[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12252-S12254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION

  Mr. HARKIN. I want to speak a little about the fast-track bill that 
is before us and which is scheduled to be voted on in the House 
tonight.
  I doing so, I reread the President's speech on September 10 that he 
gave on fast track. He gave it at the White House, I believe in the 
East Room.
  I found some interesting remarks in the President's speech. He talked 
about change. He said, ``As we have done throughout our history, we 
have taken our Nation and led the world to the edge of a new era and a 
new economy.''
  He is absolutely right.
  He talked about the economy, and how we are the largest producer of 
automobiles, agricultural exports, semiconductors, steel, and other 
items.
  Then, closer to the end of the speech, the President said, ``As we 
continue to expand our economy here at home by expanding our leadership 
in the global economy, I believe that we have an obligation to support 
and encourage core labor standards and environmental protections 
abroad.''
  He further said in his speech--this is the President's speech on 
September 10--``Our goal must be to persuade other countries to build 
on the prosperity that comes with trade and lift their standards up. As 
we move forward, we must press countries to provide the labor standards 
to which all workers are entitled,'' et cetera.
  The President said in his speech that we are part of a new world 
economy. I would say, yes, Mr. President, we are also part of a new 
world community--a new world community the likes of which we have never 
seen because of the rapid dissemination of information, the 
globalization of communication, the instantaneous transmission of 
images and voice, transmittal of information around the globe. People 
living in the remotest villages of Africa, China, or Asia now know what 
is happening in other parts of the world. No longer is it kept from 
them. Increasingly the people on this planet are going to demand their 
human rights, their fundamental basic human rights, their individual 
freedoms. That is what Tiananmen Square was all about.

  Yes, Mr. President, you were right. You were right, Mr. President, to 
say to President Jiang of China that China was on the wrong side of 
history at Tiananmen Square. You were right, Mr. President. But, Mr. 
President, to the extent that we have a trade bill before us that 
limits your authority to negotiate under fast track regarding 
exploitative child labor, that weakens the provisions dealing with 
child labor, then you, Mr. President, and this country are on the wrong 
side of history.
  Those may sound like strong words, but as I have read the President's 
speech, and as I read the fast-track bill before us, one can only come 
to one conclusion. This legislation takes us in the wrong direction. It 
severely limits the ability of the President and our trade negotiators 
to address the issue of exploitative child labor in trade negotiations. 
That is right. This bill limits the President's authority. The 1988 
bill didn't. I will explain this.
  In this bill, child labor is included in a category of issues under 
the heading ``Regulatory Negotiations.'' Under this heading in the 
bill, negotiations under fast track on child labor may only cover--I 
will read it--``the lowering of, or derogation from, existing * * * 
standards.''
  That is all. The language does not allow negotiations aimed at 
getting a country to agree to raise its child labor standards, no 
matter how weak or nonexistent they may be.
  Furthermore, the negotiations may only address cases where the other 
country's lowering of, or derogation from, its child labor standards 
is--and I will read it directly from the bill--``for the purpose of 
attracting investment or inhibiting United States exports.''
  I want to make sure my colleagues understand that.
  First of all, the President may only negotiate regarding the lowering 
of, or derogation from, existing labor standards. He can't negotiate on 
strengthening them. And he may only negotiate regarding the situation 
where the lowering of, or derogation from, standards is done for the 
purpose of attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports.
  What about the case where a country lowers or fails to enforce its 
child labor standards for the purpose of producing goods at lower cost 
so it can ship them to the United States? That situation is not 
mentioned in this language, so the President does not have authority to 
negotiate on that basis according to the terms of the bill. Allowing 
the use of exploitative child labor to hold the price of goods down is 
unfair competition, plain and simple, but a country could do that.
  Exploitative child labor in foreign countries unfairly puts competing 
firms and workers at a disadvantage in the United States and in other 
countries that do not allow it. Yet, the language in this bill does not 
indicate that President would have the authority to address that kind 
of unfair competition against U.S. companies and workers in 
negotiations and agreements under fast track. As long as the other 
country is not lowering or derogating from its standards for the 
purpose of attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports, our 
negotiators cannot negotiate to end this unfair competition.
  The bottom line is that this bill limits the President's authority to 
seek agreements that would curtail exploitative child labor.
  It is important to clarify this point. I think people will say 
``Harkin, what are you talking about? How could it limit the 
President's authority?''
  Well, let us examine that question.
  Under this bill, the President actually has less authority to 
negotiate regarding child labor, and submit an agreement to Congress 
under fast-track procedures, than he had in the most recent fast-track 
legislation, which was contained in the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988--the last bill laying out fast-track 
procedures that we voted on and which this Senator voted for.

[[Page S12253]]

  That is right. Let me be very clear. The bill before us provides less 
authority to negotiate on child labor than the bill that we passed in 
1988. And that bill has done precious little in terms of exploitative 
child labor.

