[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20430-20431]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          ORGANIZED LABOR AND PNTR--NOT A MONOLITHIC APPROACH

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, a week ago I met with a national 
workforce coalition of unions that came out in support of establishing 
Permanent Normal Trading Relations with China. I had encountered some 
of the labor leaders who belong to this coalition on several other 
occasions, including at the Republican National Convention in 
Philadelphia in August. I simply rise today to note for my colleagues 
that organized labor in this country is not monolithic in their views 
on such matters as trade and protectionism.
  The members of the coalition I met with last week came primarily from 
the aerospace industry in the Pacific Northwest, building the jet 
airplanes, engines, and other aerospace subsystems that are competing 
globally with the likes of Europe's Airbus. However, I have previously 
met members of this coalition that extend beyond the aerospace industry 
and the Pacific Northwest. They represent such traditional 
manufacturing industries as steel, aluminum, diesel engines, farm 
equipment, and rail locomotives. They repesent a diverse array of the 
American workforce--everything from production workers on the line to 
engineers and scientists. And they are from across this great nation.
  The message these union officials had was that they understood that 
China was a burgeoning market for U.S. exports. They understood that if 
the U.S. did not approve PNTR for China that we would not only lose the 
trade concessions they have made to us under this agreement, but we 
would also lose our ability to gain greater market access and share. 
And they understood that the largest beneficiary of such an outcome 
would be our trade competitors in the European Community, in the rest 
of Asia, and in South America. They understood that one of the best 
ways to guarantee that American firms remain in the United States--
employing American workers and bolstering our economic growth--was to 
eliminate the existing trade barriers that have served to up until now 
to freeze out our products or force U.S. companies to move facilities 
over to China.
  Without removing these barriers and liberalizing trade between the 
U.S. and China, American firms seeking to compete with their foreign 
competitors would have every incentive to move their factories and 
operations over to China. With PNTR and China's entry into the World 
Trading Organization we increase the likelihood that American companies 
will continue to remain located in the United States. And that is good 
news for the union workers and households in the state of Michigan 
which will continue to produce a wide array of goods that will be 
exported to China.
  As I pointed out in a statement I made on the floor supporting PNTR, 
exports from Michigan to China increased 25 percent between 1993 and 
1998, and they have undoubtedly grown significantly greater since 1998. 
Exports to China from businesses located in the Flint and Lansing areas 
grew by 84 percent during that period. Meanwhile, exports to China from 
Kalamazoo and Battle Creek grew by an extraordinary 353 percent! Not 
all of that business is going to union shops, but certainly a 
significant portion of it is, and that sort of expansion in trade with 
China is going to benefit all workers and businesses in Michigan--union 
and non-union.
  Clearly the majority of unions and union members in this country 
opposed PNTR for China. I heard from and spoke with many, many such 
workers from Michigan--both back in Michigan and when the unions have 
come out to Washington, DC, to meet with their representatives in 
Congress. I come from a union background and grew up in a union 
household. I took their concerns very seriously in weighing the many 
issues that went into my ultimate decision to vote for PNTR. And I have 
pledged to hold China accountable for their future behavior and to 
fulfill their trade obligations under the WTO's rules and the agreement 
we have negotiated with them.
  But there are indeed unions--rank-and-file members and leadership 
alike--who see the opportunity presented by PNTR and allowing China 
into the WTO as a tremendous opportunity for the United States to 
continue to lead the world in productivity and in our economic 
strength. They are prepared to answer the challenge posed by the global 
economy and the opening of China's markets, and they recognize the 
benefits which will result if we are leading the way into opening China 
to greater trade instead of sitting on the sidelines allowing our trade 
competitors to reap all the benefits.
  We should not forget that the U.S. is a very diverse country and that 
no institution--including organized labor--is a monolithic force. There 
are folks on both sides of the issue, each feeling very strongly and 
very sincerely that they are doing what is best for them and their 
brethren.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Hatch's resolution commemorating our Olympic athletes for the spirit, 
enthusiasm and patriotism they displayed in Sydney at the XXVII Summer 
Games. I am proud to represent a state that sent to Sydney two of the 
nation's most recognizable athletes, Marion Jones and Mia Hamm, as well 
as numerous other athletes who valiantly competed in these Olympic 
games.

[[Page 20431]]

  The nation's eyes were on Marion Jones as she set out to win an 
unprecedented five gold medals in Sydney. While Marion didn't win five 
golds, she made us all proud with her commanding performance. She set a 
track and field record by winning more medals in a single Olympics than 
any other woman in history. Her three gold and two bronze medals have 
put Marion atop the track and field world. More important than winning 
her events, Marion accepted each of her medals with grace and style, 
epitomizing what Olympic competition is all about.
  Mia Hamm has captivated children and adults alike with her charisma 
and passion for the game of soccer. Thousands of girls across North 
Carolina take to the soccer fields in hopes of being the next Mia Hamm. 
Watching Mia play in Sydney, I understand why. In the women's soccer 
semifinals against Brazil, Mia was pushed, shoved and thrown to the 
ground time and time again. She did not once complain, letting her 
actions speak louder than words by scoring the only goal of the match. 
The United States Women's Soccer team went on to claim the silver 
medal, led by other Tar Heels such as goal keeper Siri Mullinix of 
Greensboro and Carla Overbeck of Chapel Hill.
  I am also extremely proud of other North Carolinians who competed in 
Sydney. While these athletes haven't received the attention Mia Hamm 
and Marion Jones have, they are equally important and should be 
commended for their accomplishments. Robert Costello of Southern Pines 
competed in equestrian events. Tim Montgomery and Jerome Young, both of 
Raleigh, Lynda Blutreich of Chapel Hill and Melissa Morrison of 
Kannapolis competed in track and field. Charlie Ogletree of Columbia 
competed in sailing. Rich DeSelm of Charlotte swam in Sydney. Calvin 
Brock of Charlotte represented the United States in boxing. George 
Hincapie and Fred Rodriguez both of Charlotte competed in cycling. 
Hunter Kemper of Charlotte competed in the triathlon and Henry Nuzum of 
Chapel Hill competed in rowing.
  The United States should be proud of every athlete who competed in 
the Olympics. I am especially proud of the North Carolinians who 
represented the United States in Sydney, and I am pleased to support 
this resolution with them in mind.

                          ____________________