[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9449-9450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NON-DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE 
           RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 24, 2000

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to recognizing, as 
normal, China's persistent violations of fundamental human rights, 
labor rights, reproductive rights, religious freedom, political rights, 
social and economic rights, as well as their export of sophisticated 
and destabilizing weapons, and their overt threats to Taiwan, by 
granting them Permanent Normal Trade Relations.
  To be sure, some people will benefit from granting PNTR to China. If 
you can shut down your production lines in the United States, turn out 
your employees, and move your production to China where you can pay 
workers 25

[[Page 9450]]

cents an hour in sweatshop conditions--and have no moral qualms about 
that--then this deal can be a sweet one, indeed. But I thought the 
United States was supposed to stand for more than just making a quick 
buck.
  I thought the United States was supposed to stand for what is good in 
the world.
  It used to be that we did stand for good in the world. And because of 
that, we gained the respect and the moral integrity to make our word 
prevail throughout the world. Indeed, our power and authority went well 
beyond our ability to rattle sabers and exercise gunboat diplomacy. But 
it is obvious now to me, that by negotiating agreements like this that 
are devoid of moral content, my country has completely abdicated its 
professed concern for human rights.
  My vote against PNTR is not a vote against trade. However, my vote 
against PNTR is a vote against the terms of trade that are being 
employed today by U.S. firms in China and elsewhere. By granting 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations, we now eschew one of our most 
important tools for examining the human rights practices of China. 
Unfortunately, the human rights record of China will likely get worse 
before it gets better. And the presence of U.S. corporations has not 
had and will not have a positive impact on the human rights record of 
China or on workers' rights.
  Each year, the State Department submits to the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights, where I serve as Ranking 
Democrat, its Country Reports on Human Rights. This is our government's 
formal assessment of basic human rights practices around the world. The 
record is clear. China's human rights record has markedly deteriorated 
as we have expanded trade. In fact, this year, my friend and Chairman 
of the Subcommittee, Congressman Chris Smith and I had to hold two 
hearings on the State Departments annual human rights report--one for 
China, and one for every other nation in the world because China's 
record is so deplorable and is getting worse.
  But after a historic look at rhetoric versus reality, that should not 
surprise us. After all, we had robust trade with the Nazis before World 
War II, extensive trade with Iraq just prior to Operation Desert Shield 
and we maintained an extensive trading relationship with South Africa 
during the dark years of apartheid.
  In fact it was the people of this country--not the corporations--that 
put South Africa's human rights record on the national agenda. By 
focusing on South Africa, the people demanded the opposite of normal 
trade relations--an embargo! U.S. corporations had nothing to do with 
changing South Africa's internal policy toward its black majority nor 
U.S. policy of supporting the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. 
The U.S. corporate community, in fact, protested the embargo and some 
never abided by it. If we had waited for U.S. corporations to export 
democracy, Nelson Mandela would still be on Robben Island. On this 
issue, the people were heard over the high-priced lobbyists in 
Washington, DC.
  And that is what now scares the high-priced lobbyists in Washington.
  The way to keep China's human rights record on the national agenda is 
through our annual NTR review. That is one way that human rights 
activists in China and in the United States can inform the public of 
China's human rights record. The fancy lobbyists have squelched that 
now, so that there is no possibly of the American people becoming 
informed of what is happening in China, thereby thwarting the kind of 
action against China that was done against the racists in South Africa.
  America's right to know has been severely damaged as a result of this 
vote.
  Freedom, equality, human dignity, and human rights are not for sale. 
And that's one reason why I chose to vote against this tremendous human 
rights give-away.
  Many proponents of PNTR, including Governor George Bush, say that 
``Trade is the way to export freedom.'' A recent study entitled, 
``Dollars and Democracy'' shows the post-Cold War decline of US trade 
and investment in developing democracies. In other words, US 
corporations are running away from the countries that are struggling to 
institute democracy--the countries we say we do like-- and are flocking 
to the authoritarian regimes around the world--the kinds of regimes we 
say are not good. More to the point, if given a choice between an 
emerging democracy and an authoritarian regime then US corporations 
take US taxpayer subsidies and choose the regimes that don't respect 
human rights, worker rights, or the environment.
  For example, Charles Kernaghan in ``Made in China'' states that at 
one of the factories where Kathi Lee handbags are being made for Wal-
Mart, the workers are forced ``to work 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days 
a week, with only one day off a month, while earning an average wage of 
3 cents an hour. However, even after months of work, 46 percent of the 
workers surveyed earned nothing at all--in fact, they owed money to the 
company.''
  Companies are allowed to get away with this kind of worker treatment 
in authoritarian regimes, not democracies. Furthermore, democracies 
tend to be more transparent and less corrupt. Yet US private investment 
currently favors the authoritarian over the democratic.
  Supporters of PNTR dribble on about the need of engagement to 
facilitate a ``movement'' toward democracy. Yet the facts are that US 
corporations are leaving democracies at an unprecedented rate. US 
taxpayers subsidize this new ``corporate flight.'' And unfortunately, 
one need only look at Chevron Corporation and Occidental Petroleum 
Company to see examples of just the kind of ``movement'' that we ought 
not want to export. In fact, Chevron is in federal court today for 
aiding and abetting in the murder of Nigerian citizens demonstrating to 
protect their environment against Chevron's wanton pollution of their 
indigenous lands. Occidental Petroleum seems to be on the same path as 
Chevron, willing to run over Colombia's fledgling democracy in order to 
despoil the sacred lands of the Uwa people. The U'wa have vowed to die 
before Occidental is allowed on their land. None of this bodes well for 
anyone involved--except the stockholders, perhaps, of both Chevron and 
Occidental. And in China, workers who protest their conditions are 
fired or could face prison for life!
  Americans who buy Huffy bicycles, Alpine car stereos, RCA TV's, or 
Timberland, Keds, Fubu and Nike shoes or Spiegel clothing should have a 
right to know the conditions under which those items are made. American 
workers who used to make those items and who are now struggling to find 
their place in the new economy, certainly should have a right to know 
why their jobs ``fled'' to China.
  Despite the rhetoric, the vote on China PNTR will not protect the US 
worker, nor will it protect the Chinese worker. There is a need for 
something more. That is why I will soon be introducing the Corporate 
Code of Conduct Act. This bill will establish minimum human rights, 
labor rights, and environmental protection guidelines based on US and 
internationally recognized standards. This legislation will allow us 
all to put our money where our professed values are: fair trade, 
democracy, respect for workers, sensible environmental standards, and 
no child labor.
  I believe that our corporations can export freedom, prosperity, 
equality, and justice; and our bill, the Corporate Code of Conduct Act, 
will ensure that they do.

                          ____________________