  Now, let me explain specifically. The 1988 fast-track law was set up 
in the same way as the bill before us. It had a listing of principal 
trade negotiating objectives. One of those listed objectives pertained 
to worker rights, and I will quote from the 1988 law:

       The principal negotiating objectives of the United States 
     regarding worker rights are (A) to promote respect for worker 
     rights.

  As used in the 1988 fast-track law, the term ``worker rights" 
certainly includes the right of children not to be subjected to 
exploitative labor. That is the plain meaning of the language, and I 
have confirmed that interpretation with the Congressional Research 
Service.
  So the 1988 fast-track bill clearly included a negotiating objective 
encompassing child labor and affirming the President's broad authority 
to negotiate regarding child labor.
  Well, now someone, I am sure, will point out that the bill before us 
specifically mentions child labor. Yes, it does. The 1988 bill did not, 
although as I noted child labor was encompassed in the 1988 bill under 
the heading of worker rights. But the 1988 bill and this bill are 
vastly different from one another in the way they are structured and 
how they deal with child labor. The 1988 bill's negotiating objectives 
were written in broad terms to urge the President to pursue worker 
rights issues which included child labor. The 1988 language was not 
really written as a limitation on the President's authority, but rather 
as an affirmation of the President's expansive authority to negotiate 
on these issues and an encouragement to seek agreements on these issues 
with other countries.
  By contrast, this bill before us is narrowly drawn to circumscribe 
and limit the President's negotiating authority regarding exploitative 
child labor. Unlike the 1988 bill, this bill before us is not written 
to set objectives and encourage the President to reach them, and to do 
even better if possible, in reaching sound agreements on exploitative 
child labor.
  Understand this. This bill before us says he may negotiate under fast 
track only agreements designed to prevent other countries from lowering 
or derogating from existing child labor standards--no matter how low 
they may be. He may not negotiate under fast track an agreement in 
which a country would commit to raise its child labor standards if they 
are too low or if they do not exist.
  And further, a fast-track agreement may prevent a country from 
lowering or derogating from its child labor standards only in cases 
where it does so for the limited purposes of attracting investment or 
inhibiting U.S. exports. This bill is very limited on the President's 
authority to negotiate regarding exploitative child labor. Again, he 
can only negotiate on agreements designed to prevent other countries 
from lowering their standards, and then he can only do that if that 
country is lowering its standards for the limited purpose of attracting 
U.S. investment or limiting U.S. exports.
  Mr. President, you wonder who wrote this. Now, I have in good faith 
talked a lot to the people around the President about exploitative 
child labor. I have talked to his Trade Representative in good faith 
about this issue. And you know, initially they said we are going to put 
child labor in there. Well, they did, but what they didn't say is they 
put it in in a way that actually limits the President's authority from 
what he had in the 1988 bill.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. In my remaining time, Mr. President, I would like to 
explain why my amendment that I will be offering on fast track deals 
specifically with exploitative child labor in a way that will enhance 
and strengthen the President's position.
  Now, there are other labor provisions that ought to be put into this 
bill, and there has been a lot of debate and disagreement on ways to 
address labor, environmental, and health and safety issues in this 
legislation. I understand the reasons for these disagreements. But, 
honestly, I do not see how there can be any disagreement on the need to 
address exploitative child labor and to ensure that the President and 
our trade negotiators do not have their hands tied when it comes to 
negotiating and concluding agreements on this issue.
  This is the benchmark that I believe should be applied to 
exploitative child labor in examining the bill before us. It is simply 
this. The President's authority and our directions to him to negotiate 
on exploitative child labor should be no less than that for the other 
important issues contained in this bill.
  Using that benchmark, I would invite my colleagues to examine the 
fast-track bill that we have before us. This bill has numerous 
principal negotiating objectives dealing with a wide range of issues--
trade in goods, trade in services, foreign investment, intellectual 
property, agriculture, unfair trade practices, a host of them.
  Again, with respect to all of these other issues, the bill is drafted 
to articulate objectives, to give guidance and direction to the 
President, to ensure that the President has sufficiently broad and 
expansive negotiating authority and to encourages him to use it--a far 
cry from the limiting way child labor is addressed in this bill.
  Look at the language dealing with intellectual property. The bill 
sets ambitious goals here and confirms the President's broad authority 
to negotiate and submit any resulting agreement under fast track. In 
fact, one of the principal negotiating objectives on intellectual 
property is ``the enactment and effective enforcement by foreign 
countries of laws that recognize and adequately protect intellectual 
property.''
  Now, when it comes to intellectual property, the President is not 
limited to negotiating under fast track only to prevent other countries 
from lowering or derogating from existing standards. Nor is negotiation 
limited only to those cases where a country is seeking to attract 
investment or inhibit U.S. exports.
  To protect intellectual property, the President is to seek agreements 
in which other countries commit to adopt and enforce higher standards 
if they need to. Not so for child labor. And his negotiating authority 
to protect intellectual property covers the broad range of ways in 
which intellectual property rights may be violated. Again, not so for 
child labor.
  My amendment regarding exploitative child labor simply tracks the 
language in the bill on intellectual property. It is basically the same 
language, with conforming modifications. My amendment ensures that the 
President has the same authority to negotiate on exploitative child 
labor as he has on protecting intellectual property. It puts into the 
bill that one of our trade negotiating objectives includes the 
enactment and effective enforcement by other countries of laws against 
exploitative child labor. It adds exploitative child labor to the bill 
as a negotiating objective.
  My amendment does not tie the President's hands. It does not say 
there has to be a predetermined outcome on child labor in trade 
negotiations. It just says that in dealing with exploitative child 
labor, the President has the authority, the same authority, as he has 
to protect against the pirating of a song, a computer chip or a compact 
disc. We ought to ensure this bill gives the President the same 
authority to seek protection against exploitative child labor as a 
means of unfair competition as he has to seek protection against the 
misappropriation of intellectual property as a means of unfair 
competition.
  My amendment says that exploitative child labor will be on the table 
during negotiations. It will be one of our principal trade negotiating 
objectives. It will have the same status and stature as intellectual 
property.
  Mr. President, again I am not talking about 18-year old kids working, 
or 17-year-old kids, no. This is what I am talking about right here. 
This picture is of a young girl working in a field in Mexico after 
NAFTA. We have more children working in Mexico today after NAFTA than 
we did before. And I do not mean just teenagers. I mean kids 8, 9, 10 
years of age, too. And yet we had some side agreements covering child 
labor on NAFTA, but they are not being enforced.

