[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.
____________________