Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment. I think it is a wise amendment because the idea of limiting money for procurement on a system that we already have preliminary information about cannot possibly work is a service to the taxpayers, and I certainly want to support such an amendment. There are many who say right now in the scientific community that the system simply cannot work, that it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Now, let us say that there is a warhead coming in from this system. Right now as it is being developed, and that as it is coming in, the missile is launched to intercept it, and the way we hope it works is that, in an ideal world, the missile touches the warhead and destroys it. That is what this is all about. However, what has actually happened according to the New York Times, a test was taken and the warhead simulation goes up, the missile intercept goes at it; but what happens is it actually missed the warhead and hits a decoy. Now, if it hits a decoy, what happens to the warhead? The warhead continues on towards its target and good-bye whatever city it is headed towards. The problem according to the technology that is being discussed right now, which is why the Tierney amendment on procurement is so good, is that the technology does not exist to tell the difference between a warhead or a decoy. So the missiles will go up, and the chances are they are not going to do the job of intercepting. Now, there is a further complication to this and that is that on the one time that a test was said to be successful, there are creditable reports which again have been reported publicly by the New York Times which suggest that so-called successful test actually was achieved through refiguring the test results and in effect jimmying the test results, tricking them up, if you will, fraudulently putting the test results together and then passing that off as a successful test. That, by the way, has been communicated to the White House. We ought to be concerned about whether or not a system works or whether it can work.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I do not take from anything that the gentleman said that the gentleman would endorse fraud.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the Rev. Robert T. Strommen on the occasion of his retirement after 41 years of ministry. Mr. Strommen graduated from Princeton University in 1956, then went on to earn a master's of divinity from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He was ordained in 1959, and served as pastor of St. John's United Church of Christ in Larimer, Pennsylvania for the next 7 years. in 1967, Reverend Strommen was called to Philadelphia, where he served as Minister of Metropolitan Mission for the United Church of Christ. Throughout his many years of faithful service, Reverend Strommen has been active in community affairs. He received an award from the Greenburg-Jeanette Chapter of the NAACP for his services. In Philadelphia he worked with leaders of inner city congregations and developed Conference urban strategy. He also worked with the Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization, the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens, and other community action groups. Reverend Strommen began working with the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries in 1976, serving as secretary for Social and Urban Concerns. He was very involved in issues related to health and welfare and also coordinated the Board for Homeland Ministries' Minister of Metropolitan Mission program. In 1987, Mr. Strommen developed a program for training for mission outreach with local churches. Since September, 1988, Reverend Strommen has served as association minister of the Western Reserve Association of the Ohio Conference. He continues to be involved in urban issues, and has served on the steering committee of the Jobs with Justice coalition in Cleveland. Reverend Strommen has been a dedicated advocate for the working person's right to be treated with dignity and justice. He has set an example for us all with his tireless and energetic work in defense of workers' rights. My fellow colleagues, please join with me on the occasion of his retirement in honoring the Rev. Robert T. Strommen for his dedication, faith, and commitment.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, for the record, the Dalai Lama has not come out for this legislation. This rule makes in order a commission to review human rights violations in China. Why do we need a commission when we have a Congress? We cannot expect corporations to stand up for human rights. Congress must stand up for human rights. This Congress has the power in an annual review to uphold human rights and worker rights. The commission could be called a fig leaf to try to cover up human rights and worker rights violations. Will we choose a fig leaf or will we use the power of our voting cards annually? Why have a commission when we have a Congress? It is upside down to insist that no U.S. trade review of human rights violations in China is better than an annual review. This Congress must insist that we stand up for America's dearest and most cherished values, for freedom, for justice. That is the American way; and if we are going to make this world a better place, we have to stand for it.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I agree with the gentleman. At the same time, we have to look at the Chinese to know that the Chinese people are our brothers and sisters. They are not cut off from the grace of God. They are our brothers and sisters. And because they are our brothers and sisters, because they are people in China who are suffering under inhumane working conditions, slave labor conditions, working for 3 cents an hour making handbags, or a little bit more than that making electronic equipment, we have a responsibility to stand up for human rights to review the conduct of their government. Now the development of a new economic model in any government has to be challenging, we recognize that, but U.S. corporations have great power. What is happening when they go to China, it is as if they are averting their eyes. They do not want to see what is happening, and yet when we see Motorola, figures available from 1996, now it is billions more since then, Motorola investing $1.2 billion in China; Atlantic Richfield, $625 million; Coca Cola, a half a billion dollars; Amoco, $350 million; Ford Motor, $250 million; United Technologies, $250 million; Pepsi Cola, $200 million; Lucent Technologies, $150 million; General Electric, $165 million. Now granted, make multiples of that and we will know the investment today. My first question is what is wrong with investing in America? My father fought in World War II, had his leg shot out at a place called Bougainville, spent all of his life with a limp and a silver plate in his leg like so many people in that generation who fought for this country, who fought for that flag, they did not fight for it so their grandchildren would not be able to get a decent job. They did not fight for it so American corporations would forget the red, white and blue and begin to worship the great green god of the dollar bill as if that is the only value we need to be worried about. People fought to defend this country because we believe in basic human dignity, because we believe in human rights, because we believe in basic freedom, because we believe in human liberty. That is something that we have believed in through more than 200 years of our existence as a Nation. That is something that men and women have died for, and we are going to give it away just with the signature and the stroke of a pen. That cannot happen. We cannot stand here and watch while China is being used with all of its anti-democratic tendencies as an export platform back to the United States, wiping out millions, eventually, of American jobs, good-paying jobs. And then where do American workers stand when they fight for their rights?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, here is the point that comes off of what the gentleman from California is making in this few minutes that we have remaining. We are all for the people of China being able to have workers' rights and have a decent living. It is pretty hard, though, when we have labor activists that, the minute that they start to organize, they go to jail. I have a list here, a pretty long list, of individuals who, the minute they try to start speaking about trying to get better wages out of these U.S.- multinational corporations based in China, they end up in jail. So I think that, again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his participation in this last hour. I think that what we have been able to establish is that this Congress tomorrow ought to be voting to defeat permanent trading status for China. We should have an annual review. Let us keep China engaged, but let us not turn away the only real lever that we have, and that is our ability to set the rules through annual review. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) if he would like a final word.

