[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1658-E1660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CHILD LABOR FREE CONSUMER INFORMATION ACT OF 
                                  1996

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 19, 1996

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to 
introduce today new legislation to aid consumers wanting to avoid 
products made with abusive and exploitative child labor. The measure, 
called the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act of 1996, 
encourages apparel and sporting good companies to voluntarily adopt a 
``child labor free'' label on their products or packaging.
  Over 60 Members of the House have joined me in introducing this 
important piece of legislation that I wrote with my good friend Senator 
Tom Harkin of Iowa, who has been a relentless fighter for children and 
for human rights.
  Our bill would create the broadest anti-child labor label in today's 
market. It builds on successful efforts to use labels to inform 
consumers of socially responsible actions by manufacturers and 
retailers. The Rugmark label, for example, guarantees that certain 
hand-knotted Asian rugs were not made by exploited children. And the 
Green Seal and other environmental labels, such as the Dolphin Safe 
logo on cans of tuna fish and the European ``E'' label, provide 
important information to consumers concerned about environmental 
protection.
  On most products today there is a world of information. You can know 
if a shirt was made in the United States or abroad, made with union 
labor, made of cotton or synthetics, and how to care for it. Nowhere, 
however, will you see reference to any labor protections adhered to in 
the manufacture. And yet, this is an important piece of information to 
consumers that could influence their purchasing decisions. It is 
important to workers, and it is important to the children that are 
being exploited and abused in the workplace because of insufficient 
pressure on countries and businesses to put these children in school 
rather than to work.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that consumers want to avoid products 
made in sweatshops or by child labor, but they have no way of knowing 
which products to avoid. Our legislation asks companies to ``put your 
money where your mouth is''--if your product is free of child labor, 
tell the consumer right on the label.
  Numerous polls and surveys show consumers want information about 
socially responsible business practices. One study, by Marymount 
University in Virginia, found that three out of four Americans would 
boycott a store if they knew it sold goods made in sweatshops.
  Regrettably, products made with abusive and exploitative child labor 
and in sweatshops are prevalent. The International Labor Organization 
estimates there are several hundred million children making goods, many 
of which are sold in U.S. markets.

  Attention to this issue was heightened this year after it was 
disclosed at a hearing that I chaired by the Democratic Policy 
Committee that celebrity product lines, such as the Kathie Lee Gifford 
clothes sold at Wal-Mart stores, were made in part by underage youth 
and at sweatshops. Life magazine added to the attention by later 
reporting that most soccer

[[Page E1659]]

balls in the world are made by poor children, some as young as 5 years 
old.
  Last year, the United States imported almost 50 percent of the 
wearing apparel sold here and the garment industry netted $34 billion. 
And according to the Department of Commerce, last year the United 
States imported 494.1 million pairs of athletic footwear--enough shoes 
to encircle the Earth five and a half times--and produced only 65.3 
million pairs domestically.
  Many companies say their manufacturing contracts specifically 
prohibit the use of child labor and other labor violations and that 
they will terminate contracts with companies that violate those terms. 
Regrettably, these codes of conduct are rarely independently verified. 
In-fact, the Gifford line and Wal-Mart both have codes of conduct 
against child labor and sweatshops.
  Gifford, who has become an outspoken opponent of these labor 
violations, told Good Housekeeping magazine this month that codes of 
conduct are inadequate:

       Other celebrities say, ``Oh, I've got something in my 
     contract that says this kind of labor can never be 
     exploited.'' I've had the same clause in my contract since 
     Day One. It's always been a concern of ours. But how much 
     good does it do?

  The Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act would establish a 
commission of government, business, union and non-profit members 
working together to create guidelines for the use of a ``Child Labor 
Free'' or ``Not made With Child Labor'' label. The label could be 
attached to or printed on the product or the product packaging. The 
Commission would also be charged with investigating complaints brought 
to it that a company may be fraudulently using the label. Even though 
use of the label would be voluntary, companies would face increased 
penalties under Federal Trade Commission law for fraudulently using it.
  Companies that adopt this label will find that they will be rewarded 
in the marketplace by consumers that repeatedly state they don't want 
to support labor exploitation, particularly of small children. This is 
a socially responsible and economically attractive step for companies 
to take. We know we cannot rid child labor from the world, but we hope 
that consumers will be able to make an informed choice about whether 
they want to support products made with child labor or not.
  I recognize that it is late in the legislative session to be 
introducing new legislation. And I expect to reintroduce this 
legislation again next year. But I believe it is important to remind 
the public and my colleagues that this issue will not simply fade away. 
And this legislation also contains an idea that businesses could act on 
today, without its passage, if they were so inclined. I hope they will 
consider a label seriously as a means to prove to consumers their 
commitment to stopping child labor violations.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to attach to this statement a 
report that I have prepared based on the information gathered at the 
April hearing and on subsequent investigations by my staff. The report 
makes a compelling argument for the use of voluntary product labels to 
achieve socially--and economically--desirable goals.

