export ledger. Exports to the United 
     States from Hong Kong and Taiwan have declined over the past 
     decade almost as fast as imports from China have increased. 
     Yet the companies making the profits are in Hong Kong and 
     Taiwan, and they will simply shift their operations to 
     Vietnam or elsewhere if we close down exports from China.
       Americans are broadly concerned about the rights and 
     quality of life of Chinese citizens. My perspective on this 
     serious issue is influenced by my experience in the U.S. In 
     my lifetime, women were not allowed the vote, and labor was 
     not allowed to organize. And, in my lifetime, although the 
     law did

[[Page S1972]]

     not permit lynching, it was protected and carried out by 
     legal officeholders. As time passed, we made progress, and I 
     doubt if lectures or threats from foreigners would have moved 
     things faster.
       Democracy, including rights for workers, is an evolutionary 
     process. Isolation and containment will not promote improved 
     rights for a people. Rather, working together and from within 
     a society will, over time, promote improved conditions. The 
     United States-China WTO agreement will speed up the 
     evolutionary process in China. American labor should support 
     it because it is in our interest, and it is the interests of 
     Chinese workers too.

                          ____________________