Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the net effect of that then is not to allow our amendment to assist America's workers who will be displaced because their jobs move to China from being able to have a vote on this today; is that correct?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Lorain, Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has worked with us so much on this issue and whose district has suffered directly from job losses to both Mexico and China.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for coming to the floor, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and I would say that I have a sinking feeling that the Republican leadership of this House is about to call a point of order against our amendment and not permit us to pass a program to help American workers who are going to lose their jobs to China. I think that is unconscionable. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman who chairs this particular subcommittee, but I know that the leadership of his party approached me prior to this vote and asked if I was really going to offer that amendment. I said, yes, we are. I would ask the American people to know what is about to happen here. We need to help America's workers who are going to lose their jobs to China. Point of Order

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, is the Chair saying that it is going to rule on that now?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just a few days ago on May 24, this House voted to extend permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China without restriction. Yet based on projections by our own government, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the approval of that agreement threatens to eliminate more than 870,000 jobs in this country, predominantly in the manufacturing area. They estimate over 742,000 jobs will be lost to China. In my own State of Ohio, over 34,500 jobs are projected to be lost. America has an obligation to assist working people and their families who will suffer from the devastating consequences of job loss due to this deal with China. What this amendment does is it would help meet our obligations by establishing the China PNTR transitional adjustment assistance program, or China TAA, modeled after the trade adjustment assistance that locked into place when NAFTA was passed. We have all seen how important that program has been with the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been moved to Mexico. Under our proposal, workers could petition for critical reemployment services such as job training, job search, training for important employment in other jobs or careers, and certainly in many cases direct income support. The very least this Congress should do, and I cannot understand why it was omitted from the base bill that came out of the Committee on Ways and Means, we ought to respond to the basic needs of people who want to work when their jobs disappear. If advocates for PNTR truly believe that America's workers will only benefit from PNTR for China, then they have nothing to fear from this amendment. We should have a vote on this amendment. However, it is my understanding that this amendment may be struck by a point of order; and therefore, I want to ask my colleagues to join me in establishing a formal China TAA assistance program in a bill that I will drop into the hopper right after this debate today. And I urge Members to join me, along with a growing list of original cosponsors, in making a stand for the workers of this country by cosponsoring this important bill and supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been such a strong voice for working Americans from coast to coast.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize the 125th anniversary of the Temple Shomer Emunim in Sylvania Ohio. The congregation commemorated this most auspicious occasion in special services and celebration on June 2 and 3, 2000. In 1870, there were about 30 Jewish families in Toledo, Ohio, most of whom were Orthodox. A small number of these families sought a more liberal practice of their faith and organized a Reform congregation. Those early services were held in homes and conducted by visiting rabbis. The band of families practicing in the Reform movement formally established a Temple in 1875 and the congregation was dedicated as Shomer Emunim-Guardian of the Faithful. This name was suggested by Rabbi Isaac Wise, founder of America's Reform Judaism and is taken from Isaiah 26:2, ``Open ye gates that there shall be a righteous nation- guardian of the faithful . . .'' In those first years, the congregation worshiped in a small church rented from a Christian congregation. In 1879, it was decided the grand sum of $12,500.00 would be raised in order to build their own sanctuary. With Toledo's Jewish population at the time settled in a downtown neighborhood, a small building was built on Tenth Street in downtown Toledo where the congregation remained for 23 years. The original Temple was formally dedicated by Rabbi Wise. As Toledo's Jewish community grew, the congregation moved to a larger building on Scottwood Avenue which was previously owned by a Methodist congregation. By 1916, the congregation had outgrown that building, and a new major synagogue was built on Collingwood Avenue. Nearly 100 years after its first quiet beginnings and as its members moved to the suburbs, the congregation built a new synagogue in suburban Sylvania in 1973, where the Temple remains and has flourished, an integral part of the community. It is affiliated with the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the national organization of Reform Judaism. For a century and a quarter, the Temple Shomer Emunim has been a fixture of life in Toledo's Jewish community, and our community as a whole. It has been a place to develop spiritual well-being and personal growth, and strengthen the bonds of family and faith. Its rabbis and members have stood as leaders among us, and have provided both guidance and wise counsel. As we reflect on more than a century of growth from its humble inception to its current prominence, we look forward to the future of Temple Shomer Emunim. Mozel Tov!

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member, for their assistance in including language in this important bill concerning Beryllium illness and compensation and to make it a part of this defense appropriations measure. The language in the bill requires the Department of Defense to report to Congress for the first time on the incidence of Beryllium-related diseases amongst Department of Defense current and former employees, contractor employees serving during the Cold War, and vendor employees and to do so by May of next year. This requirement is a complement to the work already undertaken by the Department of Energy, under the leadership of Secretary Richardson, the difficulty we are having in getting our executive branch to focus on those workers who are ill who have performed work related to Beryllium either in Government-run plants, such as DOE facilities, or plants that were totally 100 percent contract shops for the Department of Defense or their vendors. The House would have considered the defense authorization bill last month included a sense of Congress resolution stating that Congress and the Federal Government has a responsibility toward people suffering from Chronic Beryllium Disease and other occupational diseases contracted while performing work related to our national security. But, of course, there was no actual compensation or medical benefits even contemplated in that particular measure. I want to place on the Record, Mr. Chairman, the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 3418, that actually would authorize that compensation and medical assistance for people who served in the line of duty to this country who are dying and who are having the Government of the United States turn its back on them year after year. Let me also state, for the Record, that Chronic Beryllium Disease is a horrendous illness. It is often debilitating, and it can be a fatal lung condition for a small percentage of people who worked in this industry, 2 percent. But we believe over 1,200 Americans have contracted this disease mostly by working in defense-related plants and some in energy-related facilities. What essentially happens is that if they have the Beryllium sensitivity, their lungs begin to crystallize over a period of time and they, essentially, are strangled to death. One of the people who was so injured was a constituent in my district, Mr. Gaylen Lemke, who first came to see me over 5 years ago to tell me about his experience. He worked in a contract shop that was on contract to the Department of Defense. Without question, he contributed his work and his life to this Nation winning the Cold War; and he suffered a slow and cruel death, as the disease slowly sapped his ability to breathe over the years. Gaylen Lemke is as much a veteran of this country as anyone who has flown an airplane or served on a submarine, and we owe him and his survivors the kind of treatment and compensation we provide for those who have suffered in the service of our Nation, our paralyzed veterans, our disabled veterans. I really hope that this Congress will find a way to provide the kind of compensation and medical care so these families, at one of the most difficult times in their lives, do not have to worry about the compensation and medical care for the person who has done so much for the Nation. I just again want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for including the language in this bill that pushes us forward as a country to understand the true costs of freedom. