[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11628-S11629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        EXPLOITATIVE CHILD LABOR

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about a 
very troubling shortcoming in the legislation to grant the President 
fast-track authority, and that is its failure to adequately address the 
issue of abusive and exploitative child labor.
  First, let me discuss what I mean by exploitative child labor. It is 
a term well known in international relations. We are not talking about 
children who work part time after school or on weekends. There is 
nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth. I bet the occupant of 
the Chair worked in his youth. There is nothing wrong with young people 
working. That is not the issue.
  Exploitative child labor involves children under the age of 15, 
forced to work, many times in hazardous conditions, many under slave-
like conditions, who sweat long hours for little or no pay. They are 
denied an education or the opportunity to grow and develop. It is the 
kind of work that endangers a child's physical and emotional well-being 
and growth. The International Labor Organization estimates that there 
are some 250 million children worldwide engaged in this sort of 
economic activity.
  These are the kind of kids we are talking about. We are talking about 
this young Mexican girl, harvesting vegetables in the fields of Hidalgo 
State. They are out there working long hours, all day long. They are 
not in school. You know, my farmers in Iowa can compete with anybody 
around the world. That is why we have always believed in free trade. 
But we believe in a level playing field. My farmers cannot compete with 
this slave. That is what she is. You can dress it up in all kinds of 
fancy words and cover it up, but that girl out in that field is working 
under slave-like conditions because she has no other choice. And isn't 
that the definition of slavery?
  She is not alone. It is in Pakistan and India, Bolivia, Southeast 
Asia, all around the world--children working under these kinds of 
conditions. I am not talking about after school. I am talking about 
kids who are denied an education, forced to work in fields and 
factories under hazardous conditions for little or no pay.
  I have been working on this issue for a long time. In 1992 I 
introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, to try to end abusive and 
exploitative child labor. It would have banned the importation of all 
goods into the United States made by abusive and exploitative child 
labor.
  Some have said this is revolutionary, but I don't believe so. I 
believe it is written in the most conservative of all ideas that this 
country stands for; that international trade cannot ignore 
international values.
  Would the President of the United States ever send a bill to Congress 
dealing with free trade or opening up trade with a country that 
employed slave labor? Of course not; he would be laughed off the floor. 
But what about this young girl? What about the millions more like her 
around the world? They are as good as slaves because they don't have 
any other choice and they are forced to do this under the guise of free 
trade.
  We, as a nation, cannot ignore, this. In 1993, this Senate put itself 
on record in opposition to the exploitation of children by passing a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I submitted.
  In 1994, as chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I requested the Department of Labor to 
begin a series of reports on child labor. Those reports, now three in 
number, represent the most thorough documentation ever assembled by the 
U.S. Government on this issue. They published three reports; the fourth 
will be completed shortly.
  Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called the Child Labor Free 
Consumer Information Act, which would give consumers the power to 
decide through a voluntary labeling system whether they want to buy an 
article made by child labor or not. Every time you buy a shirt, it says 
on the shirt where it was made. It tells you how much cotton, how much 
polyester and how much nylon, et cetera, is in that shirt. It has a 
price tag on it and tells you how much it cost to buy. But it won't 
tell you what it may have cost a child to make that shirt or that pair 
of shoes or that glassware or that brass object or that soccer ball or 
any number of items, including the vegetables that this girl is 
harvesting in Mexico.
  So we said, let's have a voluntary labeling system, and if a company 
wanted to import items into the United States, they could affix a label 
saying it was child labor free. In exchange for that label, they would 
have to agree to allow surprise inspections of their plants to ensure 
that no children were ever employed there.
  To me, this puts the power in the hands of consumers. It gives us the 
information that we need to know. I still think this is the direction 
in which we ought to go, a labeling system, and we have experience in 
that.
  Right now ``RUGMARK'' is being affixed to labels on rugs coming out 
of India and Nepal that verifies that rug was not made with child 
labor, and it is working. It is working well, because now the people 
authorized to use the ``RUGMARK'' label have to open up their plants 
for people to come in and make sure no children are employed there, and 
they get the label ``RUGMARK,'' which certifies it was not made with 
child labor. The ``RUGMARK'' program also provides funds to build 
schools and provides teachers to educate these children so that they 
are not displaced. So if I, as a consumer, want to buy a nice hand-
knotted rug, if I see that ``RUGMARK'' label, I know it was not made by 
child labor. More and more importers are importing ``RUGMARK'' rugs 
into this country. It has worked well in Europe, and now it is in the 
United States.
  In October of this year, Congress passed into law another provision 
that I had worked on with Congressman Sanders in the House. It is 
regarding section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which makes it clear 
that goods made with forced or indentured labor are to be barred from 
entry into the United States. Section 307 of the tariff law of 1930 
banned articles made by prison labor and forced labor from coming into 
this country. That has been on the books since 1930. What Congress 
passed was a clarification of that law or an explanation of that law to 
say that it also covers goods made by forced or indentured child labor. 
Congress passed it as part of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  So you might say, Well, if you have done that, then there is nothing 
else to do. But that is only an appropriations bill, and it is only 
good for 1 year. We are now working with Customs officials to try to 
decide how they find those articles made by exploitative child labor. 
Again, it is only good for 1 year. Will we be able to put this into 
permanent law next year? I don't know. And that still does not address 
the issue of children who don't make goods bound for the U.S. market.