                  The Need For Better Product Labeling


                              introduction

       Although the rapidly expanding global marketplace has 
     brought to U.S. consumers an ever-broadening array of goods 
     from around the world, the market has not brought additional 
     information to consumers on the potential impacts of their 
     purchasing decisions. A highly competitive, unregulated 
     global market is enticing some corporations to flee strong 
     environmental protection or labor laws in the U.S. and other 
     developed countries for nations where such protections are 
     less stringent, or even non-existent. As nations compete to 
     attract global capital, and developing nations strive to 
     industrialize, lack of environmental regulations, unsafe 
     working conditions and low-wage labor--including forced labor 
     and child labor--may provide the competitive edge for many 
     countries. This situation is legitimized by the virtual 
     silence of trade agreements on these issues.
       A growing number of investors, consumers, and companies 
     believe that the power to force positive change lies in 
     consumer education. These companies and consumer advocacy 
     organizations are articulating a message that consumers, by 
     choosing products manufactured in a way that does not harm 
     the environment or undermine the rights of workers, will 
     force corporations to produce their goods in a responsible 
     fashion.
       In response to concerns raised by the environmental, labor, 
     and human rights communities, in April 1996 the House 
     Democratic Policy Committee convened a hearing that I chaired 
     in an effort to better inform the public and Members of 
     Congress on this complex debate. It was at that hearing that 
     the now infamous allegation about Kathie Lee Gifford's 
     clothing line sold at Wal-Mart Stores was first made. This 
     discussion paper is based on the issues raised at that 
     hearing.


                     consumers want to be informed

       Polls consistently show that consumers want to be informed 
     about the impacts of their purchases.
       In 1993, Cone Communications collaborated in a poll with 
     Roper Starch Worldwide Inc. To survey, 2,000 consumers on the 
     extent to which socially responsible business practices 
     entered into their purchasing decisions. Thirty-one percent 
     of those surveyed responded that, after price and quality, a 
     company's socially responsible business practices are one of 
     the most important factors in deciding whether or not to buy 
     a brand. (source: Council on Economic Priorities)
       A 1992 Ad Age poll conducted by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman 
     of 1,004 consumers found that 70% of respondents said 
     environmental messages in labeling or advertising 
     ``sometimes'' or ``very often'' influence their purchasing 
     decisions. (source: Council on Economic Priorities)
       And a 1995 survey of 1,008 consumers by Marymount 
     University's Center for Ethical Concerns found more than 75% 
     of those surveyed would boycott a store if they knew it sold 
     goods made in sweatshops. Nearly 85% would pay an extra $1 on 
     a $20 garment if it were guaranteed to be made in a legal 
     shop. (source: Maryland University, Department of Fashion 
     Design and Merchandising and Center for Ethical Concerns)
       At issue is: how do consumers become informed about the 
     ``good'' or ``bad'' product?
       Those supporting better consumer information programs are 
     considering how to implement most effectively a program to 
     alert American consumers to the conditions under which 
     products are made. Following the long tradition of 
     environmental labeling, these organizations are also 
     beginning to call for labor-related labels.