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following time line of events on Beryllium disease and what we, as a country, have done thus far: Chronic Beryllium Disease Background Memorandum U.S. Beryllium production Brush Wellman, Inc. in Elmore, Ohio, is currently the only company in the country that produces beryllium, a strong, light metal. Beryllium is of strategic interest to the United States because of its unique applications in the aeronautic and aerospace fields. It is also an important component in nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities. A former Brush facility in Luckey, Ohio, was closed in 1958, and it is currently undergoing remediation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Brush manufacturing facility in Elmore employs about 600 people and produces both berryllium and beryllium alloy products. Brush mines and processes beryllium ore at its facility in Delta, Utah, and has other facilities in Pennsylvania and Arizona. Until the mid-1990's Brush was primarily a defense dependent industry with the Department of Defense and Department of Energy being as much as 90% of its customer base. Since then, the company has made a major transition toward commercial products, and today those alloy products represent the majority of the company's production. The transition has also resulted in the expansion of the Elmore plant and increased employment there. Kaptur legislative initiatives relating to beryllium Defense Strategic Metals Classification and Defense Conversion: Initiatives in several Defense Authorization bills to classify beryllium and related strategic metals as a unique set of defense-related materials requiring special attention and the transition of defense-related production to commercial market applications. Medical Research: Appropriations for scientific and medical research on prevention and treatment of chronic beryllium disease (CBD). Victim Compensation: Compensation for the victims of CBD at both federal (H.R. 3478) and state levels. Chronic Beryllium Disease Chronic Beryllium Disease is a chronic, often debilitating, and sometimes fatal lung condition. A relatively small number, perhaps 10% of the general population are uniquely sensitive to exposures to beryllium. Of these, perhaps 20% (2 percent of the general population) could develop symptoms of CBD if exposed. Several 9th District constituents, former and current Brush Wellman employees suffer from CBD. Some of them have asked for assistance on a number of issues. The most regular requests are in three areas: Screening for beryllium sensitivity, Improved disability benefits for people suffering from CBD, Additional federal support for scientific research into CBD, and A tightening of the exposure limits for persons working with beryllium. Benefits There is no special program, federal or state, for persons suffering from CBD, and victims are looking to the federal government for relief as virtually all persons who have contracted CBD, at least since WWII, have either worked for the federal government or for employers contracted to the federal government. They want a special federal compensation program for beryllium workers similar to the Brown Lung program for coal miners. State Workers Compensation or Occupational Disability laws are woefully inadequate in providing compensation for CBD largely because of the latency period of the disease tends to be longer than the statute of limitations on claims. Compensation legislation in the 106th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 675: Introduced February 10, 1999, by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) establishes a federal beryllium disease trust fund to provide a benefit for some former national defense workers who suffer from CBD or for their families if they are deceased: H.R. 675 establishes the Beryllium Exposure Compensation Trust Fund in the Department of the Treasury. The trust fund would pay a one time award of $100,000 to persons who worked in the beryllium industry between 1930 and 1980, were exposed to significant beryllium hazards in the course of that employment, and who developed a condition known to be related to beryllium exposure. The bill does not make any provision for funding the trust fund. The trust fund if established would be dependent on annual appropriations. That is a problem because it would establish a federal entitlement without a dedicated revenue source. It makes a promise to CBD sufferers without a guarantee that the promise will be fulfilled. H.R. 675 provides no specific definition of covered diseases. H.R. 675 is cosponsored by Reps. Brady, Sherrod Brown, Gilchrest, Gutierrez, Holden, Inslee, Tubbs Jones, Klink, Kucinich, Lantos, Manzullo, Pastor, Slaughter, Strickland, Tancredo, Mark Udall, and Tom Udall. As a solution to the problem of CBD, H.R. 675 is now no longer under active consideration by the House. H.R. 3418: Introduced by Rep. Kanjorski on November 17, 1999, on behalf of the Clinton Administration. H.R. 3418 reflected the position of the Department of Energy at the time. H.R. 3418 establishes a federal compensation program for employees of the DOE contractors and vendors who suffer from CBD providing wage replacement benefits and medical coverage. H.R. 3418 provides the choice of retroactive compensation for victims of CBD contracted before the bills enactment or, at the employee's option, a retroactive lump sum award of $100,000 to cover previous lost wages and medical expenses. H.R. 3418 does not provide benefits for contractors or vendors to the Department of Defense. H.R. 3418 also provides for a pilot project to examine the possible relationship between workplace exposures to radiation, hazardous materials, or both and occupational illness or other adverse health conditions. H.R. 3418 also provides a compensation program similar to the beryllium compensation program for workers exposed to radiation hazards at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion plant. H.R. 3418 is cosponsored by Reps. Biggert, Brady, Sherrod Brown, DeFazio, Holden, Kaptur, Klink, Phelps, Slaughter, Thornberry, Mark Udall, Wamp, and Whitfield. H.R. 3478: Introduced by Rep. Kaptur on November 18, 1999, provides a more comprehensive beryllium compensation bill. H.R. 3874 authorizes a federal workers' compensation program for beryllium workers employed by the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, their contractors and vendors who suffer from CBD. H.R. 3874 provides for a $200,000 lump sum retroactive payment option. H.R. 3874 is cosponsored by Reps. Gillmor, Kanjorski, and Hansen. H.R. 3874 does not address diseases other than those related to beryllium. S. 1954: Introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on November 17, 1999. This bill is essentially identical to Rep. Kanjorski's H.R. 3418. Compensation legislation in the 106th Congress, 2nd Session H.R. 4398: Reps. Strickland and Whitfield also introduced a compensation bill on May 9, 2000. H.R. 4398 establishes a beryllium compensation program administered by the Department of Labor under contract with the Department of Energy. H.R. 4398 provides a $200,000 retroactive payment option with prospective medical benefits. H.R. 4398 establishes a similar compensation program for Department of Energy nuclear workers. H.R. 4398 directs the Secretary of Energy to determine if similar compensation benefits should be provided to DOE contractor employees exposed to other toxic materials in the course of their work. H.R. 4398 does not provide coverage for construction subcontractor employees at vendor plants. S. 2514: Senators Voinovich and DeWine introduced a beryllium compensation bill, S. 2514, on May 9, 2000, which is essentially the same as the Strickland/Whitfield bill. H.R. 4205, Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2001: Kaptur supported a sense of the Congress amendment on the House floor stating that Congress should act on legislation providing compensation for Department of Energy workers with beryllium disease. Defense Appropriation Bill for Fiscal 2001: In May 2000, Kaptur secured bill language requiring the Department of Defense to report back to Congress by May 2001, on the impact of beryllium disease on DOD contractors and recommendations for compensation for these employees. Research The federal government had conducted research into the health effects of beryllium in the past, but by the early 1990's federal support for such research had lagged. In the fiscal 1998 appropriations process, Rep. Kaptur raised the issue of the need for further research on CBD with Dr. Kenneth Olden, Director of the National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). She suggested areas where additional research might be useful, among them: The standardization of diagnostic criteria and clinical pathologic diagnostic modalities for CBD; and Determination of the physical, chemical, and steric properties of beryllium in the work place to determine if the size distribution, the particle number, and/or the particle morphology are critical factors in the production of CDB in the worker. As a result of this inquiry, Rep. Kaptur requested an increase in the appropriation for the NIEHS to be used for further research into CBD. The appropriation was increased. On March 18, 1999, almost solely as a result of Rep. Kaptur's efforts, NIEHS, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Department of Energy announced, a major new research initiative to the mechanisms of CBD. Exposure limits CBD support groups have argued that the current work place exposure limits for beryllium are too high and result in an unnecessarily high incidence of CBD among beryllium workers. The current exposure limit is 2 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m\3\ ), measured as an 8 hour, time weighted average. Rep. Kaptur officially wrote to Charles Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health asking the status of the current review of OSHA's current beryllium exposure standard. Response received July 21, 1999, saying that OSHA is reviewing the exposure standard. In December 1998, the Department of Energy issued a proposed rule to change the beryllium exposure limits for DOE employees to a bifurcated standard. The new DOE standard would establish a new short-term exposure limit of 10 g/m\3\ for small-scale, short- duration exposures. And lower the 8 hour, time weighted exposure limit to 0.5 g/m\3\. The public comment period for this proposed new rule ended on March 9, 1999. On December 8, 1999, the DOE issued a final rule, The Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program for DOE facilities. The new regulation retained the 2 g/m\3\ PEL but instituted a new action level of 0.5 g/m\3\ at which a number of engineering and work practice precautions must be instituted. Defense conversion and materials research In 1994, Rep. Kaptur secured $2 million in the fiscal 1995 Defense Appropriations bill to aid in the companies' conversion from defense-dependent companies to ones that also produce advanced products for the commercial market. Of this, Brush received a few hundred thousand dollars which helped in the development of copper-beryllium alloy products for the electronics and other high-tech industries Brush Related Defense Projects: Because beryllium is such a critical national security resource, Rep. Kaptur has acted a number of times behalf to secure our nation's stockpile of strategic metals including beryllium. She has also worked to insure that important national defense research development projects related to beryllium and other aerospace metals are funded. In May, 1995, Rep. Kaptur requested authorization of $25 million from Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for the continued