[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11131-S11137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3243. A bill to enhance fair and open competition in the
production and sale of agricultural commodities; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
[[Page S11132]]
agricultural producer protection act of 2000
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Agricultural Producer
Protection Act of 2000, a bill which will help ensure an open
competitive agricultural marketplace. There is no issue raising more
concerns in agriculture today than the rapid increase of economic
concentration and vertical integration. The structure of agriculture
and the entire agribusiness and food sector is being massively
transformed--and the pace is accelerating. Large agribusinesses through
mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances are controlling more and
more of the production and processing of our agricultural commodities.
Beyond this horizontal concentration, these large firms are relying on
production and marketing contracts to hasten the trend toward vertical
integration in agriculture.
According to the Department of Agriculture, the top four fed cattle
packers control 80 percent of the market, while the top four pork
processors control almost 60 percent of the market. In the grain
industry, the top four firms control 73 percent of the wet corn
milling, 71 percent of soybean milling, and 56 percent of flour
milling. This conglomeration of power is limiting producers' marketing
choices and adversely affecting the prices they receive. While the
market basket of food has only increased by 3 percent since 1984, the
farm value of that market basket has plummeted 38 percent. In fact, the
farmer's share of the retail food dollar has dropped from 47 percent in
1950 to 21 percent in 1999. In addition, the farm-to-wholesale price
spreads for pork increased by 52 percent and for beef by 24 percent in
the past five years.
But farmers are not the only ones at risk because of the
conglomeration of economic power by a few large agribusinesses and the
reductions in competition. Consumers are also at risk. I liken
arrangement to an hourglass, with many farmers on one side and many
consumers on the other side. In the middle is a choke point with just a
few large agribusiness firms. We, as consumers, should not become
reliant on an every dwindling number of companies for our food.
Agribusiness is changing the way they play the game and it is
becoming increasingly clear that enforcement of the antitrust and
competition laws--including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the
Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act--is
not enough by itself to ensure healthy competition in agriculture.
Congress must step in and clarify the rules of the game before the big
conglomerates push the independent producers out entirely. That is what
my legislation is designed to do.
Consolidation and vertical integration in the agricultural sector is
resulting in a great disparity in bargaining power and a gross
inequality in economic strength between agribusinesses and producers.
The impacts of this disparity are being most dramatically seen in the
increased use of contracting in agriculture. I recognize that it is
probably inevitable that there will be more contracting for a number of
reasons. However, as recognized by several state Attorneys General who
have proposed model state contract legislation, contracting with large
agribusinesses pose serious problems that our current laws do not
reach.
First, large companies are increasingly leveraging their economic
muscle and control of market information to dictate contract terms to
the detriment of producers. Large companies often offer contracts to
producers on a ``take it or leave it'' basis. The company tells the
farmer to sign a form contract with no opportunity to negotiate
different terms and with little or no ability to take time to think
about whether or not to sign the contract.
Second, large agribusinesses are transferring a disproportionate
share of the economic risks to farmers through contracts. The
contractual risks producers will face under a contract are usually
buried in pages of legalese and fine print. Producers are often stuck
with unfair contract terms they did not even know existed because of
the lack of opportunity to consult with an attorney or an accountant.
Third, increasing use of contracts threatens market transparency.
Prevailing prices for agricultural commodities have traditionally been
readily available through public transactions. The use of strict
confidentiality clauses in contracts veil transactions in secrecy.
These clauses prohibit farmers from comparing contracts and negotiating
for a fair deal. Farmers are often prohibited from discussing their
deals with other producers, let alone with a financial or market
advisor, an attorney, or an accountant.
Fourth, once a producer enters into a contractual relationship with a
company there is virtually no realistic protection from unfair
practices, abuses, or retaliation. Most production contracts require
producers to make substantial long term capital investments in
buildings and equipment prior to ever getting a contract. Once a
producer makes the financial commitment, they are offered short term
contracts that must be continually renewed. Because of these financial
obligations, producers often have no other alternative than to sign
whatever contract is offered to them. This situation not only makes it
easier for a company to retaliate against those who try to speak up for
their rights but also eliminates virtually any bargaining power the
producer may have had. They often have no other alternative than to
take a contract which further exploits them with unfair terms and which
further shifts the economic risks to producers. In addition, if a
producer has to litigate individually against an agribusiness
conglomerate it is very expensive and they are at a huge disadvantage.