                   lessons from ecolabeling programs

       For several years, some governments and a growing number of 
     non-governmental organizations have promoted consumer 
     information and product labeling as tools that can aid in 
     improving the global environment. Currently, about two dozen 
     regional or national ecolabeling programs exist around the 
     world. Generally popular with consumers, they are 
     increasingly coming under attack by manufacturers and 
     developing nations who claim that ecolabels are a disguised 
     barrier to trade. (source: National Journal; ``Sticker 
     Shock''; March 9, 1996) Critics also claim that ecolabels 
     must be negotiated internationally, and raise the question of 
     how--and whether--different nations' environmental rules can 
     be reconciled.
       According to a recent article in Business Ethics, Europeans 
     tend to hold higher standards for their businesses than do 
     most Americans. As a result, socially responsible businesses 
     are better able to compete in Europe. (source: Business 
     Ethics, ``Growing Pains'', January/February 1996) In recent 
     years the European Union has undertaken a massive government-
     controlled ecolabeling program, with mixed results. The E.U. 
     scheme covers washing machines, dishwashers, soil improvers, 
     toilet tissue, kitchen paper rolls, laundry detergents, light 
     bulbs, and indoor paints and varnishes. Some U.S. producers 
     of these goods have protested that the E.U. system 
     discriminates against U.S. manufacturers, although the seven 
     types of washing machines that have been awarded the E.U. 
     label to date are all made by U.S.-owned Hoover Ltd. Others 
     criticize the bureaucratic procedures and the cost of 
     attaining certification for an E.U. label.
       Some of the ecolabeling debate has focused on the use of 
     so-called ``ecoseals'', or symbols that are the equivalent of 
     an environmental seal of approval. These seals are generally 
     simple, and may be awarded following a third-party (non-
     government) approval process (U.S. ``Green Seal'') or may be 
     the result of a government-approved and defined label (U.S. 
     ``Dolphin Safe'', or the European Union's ``E'' label).
       Supporters of ecoseals believe that, because the seals are 
     simple and easy for consumers to understand, consumers are 
     more likely to base their purchases on responsible choices. 
     Opponents of ecoseals argue that seals stifle innovation and 
     train customers to look for symbols rather than to learn 
     factual information about environmental effects. They support 
     information-based labeling, such as that used on nutrition 
     labels.
       ``Dolphin Safe'' label. One of the most well-known 
     environmental labels in the United States is the ``Dolphin 
     Safe'' label found on cans of tuna. Some supporters of 
     ecolabeling have suggested using this statutorily defined 
     label as a model for other ecolabeling efforts, and a brief 
     history of the label's creation is worth noting here.
       As a result of continued public outcry against the dolphin 
     kills in the tuna fishery during the 1980's, Starkist Seafood 
     Company announced in 1990 that it would no longer purchase 
     any tuna caught by harming dolphins, and that it would begin 
     labeling cans of Starkist tuna sold in the United States with 
     ``Dolphin Safe'' symbols. Almost immediately, the rest of the 
     U.S. tuna canners announced that they would no longer 
     purchase tuna considered ``dolphin unsafe''. The voluntary 
     announcement of the tuna processing industry raised a new 
     labeling issue for the federal government: the definition and 
     enforcement of a voluntary dolphin-safe label. In response, 
     the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) was 
     enacted by the Congress in 1990. The purpose of the DPCIA was 
     to establish criteria for labeling tuna and tuna products 
     ``dolphin safe'', certification procedures, and enforcement 
     standards for violations of the label.
       Although the U.S. lags behind Europe in terms of both 
     government-sponsored and third-party ecolabels, the issue is 
     not likely

[[Page E1660]]

     to disappear anytime soon. The Organization for Economic 
     Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been considering 
     international standards for ecolabeling in its negotiations 
     on the connection between trade and the environment. The 
     issue will also be discussed at the Singapore meeting of the 
     World Trade Organization in December, 1996.