Mr. KUCINICH. Exactly. Here is another one. Laser printers with control and printer mechanisms, $88 million from China; zero from the United States. More scores here. Radio transceivers, $62 million from China; zero from the United States. Going on, fax machines, $35 million from China; zero purchased in the United States. And it goes on and on and on in this report where all of these jobs where China is being used as this export platform for all of this high-tech but the real thing that will get, I think, every American, listen to this. Turbo jet aircraft engines, $3.7 million from China, zero from the United States. Turbo prop aircraft engines, $1.5 million from China in 1999, zero from the United States. Radar designed for boat or ship installation, $1.5 million from China, $8,000 from the United States. Reception apparatus for radio, $1.3 million from China, zero from the United States. Then we get into the military. Listen to this. Parts of military airplanes and helicopters, we are buying this from China, almost a half a million dollars, zero sold from the United States. Parts of aircraft gas turbines, almost $1 million from China, zero from the United States. Binoculars, almost $1 million, zero from the United States. Rifles that eject missiles by release of air and gas, over $1 million, zero from the United States. Concluding on this part, and something that would really frost most Americans, we are buying from China bombs, grenades, torpedoes, and similar munitions of war. Where are we going with this China trade? It is time for America to pull back here and to reassess where we are going, how our national security is at risk, how our stand for human rights and workers' rights is at risk, and how, if we are to stand for anything as Americans, we ought to stand for the interest of the United States first and foremost.

Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Even with annual review, now think about this because we have talked about these things many times, even with annual review, as our friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has pointed out, the right to freedom of belief is explicitly denied to 60 million members of the Communist party of China. The Falun Gong, thousands of their practitioners have been arrested. I heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on the floor today saying that eight Catholic bishops were arrested. Now here we are on the very day we are talking about a medal for the Pope, who I greatly admire, celebrating his force for spiritual good in this world, China is arresting Catholic bishops. Now, is it going to get better if we have no review, I would ask the gentleman? What does the gentleman think?