development of advanced strategic aerospace metals and other lightweight structural materials as a unique subset of the strategic materials reserve. She also requested a $20 million appropriation for this same purpose for fiscal 1996. Aerospace Metals Affordability Consortium: In 1998, Rep. Kaptur secured in the fiscal 1999 Defense Appropriations bill $5 million to initiate this applied research project to meet the national security need for advances in special aerospace metals and metal alloys for aircraft and space vehicle structures, propulsion, components, and weapon systems. Ohio firms are leading participants. The Consortium is funded through and directed by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton. For fiscal 2000 she secured an additional $5 million for the Consortium, and for fiscal 2001, she secured $15 million to continue the Consortium's work. Authorizing language for the Aerospace Metals Affordability Consortium was included in the fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization bill. National Defense Strategic Metals Stockpile: Because beryllium is an important national security resource, Rep. Kaptur has on different occasions written to the Armed Services Committee and to the Pentagon on strategic stockpile issues. In May 1997, for instance, she wrote to the Pentagon in the spring of 1997 regarding the potential sale of beryllium and beryllium-copper alloy from the National Defense Stockpile. The DOD responded that such sales were not being contemplated at that time. Luckey FUSRAP site Brush Beryllium, the predecessor company to Brush Wellman, operated a plant in Luckey, Ohio, as a beryllium production facility under contract with the Department of Energy between 1949 and 1958. The site has been included in the Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) currently under the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers. A preliminary radiological survey at the site showed that several areas contain radiation, primarily from radium, in excess of applicable guidelines. In addition, beryllium concentrations in the soil at the site are well above background levels. The Corps is presently conducting an assessment of the project's scope. The site is scheduled to be remediated by 2005. Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Sanders

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to permanent trade privileges for China. Trade does not bring freedom. Only enforceable laws in democratic republics bring freedom. Trade does not bring peace. Before World War II, the largest trading relationship in the world was not Nazi Germany's with England. Did that stop totalitarianism's rise? Trade does not build a middle class. Only laws governing workers' rights to organize undergird the rise of a strong middle class with good wages and benefits. This is not a fight about expanding America's export markets. This is a fight about China becoming a vast export platform 12 times the size of Mexico's, taking our markets in Asia's rim and sending a glut of sweatshop and agricultural commodities back here to our shores. This is a heroic fight for democratic values in the harsh countryside and in the industrial sweatshops in China, in places most Americans, including this Congress, will never visit. Will we side with the chauffeured limousine class, advertisers, retailers, and global companies that soothingly tell us ``everything will be all right,'' or will we stand with the freedom fighters in China and throughout the world? For those fighting permanent privileges for China on the basis of democratic values. I say, hurray. For those courageous people in Taiwan standing tall for sovereignty and self-determination, indeed for nationhood, I say, keep the flame of liberty burning. For those fighting permanent privileges for China on the basis of religious freedom, I say, God bless you. For those fighting for one-half billion working women and girls in China be afforded dignity and respect, I say, if not with this vote, then when? For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis of freedom of assembly, whether it is for the Falun Gong or for the murdered freedom fighters in Tiananmen Square, I say, keep standing tall in liberty's cause. Happy Memorial Day. Vote ``no'' on permanent trade relations with China.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest opposition to the proposal for permanent trade privileges with China. Trade does not bring freedom, only enforceable laws in democratic republics bring and carry and assure freedom. Trade does not build a middle class, only laws governing workers rights to organize undergird middle-class wages and benefits. Before World War II, Nazi Germany's largest trading partner was England, and for the United States, Japan, did that stop totalitarianism's rise? Trade with Communist countries does nothing to assure that those doing the work reap any of the benefits; that is why the United States for so many years has held sacred its special laws governing trade with Communist nations. And now that the United States has been victorious in defeating Communist regimes in most corners of the world, some will choose to abandon the legal structure that we held in place called most favored nation replacing it with the toothless normal trade relations statute that we are about to debate tomorrow. Trade with Communist countries does nothing to assure that those who do the work reap the benefits. Permanent trade status for China will only serve to lock in the exploitative system of agricultural and industrial servitude that is China today; this is not a fight about expanding America's export markets. This is a fight about China becoming a vast export platform 12 times the size of Mexico, taking our markets in Asia's Rim and sending the glut of sweatshop goods back here to our shores. When NAFTA passed, the proponents said it would result in a huge export market for the United States and Mexico and that Mexico's workers' wages would go up and there would be no downward pressure on wages and benefits in this country. Look what has happened, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States does to the entire rest of the world. Our Nation has hemorrhaged tens of thousands of jobs, of living wage jobs, to Mexico, and now the China drain will accelerate if this measure passes. Mexico has turned into a major export platform, not an export market. Just look at the label on your television or your car engine or your truck or your electronic gismo, everything coming in here; the only thing America is exporting to Mexico is our middle-class jobs. And they are not getting paid middle-class wages. In the end, this fight on China is a heroic fight. It is a fight for democratic values in the harsh countryside and in the industrial sweatshops where most Americans will never be allowed to travel in the Nation of China. It is a fight indeed for the Chinese people, and the fight most of all for American principals. Will we side with the chauffeured limousine class, the advertisers, the retailers, the global companies who soothingly tell us, Everything will be just fine? But by their shear power and money, they hold sway over the visual and printed media in this country. For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis of democratic values, I say hurrah. Praise freedom lovers and the imprisoned China Democratic Party leaders for whom we speak here on this floor tonight. For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis of religious freedom, I say God bless them. And for those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis of freedom of assembly, whether it is for the Falun Gong or the murdered freedom fighters in Tiananmen Square, I say history will judge you as righteous. America's values are freedom and valor. As we move into this Memorial Day week, let us renew our promise as the world's premier freedom fighters. Vote for freedom. Vote ``no'' on permanent normal trade status for China. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter sent by Wei Jinh Sheng, who spent nearly 2 decades of his life in Chinese prisons. Why? Because he fought to be an independent democratic political leader in his own country. He says to us, ``Supporters of this agreement are wrong. The United States is giving up something of profound importance if they were to approve this agreement. Please help us fight Chinese tyranny.'' Please read his words in the Record, and tomorrow vote ``no'' on permanent trade status for China. Supporters of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China tell us the US is giving up nothing in its trade deal with the regime in Beijing, that China is making all the concessions. This claim is false. The US is giving up something of profound importance--its ability to aid people everywhere in their struggle for human rights and democracy. The US has enormous power, due to its economic leverage. Although the US has been reluctant to use this power against Chinese tyranny, the power exists; Beijing recognizes this fully, even if the US does not. The annual renewal of China's ``driver's license'' on trade may have become routine, but the power to grant the license remains critical. That is why Beijing is desperate to obtain PNTR, and rid itself of this power. That is why both Rep. Levin and Cox's proposals, no matter their very fine points, are ``toothless'' if this power is not retained. The hope that the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank will place limits on China will amount to little, for multinational financial institutions are woefully inadequate to take over responsibility of the US Congress. It may not follow the US lead in any event. Framing the debate on WTO and PNTR as ``keeping the door open'' is misleading. America's door is open. The door to China is only half-open. However, the Chinese people have learned that they lack the rights other people enjoy. If this were not so, the enormous uprising in hundreds of Chinese cities known as the 1989 Tiananmen movement would never have occurred. Yet the door to China remains and will remain half- closed, because that is the way to retain power under tyranny. Trade alone simply cannot open the rest of China's door. If the US Congress grants PNTR now, it legitimizes this half- open/half-closed status. To certify Communist China as ``normal'' in its abnormal state would deprive reformers within the government of needed pressure to push for change. The claim that PNTR gives American access to the ``vast Chinese market'' is specious, because it does not exist. Simply put, we cannot construct the ``vast Chinese market'' without first the rule-of-law being instituted, as President Lincoln put it, ``by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' In