  Right now, Mr. President, it is estimated somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 12.5 million kids around the world are involved in this 
kind of exploitative child labor, making goods that go into foreign 
trade that come into this country; 12.5 million kids, a large number 
being exploited for the economic gain of others.
  Make no mistake about it, their economic gain is an economic loss for 
this child and their country and for the United States. Every child 
lost to the workplace in this manner is a child who will not learn a 
valuable skill to help their country develop economically or becoming a 
more active participant in the global markets.

[[Page S11629]]

  We have done much to address the issue of exploitative child labor, 
but I am sorry to say that one of the most important measures that we 
will be asked to vote on this year or perhaps next year, depending on 
when it comes here for a vote--this bill, S. 1269, the so-called fast-
track bill--does not recognize the depths of the problem of 
exploitative child labor and does little to help protect them from 
exploitation.
  This bill protects songs. It protects computer chips. Let me read. 
Intellectual property. This bill, under part B, says, ``the principal 
trade negotiating objectives.'' There are 15. Principal trade 
negotiating objectives. The first is reduction of barriers to trade in 
goods. The second is trade in services. The third is foreign 
investment. Fourth is intellectual property, and it says:

       The principal negotiating objectives of the United States 
     regarding intellectual property are--

  And it has a bunch of things here. It says:

       . . . to recognize and adequately protect intellectual 
     property, including copyrights, patents, trademarks, 
     semiconductor chip layout designs. . .

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes to finish up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Three more minutes.
  Mr. BOND. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know people are here to speak. I just 
want to finish.
  We are protecting semiconductor chip computer design layouts. If we 
can protect a song, we can protect a child. That is my bottom line on 
this. What do they do with child labor? Oh, it is back here on page 18, 
``It's the policy of the United States to reinforce trade agreements 
process by seeking to establish in the International Labor 
Organization''--the ILO--``a mechanism for the examination of, 
reporting on''--et cetera, and includes exploitative child labor. It 
doesn't mean a thing. I know all about the ILO. It is a great 
organization. It has absolutely zero enforcement powers.
  If we can protect a song, why can't we protect a child? Why don't we 
elevate exploitative child labor to the same status as intellectual 
property rights? Let's make it a separate principal trade negotiating 
objective of this Government that when we negotiate a trade agreement 
with a country, yes, we will negotiate on trade in services and on 
foreign investment and intellectual property. But let's also put child 
labor right up there as one of the principal negotiating objectives of 
our Government.
  I have an amendment drafted to that extent. It mirrors exactly what 
is done in intellectual property. We make this young girl the 
equivalent of a song or a computer chip layout design. Anything less 
than that means that this fast-track legislation ought to be consigned 
to the trash heap of history. If we are not willing to take that kind 
of a step to announce it loudly and forcefully to the White House and 
to instruct the people who are involved in negotiating our trade 
agreements, then this body has no reason at all to pass fast-track 
legislation. We must elevate the issue of exploitative child labor to 
that level. Anything less will not do.

  I yield the floor and thank my friend from Missouri for giving me the 
opportunity to finish my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________