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has a good point, and we know that there is more to the U.S.-China relationship than meets the eye. We have to look at the kind of goods the U.S. imports from China. Now, contrary to the myth, the United States does not just import shoes, but high-tech products from the industries of tomorrow. In almost every major category of traded goods, from agricultural commodities to advanced technology products, the U.S. has a deficit with China. We wonder, what does all of this mean? Well, China's surpluses in everything from corn to disk drives means that there is not a market in China for any American-made products. Lower tariffs and nontariff trade barriers do not change the fact that China already grows and manufactures more than their population consumes. So we cannot expect current trends to reverse. Exports to China will increase; imports from China will increase much more. I think that when we consider why we have this big push here for permanent trade status, let us look at it. Mr. Speaker, the large U.S. corporations are the ones behind the push. They want it so that they can invest in new factories in China, use China as their export platform, low wages, no worker rights, no human rights, no religious freedoms, no freedom of speech, no labor voice. They want to sell their products back to the U.S. with confidence that Congress will not levy tariffs or erect trade barriers in the future. I mean, let us face it. Our ability to influence labor rights and human rights depends on having an annual review, I say to the gentleman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to be speaking about the permanent most favored nation status for China. And in the time that follows, I hope to demonstrate to the Members of Congress why this legislation ought to be defeated tomorrow and why this Congress needs to return to the roots of our country, the historic roots which have been the result of people really caring about human rights, caring about the rights of all people. When this country was founded, it was founded by people who felt that, as the Declaration of Independence indicates, it was necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind require that we should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. And in that Declaration, which is our heritage, it goes on to say we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Mr. Speaker, this Congress exists as part of a continuum of representatives who have come here throughout the ages, and so many of us raised our right hand to say the words of our desire to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), spoke so well a few hours ago, our purpose as Members of Congress, our first and foremost to defend the interests of the United States of America. Now, certainly as Members of Congress, we can make the decision to see whether it is the interest of the American people to engage in trade with nations of the world, and we have done that. Indeed, this House of Representatives has taken the position time after time that we should use trade as a means of exchange among the nations, but at no time has this House ever stood back and renounced its obligation to uphold the highest of principles upon which this country is based. I do not think there is a Member of this House who came to Washington without being animated by those lively sentiments of faith in America, of hope in our country, of a belief in the American dream, of wanting to share that with everyone. And so when we cast a vote on trade issues, we may do so with the highest expectations, but we must do so with the proper dose of reality. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that when we are looking at all the promises and claims that are being made about the benefits of permanent most favored nation trading status for China, that we look at the recent history of the implementation of a major trade agreement which some Members of this Congress had the opportunity to vote on, a major trade agreement which was promoted by the current administration, a major trade agreement known as the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, that took effect with such great fanfare on January 1, 1994. In this report by Charles McMillion, he said it was ``the first ever experiment in rapid and sweeping deregulation of investment and trade policies between a low-wage developing country and highly industrial countries.'' That seems at this moment as an echo of what we are hearing in this debate today over China, that it is still another experiment in rapid and sweeping deregulation of investment and trade policies between a low-wage developing country and a highly industrialized country, the United States of America. Over 6 years later, we have the returns from all the promises that were made from NAFTA. We remember those promises. As Mr. McMillion states in his report, ``NAFTA advocates insisted that the agreement would create good U.S. jobs by providing the U.S. a total trade surplus,'' and hear that word, they promised ``a surplus in goods with Mexico of $50 billion accumulated over NAFTA's first 6 years.'' But in the first 6 years, the U.S. has accumulated a trade deficit in goods with Mexico of about $93 billion. That deficit translates into a loss of American jobs. So the promises of a $50 billion surplus suddenly are turned into a $93 billion deficit. McMillion goes on to say that NAFTA advocates expected the agreement to provide U.S. advantage over the rest of the world in Mexico trade, assuring a U.S. trade surplus far into the future. During the first 6 years of NAFTA, the U.S. suffered total current account losses to Mexico of $118 billion. The rest of the world enjoyed a surplus, a surplus from Mexico, of $190 billion. In his study, he points out that Mexico exported 621,000 cars, just to the U.S., in the 12 months to June 1999, while the U.S. base producers were able to export only 477,000 cars to the entire world. The U.S. net export deficit with Mexico for cars, light trucks and parts reached $16.6 billion in 1998 and could exceed $20 billion in 1999. The deficit with Mexico for computers and computer components reached $2.2 billion in 1998, and may reach $4 billion in 1999. Now, Mr. Speaker, I represent Cleveland, Ohio, in the Congress of the United States. My community is a city of auto workers, of steelworkers, of people who work in industries connected to aerospace, of small machine shops. It is a city which has a growing medical industry. It is a city which is trying to move towards high-tech. It is a city that I am proud to represent in the Congress of the United States, a city which is an investment banking and also insurance growth community. But the jobs that made Cleveland, Ohio, great, indeed the jobs that made this Nation a great Nation, were the jobs in steel, in