fact, the multinational business community is making an unholy alliance with Chinese tyranny. The Communist government uses brutality to subjugate Chinese workers while U.S. corporations use the threat of moving their businesses to undercut American workers' demands. Businesses in China's neighboring countries--Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, and Hong Kong--will use ``slave labor'' to China to flood the U.S. market. PNTR is a loss-loss proposition for most workers in Asia and America, but especially for China's. The business community should not be so complacent, because Chinese tyranny will redirect Chinese people's anger against them toward the outsiders. The majority of pro-democracy organizations are against PNTR, yet a few prominent individuals in China have announced their support. Why such contradiction? The question we must ask is how much can we credit the words of kidnaped victims when they are at the mercy of their captors? The answer is not much. We simply cannot take the current opinions of Bao Tong and Dai Qing to represent their true thoughts, nor can they represent the opinions of others, when Bao and Dai have long been in the grip of a tyrannical government. Those who have experienced brutal oppression and insidious threats understand their quandary. We can, and must, express sympathy for their deplorable and excruciating plight. My criticism is not directed at them personally, but at the tiresome propaganda regularly doled out by the Chinese Communist Party and their supporters in the United States. Still, the basic principle against PNTR is very simple: if PNTR is granted, the US surrenders its power to be a force for positive change in China--its power to promote human rights, to deter China's increasingly aggressive military posture, and as well, to compel the regime to live up to its economic promises. How can anyone call this nothing? Wei Jingsheng has spent 18 years in prison for insisting on speaking the truth to power. These comments are based on Chinese government honoring its commitment that they will do, but they don't. comments There are reports of ``dissidents'' in China who support PNTR. First, we'll know that without freedom of speech and press, the Chinese government controls what they want Chinese people to know. Secondly, please put yourself into their shoes--when the hostages speak kindly of their captors and ask you to believe what the captors say that they will follow their promises would you believe that?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I include the following GAO report for the Record. United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters Occupational Safety and Health.--Government Responses to Beryllium Uses and Risks May 19, 2000 Congressional Requesters Over the last 50 years, federal policymakers and scientists have attempted to both capitalize on the advantages of beryllium and address health and environmental risks. Beryllium is a strong and lightweight metal that generates and reflects neutrons, resists corrosion, is transparent to X rays, and conducts electricity. It is also a hazardous substance. Among the organizations that have played key roles in responding to the risks associated with beryllium are the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Labor. The Departments of Defense and Energy are the federal agencies that have most commonly used beryllium. Defense procures components containing beryllium for a variety of weapon systems from private contractors. Energy operates federal facilities (including nuclear weapons production facilities) that use beryllium, and it has responsibility for protecting federal and contract workers at these facilities. Energy has identified at least 17 facilities that use or have used beryllium, and it estimates that about 20,000 current and former workers at these facilities were exposed or potentially exposed to beryllium from the 1940s to the present. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has overall responsibility for protecting the health and safety of workers in most workplaces throughout the United States, including those that use beryllium. This report responds to your request for information on beryllium as a hazardous material and on the health and safety controls over its use. As agreed with your offices, this report (1) provides information on beryllium's uses and risks and (2) describes selected key events that illustrate the evolution of the federal government's response to risks posed by beryllium. To respond to the second question, we identified and summarized key events from the 1960s through the 1990s involving actions by the Departments of Defense and Energy and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Appendix I describes the objectives, scope, and methodology for this review. results in brief Lightness, strength, and other attributes have made beryllium useful in a wide array of products, such as aircraft, spacecraft, X-ray equipment, and nuclear weapons. However, beryllium is considered hazardous. Health effects from high exposure to beryllium particles were first noted in the early 20th century. Beginning in the 1940s, scientists linked exposure From the 1960s to the 1990s, Defense, Energy, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration took a number of actions to assess and to respond to risks associated with exposure to beryllium. In reviewing selected key events, we noted that the agencies took the following steps to reduce risks from exposure to beryllium: discontinued testing of rocket propellant containing beryllium, assessed beryllium exposure standards, limited worker exposure to beryllium, established health surveillance measures, and proposed compensation for workers who have chronic beryllium disease. The key events are as follows: Defense discontinued testing beryllium in rocket fuel by 1970, due in part to concerns about meeting air quality requirements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed a more stringent worker exposure standard for beryllium in 1975 based on evidence that it was carcinogenic in laboratory animals. The proposal generated concerns about the technical feasibility of the proposal, impact on national security, and the scientific evidence supporting the proposed change. According to Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials, the agency discontinued its work on the proposal in the early 1980s in response to other regulatory priorities such as lead, electrical hazards, and occupational noise. In 1998, the agency announced that it would develop a comprehensive standard for beryllium by 2001 Energy improved working conditions at its facilities and implemented medical testing for its current and former workers during the 1980s and 1990s after new cases of chronic beryllium disease were identified during the 1980s. From 1984 through 1999, 149 Energy workers have been diagnosed with definite or possible chronic beryllium disease. In 1999, Energy issued a rule that established new worker safety controls, such as increased use of respirators and assessing hazards associated with work tasks, for its facilities that use beryllium. Energy also proposed a compensation program for Energy workers affected by chronic beryllium disease, which has been introduced as legislation in the Congress. The Departments of Defense, Energy, and Labor provided written or oral comments on our report and generally concurred with the information presented. They suggested technical changes, and Labor officials also emphasized that the hazard information bulletin on beryllium cited in the body of this report was a significant effort to protect worker health. Beryllium Uses and Risks In the 1920s and 1930s, beryllium was used for a variety of purposes, including as an additive for alloying with copper and other metals in manufacturing, as an ingredient in fluorescent lamps, and for other purposes. Today, beryllium is used in nuclear reactor and weapons parts; aircraft, spacecraft, and missile structures and parts; military vehicle structures and parts; electronics; auto parts; lasers; X-ray equipment; dental prosthetics; and other consumer products. In some of these products, substitutes for beryllium can be used (e.g., titanium, stainless steel, and some forms of bronze and aluminum). However, Energy and Defense officials state there is no substitute for beryllium in key nuclear components or in weapons for which lightweight and strength are critical. According to U.S. Public Health Service reports, people are exposed to extremely low levels of naturally occurring beryllium in the air, in many foods, in water, and in soil. The highest exposures to beryllium tend to occur in the workplace. Occupational exposure to beryllium occurs when it is extracted from ore; when the ore is processed into beryllium metal; and when this metal is made into parts (e.g., machined, welded, cut, or ground). Today, beryllium is used in many applications outside of the Defense and Energy industries. Health effects from high exposure to beryllium particles were first noted in the early 20th century. Beginning in the 1940s, scientists linked exposure to beryllium with an inflammatory lung condition now called chronic beryllium disease, which is often debilitating and, in some cases, fatal. Research on the biomedical and environmental aspects of beryllium is extensive.\3\ According to the National Jewish Medical and Research Center (a nonprofit institution devoted to respiratory, allergic, and immune system diseases), beryllium primarily affects the lungs. The disease occurs when people inhale beryllium dust, and it can develop even after workers have been out of the beryllium industry for many years. There are three main types of adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure: Chronic beryllium disease is caused by an allergic-like reaction to beryllium. Even brief exposure to very low levels can lead to this disease, which often has a slow onset and involves changes to lung tissue that reduce lung function. The first evidence of what was to be called chronic beryllium disease was identified in 1946. More recent studies indicate that reaction to beryllium depends on the type of beryllium and the work task.\4\ According to the National Jewish Medical and Research Center, the disease occurs in 1 to 16 percent of exposed people, with the level of exposure that poses risk and the precise mechanisms of disease not yet well characterized. Acute beryllium disease (symptoms lasting less than 1 year) results from relatively high exposure to soluble beryllium compounds (i.e., compounds that can be at least partially dissolved). This disease usually has a quick onset and resembles pneumonia National and international organizations have identified beryllium metal and compounds as carcinogenic to humans. Studies involving workers in plants with high exposure during the 1940s showed subsequent increases in mortality. The magnitude of the risk from current occupational exposure levels is not known, but may be minimal.