By Reed Albergotti November 20, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. CST

Apple lobbyists are trying to weaken a bill aimed at preventing forced labor in China, according to two congressional staffers familiar with the matter, highlighting the clash between its business imperatives and its official stance on human rights.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act would require U.S. companies to guarantee they do not use imprisoned or coerced workers from the predominantly Muslim region of Xinjiang, where academic researchers estimate the Chinese government has placed more than 1 million people into internment camps. Apple is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing, and human rights reports have identified instances in which alleged forced Uighur labor has been used in Apple’s supply chain.

The staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks with the company took place in private meetings, said Apple was one of many U.S. companies that oppose the bill as it’s written. They declined to disclose details on the specific provisions Apple was trying to knock down or change because they feared providing that knowledge would identify them to Apple. But they both characterized Apple’s effort as an attempt to water down the bill.

“What Apple would like is we all just sit and talk and not have any real consequences,” said Cathy Feingold, director of the international department for the AFL-CIO, which has supported the bill. “They’re shocked because it’s the first time where there could be some actual effective enforceability.”

China is building vast new detention centers for Muslims in Xinjiang

Apple spokesperson Josh Rosenstock said the company “is dedicated to ensuring that everyone in our supply chain is treated with dignity and respect. We abhor forced labor and support the goals of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. We share the committee’s goal of eradicating forced labor and strengthening U.S. law, and we will continue working with them to achieve that.” He said the company earlier this year “conducted a detailed investigation with our suppliers in China and found no evidence of forced labor on Apple production lines, and we are continuing to monitor this closely.”

Apple’s lobbying firm, Fierce Government Relations, disclosed that it was lobbying on the bill on behalf of Apple in a disclosure form that was first reported by the Information. However, the form did not say whether Apple was for or against the bill or whether it wanted to modify it in any way. Lobbying disclosure forms do not require that information. Fierce referred The Washington Post to Apple’s public relations team.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has said publicly that Apple does not tolerate forced labor in its supply chain. “Forced labor is abhorrent,” Cook said in a congressional hearing in July. “We would not tolerate it in Apple,” he said, adding that Apple would “terminate a supplier relationship if it were found.”

The new bill would make it more difficult for U.S. companies to ignore abuses taking place in China and give U.S. authorities more power to enforce the law. One provision in the bill requires public companies to certify to the Securities and Exchange Commission that their products are not made using forced labor from Xinjiang. If companies are found to have used forced labor from the region, they could be prosecuted for securities violations.

While U.S. law already prevents companies from importing goods that were made using forced labor, the law is seldom enforced, and it’s difficult to prove U.S. companies know about the use of forced labor.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act passed 406 to 3 in the House in September. People involved in the legislation said the apparel industry was caught off guard by how quickly it passed without much lobbying.

Now that the bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), is in front of the U.S. Senate, corporations have made more of a concerted effort to shape it, in part to blunt some of its sharper provisions, according to the two congressional staffers. Some companies have lobbied to have their names removed from the bill, these people say, because it calls out specific brands like Patagonia, Coca-Cola and Costco, for allegedly using forced labor from the region. It does not name Apple.

Patagonia, Coca-Cola and Costco didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The bill is primarily focused on textiles and other low-tech industries. For instance, Xinjiang’s sugar has made its way into Coca-Cola and the tomatoes have been used in Heinz ketchup, according to human rights reports.

Michael Mullen, senior vice president for Kraft Heinz, said in a written statement that the company’s suppliers are audited by a third party and that the audits have not identified “any issues.” He said if “issues related to inappropriate labor practices are discovered, we will take immediate action.” Mullen declined to name the auditing firm. Most firms have stopped auditing in Xinjiang because of limitations placed by the Chinese government.

Complying with the new bill could be costly to companies, especially in the textile industry, where cotton gets woven into garments around the world, making it difficult and expensive to trace. The Xinjiang region is known as a center for cotton production, and the apparel industry has earned most of the scrutiny for using textiles produced by allegedly forced labor in the region.

The SEC portion of the bill echoes a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that requires companies to notify the government if their products contain conflict minerals from Congo. That provision of the Dodd-Frank Act has created headaches for companies that import gold. Companies are concerned that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act could create similar problems, according to the lawmakers.

Because China has transferred Uighur Muslims out of Xinjiang to work in other parts of the country, human rights advocates say it may be difficult for any U.S. company operating in China to ensure it isn’t benefiting, even indirectly, from forced labor.

Xinjiang, which borders Pakistan and Afghanistan, was conquered by China in the 1700s, and the Turkic Muslims who live there have long fought against Chinese rule. But in recent years, the Chinese government has been cracking down on Muslims, aided by advanced surveillance technology, such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition, a digital iron grip that has overwhelmed the population.

With an estimated 1 million to 2 million people placed in camps, human rights groups have called the situation in Xinjiang a cultural genocide. Some of those who “graduate” from the camps by renouncing Islam and learning to speak fluent Mandarin have been moved to factories in Xinjiang and surrounding regions.

China’s government has disputed the characterization of the program as “camps,” saying they were vocational training centers to reform minor criminals. Under heavy international pressure, officials declared the end of the program in December 2019, saying all students had successfully graduated. Some of the centers have been confirmed to be vacated, though some overseas Uighurs have said relatives remain detained or missing.

But China has thwarted efforts to observe human rights conditions in Xinjiang. Diplomats and foreign journalists who have visited the region almost universally report being repeatedly detained by authorities and blocked from approaching areas where camps are located. Recent satellite photos show the camps growing, not shrinking.

Uighurs reflect on 2009 violence that set off Chinese crackdown

While it’s unknown how much electronics manufacturing occurs in the region, some human rights groups believe there are plants that make electronics components in Xinjiang. And private companies, which act as brokers for Xinjiang laborers, have arranged for workers to be transferred from concentration camps to electronics factories outside of Xinjiang, according to human rights reports.

A March report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute identified four alleged instances in which labor from the Xinjiang region has been connected to Apple’s supply chain. The report alleges that the workers were likely to have been forced or coerced, but it did not offer proof confirming the work terms and conditions.