[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7789-S7791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE DEBATE ON CHINA

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if it is OK with Senator Brownback, I 
want to briefly respond to my colleague from Montana. I will do it 
under 10 minutes, to anticipate the debate we are going to have on 
China.
  I think some of this debate has already become confused. My father 
was born in Odessa, Ukraine, then moved to Russia in the Far East 
Siberia. His father was a hatter trying to stay ahead of the czarist 
troops--Jewish. He then moved to Harbin, then to Peking, then came over 
to the United States of America when he was 17, in 1914, 3 years before 
the revolution. He then was going to go back, because first it was the 
Social Democrats but then the Bolsheviks, the Communists, took over, 
and his family told him not to come back. I believe his father lost all 
of his family to Stalin. I think they

[[Page S7790]]

were all murdered, because all the letters stopped.
  My father is no longer alive. He spoke 10 languages fluently and was 
really--you would have liked him, Mr. President.
  My father taught me that we should value human rights. Our country is 
a leader in this area. When we turn our gaze away from the persecution 
of people and the violation of human rights of people in the world, we 
diminish ourselves.
  This debate we are going to have after Labor Day is not about whether 
or not we should have trade with China. We have trade with China. We 
have a tremendous amount of trade. In fact, we have a huge trade 
deficit, I think to the tune of about $70 billion.
  It is not about whether we should have an embargo of China like an 
embargo of Cuba. I don't think the embargo of Cuba makes much sense, 
and certainly no one I know is recommending an embargo of China.

  It is not about whether or not we want to isolate China. China is not 
going to be isolated. China is very much a part of the international 
economy.
  The debate is about whether or not we maintain for ourselves the 
right to annually review trade relations with China so we at least have 
some small amount of leverage when it comes to human rights.
  According to the State Department report last year on human rights in 
China:

       The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated 
     markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified 
     efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. 
     Abuses includes instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, 
     mistreatment of prisoners, and denial of due process.

  The Commission on Religious Freedom chaired by David Saperstein 
recommended that we not automatically grant normal trade relations with 
China because of the religious persecution in China and laid out a 
series of criteria that should be met, and that will be the first 
amendment I will introduce.
  Yes, to us giving China most favored nation status. But not until 
they at least meet basic, simple, elementary criteria so the people in 
China have the right to practice their religion. Are we going to turn 
our gaze away from that?
  According to Amnesty International, ``throughout China mass summary 
executions continue to be carried out. At least 6,000 death sentences 
and 3,500 executions were officially recorded last year.''
  The real figures are believed to be much higher.
  In the debate, I will talk about Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu--people, 
in addition to these statistics. But let me be clear to my colleagues. 
After all the discussion about all the economic relations having led to 
opening up society and it has all changed, the human rights record has 
deteriorated. There is not one Senator who can come to the floor and 
make the argument that, because of trade relations--I understand 
investment opportunities making a lot of money--the human rights record 
has improved in China, or that the situation in Tibet has improved, or 
that people now can practice their religion. It is not true. Don't we 
want to maintain just a little bit of leverage and just say we have the 
right to annually review our trade relations with China?
  One other point. I think what you are going to see is not more 
exports to China. I am going to hold every single Senator and I am 
going to hold the administration accountable as well.
  The President came to my State of Minnesota. He said we were going to 
have all these exports in agriculture, and it was going to help out 
family farmers who were struggling to survive. I don't know if that is 
going to be the case. There are 700 million farmers in China. I do know 
this. What is more likely to happen is there will be more exports in 
China and multinational corporations will go to China and China will 
become even more of a low-wage export platform or, for that matter, you 
will have large grain companies producing corn in China well below the 
cost of production for family farmers in our own country.
  Wal-Marts pay 14 cents an hour. Other U.S. companies pay 5 cents and 
6 cents an hour. If you should try to organize a union in China, you 
would wind up in prison.
  So I will have three other amendments, and I will yield the floor on 
this. I will have an amendment that deals with forced prison labor 
conditions in China and says: Enough of this, if we are going to have 
normal trade relations. I will have another amendment that says the 
people in China should have the right to form independent unions and 
not wind up in prison. And I will have a final amendment that will 
basically say that in our State, our workers should have the right to 
organize; there should be labor law reform; no longer should it just be 
the company that gets to talk to employees during an organizing drive; 
no longer should companies be able to illegally fire workers, have it 
be profitable, and not have to pay stiff back penalties, back fines.
  We are forever being told now that we live in a global economy. And 
that is true. But the implications of that statement are seldom 
recognized. To me that means, if we truly care about human rights, we 
can no longer just be concerned about human rights at home. If we live 
in a global economy and we truly care about religious freedom, then we 
can no longer just be concerned about religious freedom at home. If we 
are in a global economy and we truly care about the rights of 
organizers to organize and be able to make a decent living so they can 
take care of their families, then we have to be concerned not just 
about the rights of organizers in our country but organizers in the 
world. And if we truly care about the environment, then we can no 
longer concern ourselves with just environmental protections at home, 
but environmental protections in other countries as well.
  Do you know that a large majority of the Senate is all for this--
automatically extending normal trade relations with China or most 
favored nation trade status? Do you know what the polls show? The polls 
show Americans oppose eliminating any review of China's human rights 
record by 65 to 18 percent; 67 percent oppose China's admission to the 
WTO, although that is not what this debate will be about; and 83 
percent of the people in our country support inclusion of strong 
environmental and labor standards in future trade agreements.
  My colleague--1 minute left--my colleague from Montana, whom I enjoy, 
said: I am going to call on all Senators to vote against all 
amendments.
  I am going to tell Senators a lot of these amendments are substantive 
and they are serious. Look at what we had happen on several of these 
tax bills, the majority leader came out after we had passed amendments 
and then introduced an amendment that wiped out all those amendments.
  I am going to remind Senators of that precedent. I am going to remind 
Senators that you cannot go back home and explain with much credibility 
to the people you represent that you would not vote for the people in 
China to have the right to practice their religion; you would not vote 
for basic support for human rights; you would not vote for people to 
organize a union and not wind up in prison; you would not vote for 
labor law reform because you said: Oh, well, you see, we had to go into 
conference committee and we had to keep it clean and I could not vote 
for that.
  A, that is not true; B, it is the ultimate Washington insider 
argument. One has to vote for what one thinks is right. One has to vote 
for the substance of each one of these amendments. That is the 
challenge I present to my colleagues. I look forward to this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2982 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S7791]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________