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our great leader from the State of Michigan, our Wolverine State, a few moments to talk about our proposal for permanent normal trade relations for China. One certainly could not say anything about our trade relations with China being ``normal.'' In fact, they are very abnormal, with more exports coming into our market from China for over 12 years now than our exports being able to get in there, even when tariffs have been lowered. I wanted to say to the gentleman that I think that his fortitude on this as the days go on is magnificent. I just wish every American could see the hours and hours that the gentleman has put into this personally and all the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle enjoy working with the gentleman so very much. I wanted to make sure to come down here during this time as we attempt to inform the American people and our colleagues about this upcoming vote next week on extending permanent trade relations with China, that every major veterans organization in this country has come out in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations with China. I wanted to say a word about that, because I know many of our Post Commanders, our State Commanders, our Auxiliary Leaders across this Nation, are phoning their Members of Congress. They have been doing it this week, they are going to continue over the weekend and into next week, and I thought I would read into the Record and provide for the Record some of what these organizations have said, starting with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization of 1.9 million Members. I have been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of this Congress for my entire tenure here, and I was just so elated to see their letter this week, which said that we should not approve permanent relations with China. They asked that the current situation where we have an annual review here in this Congress be maintained until such time as China changes its policies and demonstrates that it is ready to treat its own people according to basic human rights standards of other modern industrialized nations. They oppose China's proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. They oppose their threats against this country and other countries in the Pacific, including the democratic Nation of Taiwan. The VFW basically says passage of the China trade bill essentially rewards China for mistreating its citizens. I want to thank all of the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, all the Post Commanders, all the Ladies Auxiliary Presidents and members, for engaging in this issue and letting their voices be heard from coast to coast, especially where it matters most, and that is back at home, in the home district with the home Member of Congress. Also the American Legion, 2.8 million members strong, this week came out against permanent trade relations with China. In its formal letter they say that they want to force China to meet four preconditions before any permanent trade relations with China are extended or for any entry into the WTO by China. Those four conditions are recognition of the Taiwanese right to self-determination; full cooperation on the accounting of American servicemen missing from the Korean War and the Cold War; abandonment of policies aimed at military dominance in Asia; and encouragement and promotion of human rights and religious freedom among the Chinese people themselves. The National Commander of the American Legion Al Lance said in his letter, ``China should embrace Democratic values before it benefits from unfettered American investment.'' The Military Order of the Purple Heart, again, calling their Members of Congress around the country, I wish to extend the appreciation of this Member of Congress for their activism on this. Over 30,000 members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and 600,000 living recipients of the Purple Heart. In their letter they say ``China as an international actor continues to behave in a manner that is threatening to international stability and U.S. security interests.'' They say this Congress should delay the granting of permanent normal trade status to China at this time because it would remove China from the review and the openness that occurs here on this floor of Congress, which does not even happen inside China itself. They are very worried about the proliferation of weapons from China to other places, and certainly their dismal human rights record. Then the Military Order of Purple Heart goes on to say, ``Today China represents the most dangerous of the emerging threats to U.S. national security. Her designs on Western Pacific dominance, her extreme belligerence toward Taiwan and her persistent espionage and theft of U.S. advanced technologies are behaviors that must be checked before any reasonable consideration of permanent normal trade status can be undertaken.'' It says, ``Many of America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed life and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean conflict, and now, 50 years after that war, China remains an unabashedly communistic regime. It is time for China to change if she wishes to be a truly welcome participant on the world stage.'' Mr. Leader, I know that I want to yield back most of the remaining time, but I would want to place on the record the official letter from the Fleet Reserve Association, representing 151,000 members, all career and retired Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen of the United States opposing permanent normal trade relations with China. In addition to that, the Warrant Officers Association, representing nearly 20,000 warrant officers of active Army, Army Guard and the Army Reserve, in their letter saying ``China shows few of the peaceful democratic traits evidenced by our Nation's other major trading partners.'' ``In this instance,'' they say, ``trade and economic considerations cannot take precedence over the safety of our Nation and that of our allies and friends.'' A letter from the Reserve Officers Association, which we will place on the record, representing over 80,000 officers in all uniformed services, indicating opposition to permanent normal trade relations with China. They want the annual review here. They are very concerned about China's military threats against Taiwan, and threatened military action against the United States if we defend Taiwan. Finally, from AMVETS, 200,000 veterans opposed in this organization to permanent normal trade relations with China, saying the security issues take precedence over trade relations with foreign nations. I would just say, finally, and again to thank all the veterans Commanders, the Ladies Auxiliaries, the Post leaders, the membership in all these organizations across the country that are weighing in, phoning their Members of Congress, I know we have gotten many calls in our community and that is happening across the country, to thank them for their activism, to encourage them this weekend and the coming week. I want to place in the Record finally the request made by one of our valued colleagues from the State of California (Mr. Berman), who tried to get a provision as we voted on this agreement that would provide that in the event that this permanent normal trade status would be granted, that in the event that China would attack, invade, or blockade Taiwan, that permanent normal trade relations would be revoked. The administration was not willing to include that in the measure that they have sent up to this Congress.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Whitfield- Strickland-Udall-Gibbons-Kanjorski sense of Congress resolution in the form of an amendment to cover workers from the Department of Energy and its contractors and vendors. I would just say to my colleagues that as this legislation moves forward, there is one important category that is not covered and that is those workers, like those at Brush Wellman in Elmore, Ohio, who worked for the Department of Defense as contractors, vendors, subcontractors. I stand today in memory of Gaylen Lemke, a gentleman who died of chronic beryllium illness last year who first came to see me in 1994. It was an absolutely cruel illness. He was as much a veteran of this country as anyone who ever flew an airplane or served on a submarine. I would just hope that as these hearings are held that true compensation could be found for these individuals and their families who have suffered so greatly, actually through no one's fault but through our lack of knowledge about how these metals actually react with the human body. When one's lungs turn to crystalline over a period of 10 to 15 years, it is among the cruelest of ways to die. I just want to thank the Members of the Committee on Armed Services here today, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), for looking really seriously at this. I would say in my region of Ohio we have upwards of 200 people who have died or will die of this illness. Please do not forget those who have worked on contract to the Department of Defense, especially providing the material that was processed for the interiors of our missiles and our guided missile systems.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes. If we want to exact change in China, why not use our marketplace as the lever? Why go through this complicated process of giving them permanent trade status globally, knowing the kind of indentured servitude that is going on in that country? And I might add there also, particularly with women, because 80 percent of the people who are exploited in that country are women. There is forced abortion. Girls in that country do not have rights to education as women in societies that are free have. In many ways, I also feel like I am speaking out for them, because I know they cannot speak out in their own country. Yet, this is the kind of system that we are going to hold up and say, well, we as Americans, we endorse this system. That is still a Communist system. I find this place incredible, that we would have Members of Congress saying, believe them. Every trade agreement we have signed with them during the decade of the nineties, when we reduced, when they said that we will reduce tariffs to allow in goods, if that had happened, our trade deficit would be getting better. It is getting worse. They are earning more off of us. We are not able to get in there.