automotive and in aerospace, jobs which helped to protect this country through two world wars, jobs which are part of our strategic industrial base, jobs which now we are finding through a single trade agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, jobs which began to slip away, not only from Cleveland, but good paying jobs slipping away all over the country. The U.S. net export losses to Mexico trade suggest a displacement of 378,000 higher wage U.S. goods producing jobs shifted to service producing jobs where weekly wages are 38 percent lower, according to the McMillion report. The calculations of NAFTA's strongest supporters show that even before NAFTA, wages associated with U.S. exports to Mexico paid less than jobs displaced by U.S. exports from Mexico. NAFTA's investor guarantees, threats of relocation and the size and growth of the Mexican labor force had an even greater effect in depressing U.S. wages and profits. Now, I use this as a prologue to the discussion about China, because trade with China dwarfs trade with Mexico. At this very moment, the United States annual deficit for trade with Mexico is $70 billion. Since 1992, our trade deficit with China is over $350 billion. Those are American jobs, and they are not just shoes, they are not just handbags, they are high-tech jobs, which I am going to get into in a moment. What about permanent MFN status with China? Contrary to what certain special interests are saying to Capitol Hill, it is neither necessary nor desirable to grant China permanent MFN trading status. Instead, Congress can and should continue to review China's trading status on an annual basis. Permanent MFN is not necessary. We know the WTO does not require that the U.S. grant China permanent MFN. In fact, the international trade agreement only requires that China receive MFN, but it does not specify that the award be on a permanent basis. We could continue to review China's trading status on an annual basis and satisfy the WTO. So long as the U.S. does not allow the status to lapse, we would be in compliance without international trade obligations. There is no legal reason requiring Congress to give China permanent MFN status. That is just not my legal opinion, it is that of the Secretary of Commerce, William Daley. At a news conference on December 16, 1999, Secretary of Commerce Daley admitted to a reporter for a Washington trade journal that permanent MFN is not legally necessary. However, the administration emphatically wants permanent status. Let me say why permanent status is not desirable. Permanent MFN for China will cost the U.S. the best leverage we have to influence China to enact worker rights, human rights and religious rights and protections. At the current time, the U.S. buys about 40 percent of China's exports, making it a consumer with a lot of clout. It is hardly that we are in a position of being a helpless nation here. We still can and should set the agenda. So long as the U.S. annually continues to review China's trade status, we have the potential ability to use access to the U.S. market as leverage for gains in worker and human rights. But once China is given permanent MFN, we lose that leverage, and China will be free to attract multinational capital on the promise of super low wages, medieval workplace conditions and prison labor. Indeed, and unfortunately, that is what some of our global corporations are looking for. Recent history shows that the current Chinese regime is completely incapable of reform on its own. Consider the case of the 1992 memorandum of understanding between the United States and China on prison labor when China agreed to take measures to halt the export of products made with forced labor. According to a recent State Department report, and this is a quote, ``In all cases,'' and that is of forced labor identified by U.S. customs, ``the Chinese Ministry of Justice refused the request, ignored it, or simply denied the allegations without further elaboration.'' If America gives up its annual review of China's trade status, Congress will be unable to do anything about worker rights there. Furthermore, giving China permanent MFN will be harmful to the U.S. economy, since the record trade deficit with China and attendant problems such as loss of U.S. jobs and lower average wages in the United States will worsen. For 1999, the trade deficit is likely to be nearly $70 billion. Once China is awarded permanent MFN and WTO membership, the trade deficit will worsen. In its September 30 report, the International Trade Commission concluded that China's accession to the WTO would cause an increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China. As a matter of fact, the news today is that this deal may actually hurt the trade deficit, and we all know that, that it will make America's already huge trade deficit with China worse, rather than better. This report from the Associated Press economics writer, Martin Crutsinger, says opponents have gleefully seized on the report by the U.S. International Trade Commission to do their own analysis, projecting the China deal will result in a loss of 872,000 American jobs over the next decade. That is 872,000 American jobs projected to be lost over the next decade. Will those be jobs in Cleveland, Ohio? Will those be jobs in New York? Will they be jobs in New Jersey? Will they be jobs in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, throughout Ohio, in Wisconsin? Will they be jobs in California? Will they be jobs in Texas? They will be jobs from all over this country. A little bit later on, Mr. Speaker, I am going to address categorically where our high-tech industries are at risk in this China trade deal. I will address categorically where labor rights violations are taking place, and I will address categorically where human rights and religious persecution, human rights violations and religious persecution is taking place. Concluding for the moment, there is no legal requirement to award China permanent MFN. Permanent MFN would be a drag on the U.S. economy and cost us the best leverage we have to promote justice in China and throughout the world. So let us avoid a travesty. The President and the Speaker of the House and everyone should chime in and ask Congress to continue its annual review of China's trade status, and even at this late moment I say, we can come together and approve unanimously of an annual review, but China should not be given permanent MFN status. At this point I would like to recognize my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), Mr. Speaker, if I may yield for a moment, from Sherman Oaks, California, who so ably represents not only that district, but the State of California in this Congress. I am honored to have the gentleman here this evening, and I am so grateful to have the opportunity to share this forum with the gentleman.