The Agricultural Producer Protection Act of 2000 provides reasonable
oversight of agricultural contracting that will address these problems
and promote fair, equitable, and competitive markets in agriculture.
The Act would: (1) require contracts to be written in plain language
and disclose risks to producers; (2) provide contract producers three
days to review and cancel production contracts; (3) prohibit
confidentiality clauses in contracts; (4) provide producers with a
first-priority lien for payments due under contracts; (5) prohibit
producers from having contracts terminated out of retaliation; and (6)
make it an unfair practice for processors to retaliate or discriminate
against producers who exercise rights under the Act.
My legislation also recognizes that there must be a balance between
providing oversight of contracting and addressing the root of the
problem--the growing disparity in bargaining power between large
agribusinesses and independent producers. Independent farmers can
compete and thrive if the competition is based on productive efficiency
and delivering abundant supplies of quality products at reasonable
prices. But no matter how efficient farmers are, they cannot survive a
contest based on who wields the most economic power.
Because of the increased levels of concentration and vertical
integration in agriculture, it is imperative that Congress facilitate a
more competitive and balanced marketplace for negotiations between
large agribusinesses and producers. The Agricultural Producer
Protection Act of 2000 provides farmers with the tools necessary to
bargain more effectively with large agribusiness conglomerates for fair
and truly competitive prices for the commodities they grow.
Congress passed the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 to ensure
that farmers could join together to market their commodities without
fear of interference or retribution from processors. Unfortunately, the
law has several weaknesses which prevent it from truly helping
producers generate enough market power to bargain effectively with
large processors. The law: (1) does not require that processors bargain
with association members; (2) contains a loophole allowing
agribusinesses to refuse to bargain with producers for any reason
besides belonging to an association, which makes it much easier to
manufacture an excuse for why they refuse to deal with association
members; and (3) does not give the Secretary of Agriculture authority
to impose penalties for violations of the Act, which greatly reduces
the incentive for processors to obey the law.
My legislation addresses these shortcomings. The Agricultural
Producer Protection Act of 2000 sets up a procedure where farmers can
voluntarily
[[Page S11133]]
form an association of producers and petition to the Secretary to
become accredited. Once accredited, agribusinesses are required to
bargain in good faith with the association of producers. This
requirement will help producers organize in order to negotiate fairly
and effectively on the price and marketing terms for their commodities.
In addition, my legislation gives the Secretary increased investigative
and enforcement authority to ensure that these large processors follow
the law.
Finally, my legislation amends the Packers and Stockyards Act of 2000
to give the Secretary administrative enforcement authority to stop
unfair practices in the poultry industry. Unlike the livestock
industry, the Secretary does not currently have authority to take
administrative actions, including holding hearings and assessing civil
and criminal penalties for violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act
in the poultry industry. My legislation addresses this discrepancy and
responds to the Administration's repeated requests for this authority.
Unfortunately, current law has resulted in little being done to stop
the rapid consolidation and vertical integration in agriculture which
is threatening both farmers and consumers. We must address this trend
now before it builds more momentum, making independent farmers a
footnote in the history books and putting consumers at the mercy of
large agribusiness companies.
My legislation attacks the problems resulting from agribusiness
concentration and vertical integration in two very fundamental ways.
First, it provides reasonable oversight of contracting practices in
order to stop the current inequalities and unfair practices farmers are
facing due to the lack of bargaining power. But, I also recognize that
we must address the increasing disparity in bargaining power head on.
My legislation gives producers the tools necessary to enhance their
bargaining position in order to negotiate fairly and equitably on the
price and marketing terms for their commodities. I believe both must be
done in order to ensure a fair, open agricultural marketplace.
______
Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Hollings,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3246. A bill to prohibit the importation of any textile or apparel
article that is produced, manufactured, or grown in Burma; to the
Committee on Finance.