Ms. KAPTUR. May I just say something to the gentleman, and I will allow my other colleagues to speak here? I had a young woman before one of our committees this past week. We were discussing this. She is a Chinese American. Her roommate was shot. Her roommate was a demonstrator in Tiananmen Square in 1989. This young woman who is a physicist and now lives in my community in Ohio became politically active when she saw this happen to her friend who was a democracy demonstrator inside China. I asked her about this attitude of Americans, this kind of belief. She said, I cannot believe how naive the people here really are. Do you think because China promises something, she is going to do it? Do you, who live under a rule-of-law society, believe if someone signs a piece of paper, they are going to do it? Why are you so naive? Do you not understand what goes on there? I just wanted to add that to the record this evening, and thank the gentleman so very much for taking out this special order. I know my colleagues will also want to comment. We thank the American people for listening. Maybe it is important to say if people want to see this report on the website, if they have a website, this is Made in China by Charles Karnighan, and it is at www.NLCnet.org.

Ms. KAPTUR. This year it will be somewhere between $70 and $100 billion. That is the deficit. That is how many more of our dollars go into their coffers. We are the largest funder of the Chinese increasing defense spending and purchases of weaponry and advancement in their Navy, their Army, their Air Force, all of the technology that they are buying, some of it for making some saber-rattling moves towards Taiwan. The point is that the system that we are currently supporting, and some of the proponents of this want to lock in permanently, would give the very forces that have created this system the kind of go-ahead that frankly I as a liberty-loving person cannot support. We hear the proponents say, well, but if you do this, you will bring freedom. How do we bring freedom when 110,000 Nike workers inside China who work for contract shops, 50 of them, that we could not even get into or drive by because they are hidden in country, those workers earn pennies an hour. If they earn over 35 cents an hour they are doing well. They work 7 days a week. They have mandatory overtime. If they do not do it, in other words, if they do not work from 7:30 in the morning until 11 at night, three shifts, they lose two day's wages. They are penalized if they do not do the mandatory overtime. Who can survive in that kind of system? To me, it would make sense that if the United States is taking all these goods, we take over one- third of Chinese exports globally.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our leader here this evening for his superlative commitment to the cause of decency and values that we stand for as a free people. In joining the gentleman this evening, along with our very respected colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), I am really proud to join these men and women, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) tonight in expressing in more than a minute why this is really a vote about values, and that if permanent trade status is granted in this vote to China, we essentially are placing a stamp of approval on current conditions and saying that this is the system that we want to enlarge in the future. How can we want to enlarge a system that is based on utter exploitation of people? One cannot operate a company in China unless they have an agreement with the government, with one of the state-owned companies. There was an article in USA Today this week that said that the first 19,000 cars that were sold in China in a General Motors facility that was built there were sold to the owners of the State companies, they were not sold to the workers. So if that is the kind of system that we want to build for those that have the most, then, by golly, that is what the current system is producing. If we look at the workers in those plants, they are not earning enough to buy what they make. That is the reason that, under this system that people want to approve permanently, we are amassing greater and greater trade deficits with China every year, more of our dollars going in their coffers than their currency coming here.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to our colleagues this evening, think once, think twice about U.S. trade with China, particularly in agriculture. Recently I read a fascinating report prepared by Dr. Charles McMillian, former editor of the Harvard Business Review. He is a man who understands numbers. And he says, think once, think twice. China has produced an annual glut of agricultural commodities for over a generation. In fact, the United States has registered a consistent and growing deficit in agriculture with China in two-thirds of all agricultural groupings. It is true with pork. We produced a lot of that in my corner of Ohio. It is true with corn. It is true with citrus, with vegetables, with fish. Just go down the categories. China, in fact, in the last decade, had an average annual surplus, that means they are sending more out than taking goods in, in global agricultural trade of $4 billion annually. Just last year, in 1999, the rate of that is increasing to where just in 1999 they had a $4 billion surplus of global agricultural trade over what they imported. So their advantage, essentially, is increasing. They are rapidly expanding the quantity, the quality, and the composition of products that are being exported to our country, everything from ketchup to rice and, for the first time, in 1999, cotton. Now, China recorded an overall advantage with the United States in 1985, 1986, 1992, 1993, and 1999 in agriculture. In fact, we have maintained a chronic agricultural trade deficit with them in 17 of 26 agricultural commodity groups, everything from seafood, to tobacco, sugar, cocoa, vegetables, fruits, nut, and various animal parts. What is even more troubling is that our exports to them have fallen every year since 1995 as China has strengthened our ability to export to them in spite of our bilateral agreements and tariff reductions has decreased. In fact, our agricultural exports to China in 1999 were a third less than a decade before, while U.S. imports of their agricultural commodities had literally doubled, gone up by nearly 100 percent. Now, if we think about this, China's agricultural production growth continues to outpace their own growth in domestic demand. Our own embassy in China, our agriculture attache in Beijing, points out that China is struggling to solve its fundamental problems of chronic overproduction. But it does have an inefficient distribution system. And with capital investment that might occur there as a result of going into WTO, they are going to be able to move that product more quickly around the world. Particularly key in all of this are China's partnerships with powerful global firms such as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and ConAgra. And of course, those companies export. In fact, Cargill, for example, has been in China since 1973. Cargill really does not care if it sells and markets Chinese corn or U.S. corn. So the point is there are some agricultural interests globally that will win, but it will not be U.S. farmers because that Chinese corn and pork and tobacco and seafood, and go down all the categories, are going to depress prices even more here at home. So I would say to people in rural America, think once, think twice about all of this. It is not clear that, in this recent agreement that the administration signed with China, that any new grain commitments to purchase were actually made. There were some promises that maybe there would be some tariff reduction. But if we look at the tariff reduction that occurred during the decade of the 1990s, it did not result in any more sales. It is highly unlikely that China will eliminate its non-tariff barriers to agriculture trade. It would put too great a risk on its own sector advancing. Because China, since 1949, has had an agricultural policy that said, we will be food self-sufficient. Starvation propelled them into the most recent half century, and they fully well understand what it means not to be self-sufficient in food production at home. I think that, as much as we talk about tariffs here and about non- tariff barriers, it is also important to point out that when China gets in trouble internationally, it does something very simple, it devalues its currency, as it did in 1994. So think once, think twice. China is going to put more downward pressure on U.S. food prices if permanent normal trade relations are approved with China. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on that measure.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my colleagues and those who are listening this evening of the publication of an excellent new report called Made in China, released by Charles Kernaghan, of New York City. This report can be found at web site www.nlcnet.org. It talks about the role of U.S. companies in denying human and worker rights in China. The report begins, ``For years, and now again with renewed vigor, U.S. companies have claimed that their mere presence in China would help open that society to American values.'' And it talks about ``Recent in-depth investigations,'' conducted by individuals in China, at great risk to themselves, ``of 16 factories in China producing car stereos, bikes, shoes, sneakers, clothing, TVs, hats and bags for some of the largest U.S. companies clearly demonstrate that Wal-Mart, Nike, Huffy and others and their contractors in China continue to systematically violate the most fundamental human and worker rights, while paying subsistence wages.'' The report talks about Kathie Lee handbags being made for Wal-Mart at the Qin Shi factory where 1,000 workers were being held under conditions of indentured servitude in that Communist country forced to work 12-to-14-hour days 7 days a week with only one day off a month while earning an average of 3 cents an hour. However, after months of work, 46 percent of the workers surveyed have earned nothing at all. In fact, they owed money to the company. This report is absolutely amazing, and I would urge all my colleagues to take a look at the firms mentioned in this book. I also want to refer this evening to one in particular, Huffy Bicycles, which had been manufactured in my own State of Ohio, where 2,000 people lost their jobs, people who were earning $11 an hour, making a quality product. They were asked by their company to take a $2 an hour wage cut in Salina, Ohio, and they did, earning $9 an hour, because they wanted to keep their jobs. And I might say that Huffy has 80 percent of the U.S. bicycle market. Those jobs were moved to China. They were testing the waters in China. This is even before this proposal here to have permanent