               child labor and other human rights issues

       Can we apply our experience from ecolabeling to labor 
     concerns?
       One of the most emotional issues regarding goods--
     particularly textiles--manufactured in developing nations is 
     the use of child labor. In a 1994 Department of Labor (DOL) 
     report mandated by the Congressional Committees on 
     Appropriations, DOL reported that between 100 million and 200 
     million children are in the workplace more than 95% of them 
     in developing countries. The industries which employ children 
     range from garments and carpets to small-scale mining and gem 
     polishing. (source: Department of Labor, ``By The Sweat And 
     Toil Of Children: The Use of Child Labor in American 
     Imports'', July 15, 1994)
       A recent survey by the International Labor Organization 
     (ILO) found a positive correlation between child labor and 
     factors such as poverty, illiteracy, rural under-development, 
     urban slum conditions, and school non-attendance. About four-
     fifths of those children who worked did so seven days a week 
     and, in many instances, girls worked longer hours than boys. 
     (source: Child Labor Surveys: Results of methodological 
     experiments in four countries, 1992-1993, International Labor 
     Office. 1996. ISBN 92-2-110106-1)
       The ILO estimates that at least half of all child workers 
     are found in South and Southeast Asia. Asia probably boasts 
     the highest percentage of children working in industries 
     which export to the United States. Working conditions range 
     from ``crowded garment factories, where the doors are locked 
     and the children work for 14 hours, to small dusty earthen 
     huts which can seat four children to a loom, knotting carpets 
     in a pit for hours on end.'' (source: Department of Labor 
     report, previously cited)
       A recent article in Life magazine on the manufacture of 
     Nike soccer balls in Pakistan told of ``children as young as 
     six bought from their parents for as little as $15, sold and 
     resold like furniture, branded, beaten, blinded as punishment 
     for wanting to go home, rendered speechless by the trauma of 
     their enslavement . . . Children are sought after, and 
     bonded, and sometimes taken in outright slavery, because they 
     do not cost as much.'' (source: Life, ``Six Cents An Hour'', 
     June, 1996) Nike, as well as Reebok, have since announced 
     that their soccer balls from Pakistan will soon be made in 
     stitching centers where the labor can be closely monitored, 
     as opposed to the current system that relies on children in 
     small villages scattered throughout the country. Nike and 
     Reebok hope that these stitching centers will eliminate child 
     labor from their portion of the soccer ball industry. Nike 
     and Reebok, however, are currently very small players in the 
     manufacture of soccer balls, when compared with Addidas, 
     Mikasa and other companies that have made no announcement on 
     child labor.
       Of equal concern are documented stories of so-called 
     ``sweatshop'' labor, in which workers, frequently women, are 
     locked into unsafe workplaces, and forced to work long hours 
     for minimal wages. Last summer, U.S. papers carried front-
     page stories of a raid on an El Monte, California, sweatshop 
     where most of the workers at the shop were recent female 
     immigrants from Thailand who had been virtually enslaved by 
     the manufacturer. Workers were forced to live in a compound 
     encircled by razor wire, threatened with rape, and required 
     to work 20-hour days for as little as $1 an hour. (source: 
     People, ``Labor Pains'', June 10, 1996)
       Early experience with labor-related labeling indicates that 
     it can work.
       One label gaining in popularity and market share in Europe 
     and recently introduced in the U.S. is the ``Rugmark'' label 
     awarded to some hand-knotted rugs made in Nepal and India 
     without the use of child labor. Nearly 900,000 children under 
     the age of 14--including children as young as 4--are working 
     in the carpet industry in Pakistan; 200,000 in Nepal; and 
     300,000 in India. Children are frequently bonded to a looming 
     operation to pay off the debts of their parents. The U.S. is 
     the world's second-largest market for hand-knotted Oriental 
     carpets, with imports of over $150 million annually form 
     India alone, and has the potential to have a major impact on 
     the manner in which these carpets are made.

                               conclusion

       Consumers and advertisers alike are obsessed with 
     determining and declaring that a particular product is safe 
     for children. But our economy fails to tell consumers whether 
     products are safe for the children who made them. Parents 
     have a right to know that the clothes and toys they buy for 
     their children were not made by other exploited and abused 
     children. Unfortunately, they have no way of knowing that in 
     today's marketplace.
       Voluntary labeling programs may continue to hold the key. 
     These programs have not been easy to establish or to enforce. 
     Nor will a ``one size fits all'' approach be practical--it is 
     likely that different modes of labeling regimes will work 
     best in different economic sectors. But our experiences with 
     ecolabeling programs and the Rugmark label prove that 
     voluntary labels are effective, and popular with consumers. 
     If voluntary, they are consistent with our international 
     trade obligations. Corporations who maintain that they have a 
     reliable, enforceable code of conduct should be willing to 
     translate that code into a reliable, enforceable label that 
     informs consumers of the impacts of their purchases.
       We must take responsibility for our purchasing and 
     marketing decisions. The price of a product and the rate of 
     profit cannot be allowed to overwhelm the moral obligation to 
     protect children and to respect the rights of other workers. 
     We have the means to inject this level of respect into the 
     marketplace if we exert our will to do so. Through 
     responsible consumer education our values of protection for 
     the environment, for children and for workers can be 
     reflected in the way we make our goods.

                          ____________________