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman is right. When the gentleman considers where we are going in the future with this 64 percent difference in imports and exports with China, earlier I mentioned the score, let us look at some scores here. Camcorder, $176 million from China; $58,000 to China. Laser printers, $101 million from China; zero that we sent to China.

Mr. KUCINICH. Oh, no.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his learned presentation. Certainly, the Berman amendment would add a considerable element to this debate so as to indicate our interest in seeing the aggressive nature of Chinese military policy tamed. I might add that our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), sent a communication today which shows that China has recently received cruise missiles from Russia, a deployment of 24 SSN 22 antiship cruise missiles on a Chinese Sovremenny class destroyer as the most significant recent weapons development by the People's Liberation Army naval forces, according to the Navy officials, and this is in a Washington Times dispatch. These weapons, according to the headline, give Beijing a boost in firepower. I believe in what President Kennedy said years ago when he said, ``We should not negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.'' So we need to negotiate with China. We need to engage with China, but perhaps what is in line here is a very long engagement.

Mr. KUCINICH. Precisely the point, I say to the gentleman. Proponents of permanent MFN for China like to say that once the U.S. gives permanent MFN to China, exports are going to continue to grow. Since industries exporting to China employ Americans, permanent MFN must be good for America, that is what we are told. But I really wonder if it is that simple. For example, if the gentleman were told, or if we were told that the Yankees, I will say Yankees because they are in our American League, if the Yankees scored 6 runs in a ball game, could we conclude that the Yankees won?

Mr. KUCINICH. Right. Everyone knows we have to know how many runs the Yankees' opponents scored to know if the Yankees' 6 runs were enough to win. If one is a Cleveland Indians fan one would, for sure. Mr. Speaker, whether it is baseball or trade flows, people need to see both sides of the ledger. So what is the economic score? The U.S. imports from China, much more than the exports to China, according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. has a trade deficit of upwards of $70 billion for 1999 alone. So while it is true that U.S. exports to China have increased, it is also true that imports from China have increased much more.

Mr. KUCINICH. Certainly.