normal trade relations with China. Why should we approve of a system which does the following? Huffy uses a contractor in China, the Taiwanese Zhenzhen Nan Guan Corporation in Bicycle Factory Number 1. There is also a Bicycle Factory Number 2. They assemble these bikes from parts supplied from local materials, from local factories, or from the Fuda Corporation from Taiwan. The workers in this factory work from 8 in the morning until 9:30 or 11:30 at night. They work 7 days a week. They earn 25 cents to 41 cents per hour for a weekly wage of $16.68 for a 66-hour workweek. Think about that. And if they do not work the mandatory overtime, they are penalized double. They lose $6.02 of their weekly wage, or 2 full days of wage if they refuse to work the overtime. Not only that, but the quality of the bicycle has gone down. If we go to Kmart, if we go to these retail outlets and we buy a Huffy bike, it still costs $100, but look at the welds. The double welds that used to exist on the fenders, which our workers were very proud of their work in the State of Ohio, they know good metal and they know good quality workmanship, that does not exist any more. The quality of metals has gone down. And when we try to find if the bearings are good or we try to figure out before we buy it whether the bike is of quality, everything is sprayed with paint now. We really cannot tell the quality of the workmanship until we buy the bicycle. Huffy does not stand for quality any more. I will never get one of their campaign contributions, but what they did to the workers in Salina, Ohio, to me, is repugnant. And I think to have this kind of indentured servitude, for America to approve anything permanent with China, until we fix situations like this, really undermines the fundamental liberties and principles for which this Nation should stand domestically and internationally. And let me add a word as a graduate of the University of Michigan. Two weeks ago the University of Michigan Board of Trustees, along with Brown University and the University of Oregon, refused to sign contracts with Nike Corporation, which is also talked about in this excellent report. And they did that because all the university boards of trustees asked to do was that the sports departments not buy sports equipment from sweat shop labor in places like China. Those companies were so angry that they cut off $26 million to the University of Michigan's endowment as well as the University of Oregon and Brown University. Well, Mr. Speaker, my hat is off to those university boards. The presidents of those universities, including Gordon Gee of Brown University. They did the right thing for the world, the right thing for America. Their moral courage will stand on its own.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today I have a heavy heart. It is in great sadness that I honor my dear friend, Myra (Casimira) Lenard, who fought her courageous and long bout with grave illness so valiantly. On Monday afternoon, May 1, Myra passed from this life after having served as the long time Executive Director of the Washington Office of the Polish American Congress. For nearly 20 years, she became the much revered force representing Polish Americans here in our Nation's Capital. Her fortitude was to be admired as she guided the Congress through the tumultuous times of Solidarity and Martial Law. What a gift that she lived to witness the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then saw the fulfillment of a life-long quest as Poland left the Warsaw Pact and became a member of NATO. She may be best remembered, though, for leading the charge to convert proceeds of the Polish American Enterprise Fund into the Polish American Freedom Foundation. It was Myra who worked tirelessly with the White House and Members of Congress ensuring that voices of Polish Americans in our country would be heard. It was Myra who sacrificed so much to fight for those unable to do it themselves. Born in Poland, she emigrated to the United States as a small child, where she spent many years involved in Chicago's Polonian organizations. There she met the love of her life, Casimir I. Lenard, whom she married and then moved with him to Washington, DC in 1962. Once here, she immediately began volunteering her time to needy, worthy causes. Her talents were recognized as she ultimately achieved a leadership position at the Polish American Congress. Myra was the worthy recipient of numerous awards, including the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit--the highest civilian award granted by Poland, presented by Polish Foreign Minister Wladslaw Bartoszewski in 1995. At a meeting of the Supervisory Council of the Polish National Alliance in December 1998, she and her husband were enrolled in the PNA's Legion of Merit. The list of her accomplishments cannot fully capture the fullness of this dynamic, gracious, dedicated and politically brilliant woman. Truly she was a freedom-lover. Mr. Speaker, may we gain some small comfort in knowing the spirit and fire that Myra carried through her life that helped bring freedom to her first homeland inspired thousands who have been touched with her light and love. May peace bless her always. And may the work to which she dedicated her life--with family and career--stand as a living testament to this regal and loving woman. America is fortunate indeed that she chose this nation as her permanent homeland.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his leadership on this. We could not ask for a better Member of Congress. I also want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for allowing me these few minutes, and I will try not to use all the time. It has been a joy to work with our colleagues to open up the truth about China to the American people. And today in Congress, we held a bipartisan hearing on one of the dimensions of this debate that has not been talked about. We called our hearing ``Women in China, Women in Chains''. C-SPAN was there for the entirety of this hearing where there were four witnesses, women from China who came to tell their incredibly compelling stories. Stories of repression. Stories of forced abortion. Stories of missing women and children. Stories of women in the countryside and in factories as exploited workers. Women married to men who are fighting for democracy, many in prison from 10 to 30 years. Other women imprisoned because they participated in a spiritual group, Falun Gong. Other women from Tibet. A young woman whose roommate had demonstrated in Tiananmen Square and was shot dead, and that young woman today came before our committee. She had been activated through that, even though she is a physicist by training, telling how she has gotten involved in trying to tell the American people the true story of what is happening in China. And the story of women workers in the countryside who are producing the majority of food in that country. Women in the factories, exploited women workers, their voices we tried to lift up. Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the membership know that the hearing itself, because it was recorded on C-SPAN, is being advertised on their Web site at www.cspan.org. My colleagues can look for the hearing on women's rights in China to hear the truth about what is happening in that country. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who was here, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for joining us today and helping us to listen to these stories where women basically told us, look, the only time that prisoners who are democracy demonstrators are let go in China is during the debate here in the Congress of the United States on trade with China. They said please do not give that away. If you give this power from the United States to the World Trade Organization, the enforcement will not occur. We are the only Nation in the world raising concerns about Communism in China. And once it goes to the WTO, it will be lost. America will retain her power by using our bilateral trade negotiations with China to at least, at least give voice to over 1.2 billion people who cannot voice their own opinions inside their society. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) so very much. You truly have been a leader, not just for America's workers and farmers but for the worlds and a liberty-loving Member, obviously of this Congress. And, as I said, to the people who assembled at the hearing this morning, the flag over this Capitol flies 24 hours a day and it flies not just for America but for the cause of liberty everywhere. For those women today who testified, who cannot return to China in fear for the lives of their families and relatives, we stood proud with them today. We understood what this Constitution is all about, and we hope that the young people of our country will watch www.cspan.org to see the world's new democracy fighters in countries like China who are paying the most precious price with their lives, sacrificing their families, giving everything to try to bring a greater measure of freedom to a country that still remains Communist in every aspect of life there. I thank the gentleman so very, very much. Please watch www.cspan.org. Look when this program will be broadcast.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my very able colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for sponsoring this resolution and my dear friend and our leader, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for sponsoring this resolution this evening. I, as an Ohioan and a daughter of the Buckeye State, rise with a heavy heart along with our colleagues from New York to extend deepest sympathy to the family, the friends and the colleagues, both in public life, in private life, in church life, for the unselfish life of John Cardinal O'Connor. We mourn with all the loss of this truly great spiritual leader and world figure of enormous proportion. It is amazing. I guess one could say there are cardinals and then there are cardinals, and without question those of us who hail west of Long Island and New York City kind of viewed Cardinal O'Connor and the New York archdiocese as our connection to the world, and his role stretched beyond the diocese of New York. I have to think back to a wonderful invitation that was extended to us by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to meet with Cardinal O'Connor about 2 years ago when many of us who are very concerned about rebuilding in the former Soviet Union had brought visitors from, in that instance, the Ukraine to New York, people who had never traveled to the United States before, and Cardinal O'Connor agreed to hold mass to introduce these individuals in front of his magnificent congregation in New York City and then afterwards to privately meet with these individuals who could not even imagine that they would have had that set of experiences. I can remember the cardinal afterwards hosting them in his