[[Page S12254]]

  We have over 200 million working kids in the world today, more and 
more being put into factories and plants and, yes, agriculture. My Iowa 
farmers can compete against anyone in the world, but they cannot 
compete against that girl because that girl is a slave laborer. That is 
slave labor. This girl has no choice. She has no options. She cannot go 
to school. She cannot go to school because she is out in the fields all 
day, the same as a kid working in a glass factory, a shoe factory, a 
garment factory, or a rug factory. And these are often kids that are 8, 
9, 10 years old.
  Now, I believe that our trade negotiators and the people down at the 
White House have the best of intentions. I am sure there is no one 
there who likes exploitative child labor. For the life of me, I cannot 
understand why they sent a bill to us such as they did and why they 
will go along with such a weak bill relating to exploitative child 
labor. If they would only compare this bill with the one in 1988, they 
would understand that the bill before us curtails, circumscribes and 
limits the President's authority on exploitative child labor relative 
to the 1988 bill.
  I have been talking to people down at the White House about putting 
exploitative child labor in this bill at the same level as intellectual 
property, but for some reason they just cannot quite seem to get on 
board.
  There was a time not too long ago when intellectual property rights 
were regarded as extraneous to trade, just as some argue child labor is 
today. I remember when I was in the Navy back in the 1960s. People 
would go to Taiwan and they would get records for perhaps 10 cents 
each--books and encyclopedias for just pennies--because Taiwan was 
pirating the records; they were pirating the books and printing them. I 
remember people I knew in the Navy would go to Taiwan and load up with 
books and records, but today there are international rules in trade 
agreements to protect intellectual property. So there was a time when 
intellectual property was considered extraneous to trade agreements. 
Not so today. Exploitative child labor should not be extraneous today.
  Yes, we are in a new era. We are in a new world economy, but we are 
also in a new world community. And just as we have taken the lead in 
the world economy, as we have taken the lead in breaking down trade 
barriers--and I believe we should--we must take the lead in stopping 
this, the last vestige of slavery in the world today, exploitative 
child labor.
  We can debate and discuss labor issues, environmental issues, and 
there are all kinds of different perspectives and arguments about them. 
There should be no argument on exploitative child labor. There should 
be no disagreement on this. There are distinct lines. Children should 
not be working like this. Our trade negotiators, when they sit down at 
that table, ought to be negotiating on exploitative child labor. It 
ought to be a trade negotiating objective. It ought to have the same 
stature, the same force, the same effect as intellectual property 
because not only is this a moral imperative of ours; it is imperative 
to stop it as unfair competition because that child laborer, that child 
slave, is producing goods that are sent to this country, that compete 
against our products. My farmers cannot compete against that. Our 
workers cannnot compete against that. They should not have to compete 
against it. This bill is fatally flawed and the administration needs to 
send get behind the amendment that I will be offering. We need to adopt 
that amendment to make sure that stopping exploitative child labor has 
the same force and effect, and the same level of authority, in trade 
negotiations as stopping the pirating of intellectual property.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe my order is to speak in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator, under the 
previous order, has 20 minutes.

                          ____________________