Mr. KUCINICH. As usual, the gentleman is right on the mark. We know that these major corporations are looking at China as a labor pool of 1.3 billion. Here are some quotes that we pulled out from some of our major corporations. Coca Cola Systems in China spends about $600 million each year in sourcing all of its raw materials and packages within China. Delphi Automotive Systems aims to eventually close the gap between the Chinese automotive component industry and the world. Dow Chemical seeks to create in China the large scale production required to be a major supplier to customers in China and beyond. In Eastman Kodak's view, in a market such as China with the value of businesses expected to grow rapidly, local manufacturing is simply a better business model. Eastman Kodak's China manufacturing operations reflect Beijing's determination to create professional enterprises which could displace imports and boost tax revenues. GE Shanghai Silicone's factory will replace imports from the United States, and on and on and on. Now in the 10 minutes which we have left, I would like to continue this colloquy and as the gentleman was talking about the cellular telephones, I looked at the index to this report by Charles McMillion. It is a report which talks about China's rapid leap into advanced technologies. It is really the rapid leap of U.S.-based multinational corporations into the advanced technologies. They talk about in the advanced technology products, the U.S. now imports 64 percent more than it exports. Now everyone knows about the difficulties we have had in steel, automotive and aerospace. As a matter of fact, when I first came to Congress, representatives from Boeing were among the first in my office already laying the groundwork for permanent trade status for China; and they were admitting to me openly that the price of entry into the market in China was for Boeing to give China its prototypes for the most advanced aircraft manufacturing. So much for the tens of thousands of American jobs on the line at Boeing and now McDonnell Douglas. The gentleman made a comment about cellular phones. In this report, which talks about advanced technology trade losses, they mentioned cellular phones. In 1999, America imported $98,517,366 worth of cellular telephones from China. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is an astute gentleman. How much does the gentleman think the United States exported to China? We bought close to $100 million in cell phones from China. How much did China buy from the U.S. in cell phones, I would ask the gentleman?

Mr. KUCINICH. So the gentleman's answer would be none?

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman is correct. Is that your final answer, though?

Mr. KUCINICH. Please do.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the book of Genesis tells the sad story of Esau, son of Isaac, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. As Americans, our birthright is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The tradition of our country has been the unfolding of those liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, including workers' rights and human rights. This is our birthright. The Chinese people do not enjoy these freedoms. They suffer under slave labor, prison labor, no workers' rights, no human rights. They suffer from religious repression. They do not have, as we do, above their center of power, the words, ``In God We Trust.'' Those words, if we stand by our values, infuse us with powerful moral leadership. That is why we need to hold the moral high ground with annual review of human rights and labor practices of China. It is access to our market which enables us to hold the moral high ground. The multinational corporations with their single-minded dedication to profit at all costs cannot be expected to defend workers rights anywhere, let alone in China. It is our duty to defend workers' rights and human rights, and we have no right to abdicate that responsibility ever. Chinese workers are paid as little as 3 cents an hour. Whose values are those? The Chinese government which uses slave labor; the global corporations which capitalize on slave labor. How many hours do Chinese people have to work to account for a $70 billion trade deficit with the United States? How many American manufacturing jobs will go to China's workers who are paid 3 cents an hour? There is a myth that if one digs a hole deep enough, one will reach China. We have dug the hole deep with a $70 billion trade deficit. We will learn tomorrow if we have reached China. If in that hole we put our jobs, decent wages, workers' rights, and human rights, will we cover up that hole and claim victory? But, Mr. Chairman, peace and justice is already our birthright. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are already our birthright. Workers' rights and human rights are already our birthright. Will we, like Esau in Genesis, sell our birthright for a mess of pottage which multinational corporations offer? What is the price of freedom? Do we so little value freedom that we are prepared to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor? Vote against PNTR.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, a recent ad placed by Motorola, and this is the ad, says, ``China is finally open for business, and America's factories are ready to respond to this historic opportunity to boost exports to China and support jobs at home.'' Now, Motorola wants Congress to believe that it will increase jobs and investment at the American factories for export to China. A Chinese newspaper gets a different story. Motorola is telling the Chinese, we are going to invest another $2 billion in China once China enters the World Trade Organization, which would follow this permanent MFN vote, on top of the $1.1 billion that Motorola has already invested in Chinese production. So here is Motorola going to build a new factory to produce telecommunication products in China. Motorola did not export a single cell phone to the U.S. from China. Last year the U.S. imported almost $100 million in cell phones that were made in China, many with the Motorola brand. If Congress passes PNTR, Motorola could basically take these Chinese plants and use them as an export platform to disadvantage the American people, American jobs. Vote against PNTR.