private residence, something he did not have to do. I can recall during the mass, when it began, how he as a great moral leader but also an individual with great discipline and dispatch walked down the middle aisle of St. Patrick's Cathedral. I will never forget that. He had such a long gait because he was so tall, and he had so much energy you just felt like he lifted New York up; and he lifted all of us by the way he carried himself, and then to listen to his homily, the great humor, the keen mind that he displayed. And every moment during that very, very special day for us is something I shall never forget and even then more importantly for the people who were our guests from the former Soviet Union, he, through the Catholic Near East Welfare Fund, began to work with them. Again, the branches of America's free society, with all of our institutions, including those of our religious institutions, began to build back and began to plant seeds that will bloom in generations to come. I will always remember the fact that he was able to host us and he did that. We were not from New York. We were not from that archdiocese. In fact, some of our visitors were from around the world, and I really gained a much deeper appreciation of the importance of the New York diocese, the importance of that particular cardinal, and his own commitment to those who were not of his congregation there inside of New York City. So tonight we mourn his passing from this life, but I want to again acknowledge the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for bringing us together and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for placing in the Record the life story and the contributions of this truly world spiritual leader who has made such a difference in the lives of Americans but also people around the world whose lives he touched. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, to his friends, to the people of New York, and people of spiritual conviction around the world.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, functioning democracy in the newly emerging independent states of the former Soviet Union requires setting up new political institutions and developing the means of conducting the people's business. As we have seen in many of these countries, this is proving to be a challenge beyond the patience and political will of their leaders, particularly given the harsh economic conditions throughout the region. More often than not, responsible economic policies represent, in the short term, even greater hardships for the people whose support is essential if democracy and market economy are to be sustained in these countries. In Ukraine this challenge was put to test earlier this year when the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, was confronted with a serious political crisis over the selection of the Speaker and other leadership positions. The Leftist forces, though in the minority, have managed to control the parliament for the past 18 months, thwarting the majority's efforts to implement President Kuchma's legislative agenda. A vivid description of how the leftist speaker, Oleksandr Tkachenko, thwarted the majority and the subsequent developments that lead to his ouster are provided in a report by the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation. In Update on Ukraine, February 24, 2000, Markian Bilynskj writes. Until January 21, the final day of the fourth parliamentary session, the Rada was presided over by a chairman whose political ambitions and sense of indispensability were matched only by his limitations. Oleksandr Tkachenko had been elected essentially by default 18 months earlier as elements within the Rada and beyond fought to prevent the chairmanship from falling into the hands of anyone harboring presidential ambitions. His eventual, somewhat surprise decision to run brought about a further politicization of the legislative process and was the principal reason behind the Rada's growing ineffectiveness. Tkanchenko's final unabashed identification with the communist candidate--a fitting conclusion to what can only be described as a parody of an election campaign--represented an abandonment of any pretense at impartiality and irreversibly undermined his credibility as Rada chairman. At the same time, President Leonid Kuchma's re-election altered the broader political context within which the Rada had to operate to such an extent that Tkachenko was transformed from a largely compromise figure into an anachronism. After the December election, President Kuchma's administration joined with the pro-reform majority to challenge Speaker Oleksandr Tkachenko and his Communist-Left forces and succeeded in electing a new Speaker and many of the leadership positions in the Rada. The result is a newly constituted parliament with a majority now occupying key positions that is capable of responding to President Kuchma and Prime Minister Yuschenko's reform agendas. I would like to submit for the record and bring to the attention of my colleagues an interview with Griority Surkis, a prominent, businessman and member of the Rada. It's Time for Transparency (By Grigoriy Surkis) It would be desirable if our Parliament did not have deep divisions between the majority and minority factions; however this is not possible due to deep-rooted ideological divisions in the country. Former Speaker Tkachenko, leader of the Communists in the Rada, demonstrated his inability to work out a compromise even when the majority announced a willingness to work cooperatively with Communist leaders on a legislative program. By the way, leaders of the Ukraine Communists should learn a lesson from their Russian counterparts, who recently made a deal with the pro-government factions in organizing the Duma and distributing assignments among party leaders. They have a difficult time understanding that Communist authoritarianism does not exist in post-Soviet societies, nor is it as strong after eight years of democracy. However, it remains to be seen how the pro-government block in Russia will get the Communist Speaker of the Duma to act on progressive legislation and actually achieve results. I sincerely wish that this arrangement will work so that the people of Russia benefit from progressive changes that will improve living standards that make for a better society. In my opinion, Ukraine has chosen the right path. In parliament, we formed a majority bloc by uniting the ``healthy'' forces who were committed to reform legislation. This is necessary to ensure speedy action on a range of progressive proposals to deal with the problems of our pension system, taxes, and the criminal and civil code. This will help us to clean house in the Rada and institute badly needed changes that, in the past, impeded our efforts to confront these needs. Is compromise possible? Let's think about it. We want our people to live in a new environment but there are some who want to pull us back to the old Soviet system. To go back is to lose hope and confidence in our ability to improve our situation. The reformers want a government that will enable people to own property while the Communists want people to be the property of the state. We believe that the Constitution is the basic law, but they still believe the ``Party'' is the supreme authority. Finally, in a democracy it is acceptable to have a compromise, which is how people work out their differences. But the old guard distrusts working with what they see as the ``bourgeois'' and reject efforts to resolve differences amicably. So we are not talking about compromise in terms of confronting the issues and resolving differences, but the Communists see any negotiations with reformers as selling out or imposing a kompromat on us. I am reminded of the words of the great Golda Meir, who was born in Kiev, who once said: ``We want to live. Our neighbors want to see us dead. I am afraid that this does not leave any space for compromise''. The problem would not be so serious if we were talking only about Parliament. However, we are talking about society as a whole. The Leftists seem committed to destroying the Rada, the one institution that ensures representation of the people in government decision making. Perhaps they do not know about Abraham Lincoln's statement that a house divided cannot succeed and that their intransigence will prevent democracy from taking root in Ukraine. Everyone knows what happens to the person if his right leg makes two steps forward and the left remains rooted in the same spot. I want to stress again that after the 1999 presidential election, it became obvious that a divided parliament with a Communist as Speaker would prove unacceptable and only serve to obstruct the reform agenda of the government. Had the Communists prevailed, they would have taken the country down the back road of political fatalism. Yet there are some who worry that the unfairness of winners hides the guilt of losers. I can only say that if the Leftists had won the election, we would not be asking these questions. I am afraid that if the majority had allowed a Communist to remain as Speaker, it would have proved to be a temporary solution, similar to what will happen with the Duma. In the United States, it is possible for the Republicans to control the Congress and the other party to have the Presidency. This is possible because America has 200 years of experience working within democratic system. Our country does not have time to wait. For us, every day without enacting and implementing laws is a huge setback for a country that must accomplish so much in a critically short time. The majority knows that it is impossible to form a parliament without the opposition, and it is our intention to treat proposals from the opposition seriously. We have assumed political responsibility that gives us an opportunity to cooperate with the newly re-elected president who bears the main responsibility for society as a whole. We recognize that it is the president who must provide the leadership and direct the institutions of government. Throughout the years of Ukraine's independence, there is not a single case when the three branches of power simultaneously worked together on behalf of Ukrainian citizens. Today we must take responsibility and are ready to be accountable for our actions. Once again, we do not have time. The majority of Ukrainian citizens spoke very clearly in the recent election of giving President Kuchma a new four-year term. By this vote, they rejected the Communist Party and the idea of turning back to the old system where freedom and human rights did not exist. The Communists, of course, feel threatened by the new democratic forces and their reform agenda. They do not want to relinquish power and recognize that a new generation of intelligent and resourceful leaders is taking charge. That is the promise of democracy and, if given a chance to succeed, the future of Ukraine in the new millennium.