Burma Apparel and Textile Import Ban Bill
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, while we are encouraged by democratic
gains in Serbia, the people of Burma continue to suffer at the hands of
the world's most brutal military dictatorship--a regime which,
perversely, calls itself the State Peace and Development Council
(SPDC). Now more than ever, as a nation committed to democracy,
freedom, and universal human and worker rights, America must dissociate
itself from Burma's repressive regime. We must do all we can to deny
any material support to the military dictators who rule that country
with an iron fist. Amidst the most recent crackdown on pro-democracy
forces launched in mid-August, we must demonstrate anew to the Burmese
people our recognition of their nightmarish plight and our support for
their noble struggle to achieve democratic governance.
A few yeas ago, Congress enacted some sanctions and President Clinton
issued an Executive Order in response to a prolonged pattern of
egregious human rights violations in Burma. At the heart of those
measures is the existing prohibition on U.S. private companies making
new investments in Burma's infrastructure. Pre-1997 investments were
not affected.
Nevertheless, the ruling military junta in Burma has hung on to power
and continues to blatantly violate internationally-recognized human and
worker rights. The most recent State Department Human Rights Country
Report on Burma cites ``credible reports that Burmese Army soldiers
have committed rape, forced porterage, and extrajudicial killing.'' It
mentions arbitrary arrests and the detention of at least 1300 political
prisoners.
Human Rights Watch/Asia reports that children from ethnic minorities
are forced to work under inhumane conditions for the Burmese Army,
deprived of adequate medical care and sometimes dying from beatings.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, just released a chilling and
alarming account which puts the number of child soldiers at 50,000--the
highest in the world. Sadly, the children most vulnerable to
recruitment into the military are orphans, street children, and the
children of ethnic minorities.
The same UN report also discussed how minorities in Burma continue to
be the targets of violence. It deals vicious human rights violations
aimed at minorities including extortion, rape, torture and other forms
of physical abuse, forced labor, ``portering'', arbitrary arrests,
long-term imprisonment, forcible relocation, and in some cases,
extrajudicial executions. It also cites reports of massacres in the
Shan state in the months of January, February and May of this year.
A 1998 International Labor Organization Commission of Inquiry has
determined that forced labor in Burma is practiced in a ``widespread
and systematic manner, with total disregard for the human dignity,
safety, health and basic needs of the people.''
In one recent high-profile court case, California District Court
Judge Ronald Lew found ``ample evidence in the record linking the
Burmese Government's use of forced labor to human rights abuses.''
In sum, gross violations of human rights and systematic labor
repression inside Burma go on and on, outside the purview of CNN and
the rest of the international media.
But despite the onslaught of the Burmese military regime and their
vow to destroy the National League for Democracy (NLD) by the end of
this year. Aung San Suu Kyi, a remarkably courageous leader, stands
steadfast--like a living Statue of Liberty--in her work with the
Burmese people for democracy. We must never forget that she and her NLD
colleagues won 392 of 485 seats in a democratic election held in 1990.
But they have never been allowed to take office.
Still, Aung San Suu Kyi--the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner--and
countless others are denied freedom of association, speech and movement
on a daily basis. During the past two and a half months, she has come
under renewed threats and intimidation. Last August, her vehicle was
forced off the road by Burmese security forces when she tried to travel
outside Rangoon to meet with her NLD colleagues. She sat in her car on
the roadside for a week until a midnight raid of 200 riot police forced
her back to her home and placed her under house arrest until September
14, 2000. Nevertheless, she tried again on September 21st, but she was
prevented from boarding a train. The latest pathetic excuse from the
authorities for abridging her freedom to travel within Burma on that
occasion, was that all tickets had been sold out.
Mr. President, we must answer anew the cry of the Burmese people and
their courageous leaders. That is why I wrote to President Clinton on
September 12th and I ask that my letter be included in the Record at
this time. In that letter, I spelled out in detail all of the reasons
why a ban on apparel and textile imports from Burma makes good sense.
As yet, I don't have a formal reply from the White House.
Accordingly, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Leahy,
Wellstone, Hollings, Feingold, Lautenberg, and Schumer to ban soaring
imports of apparel and textiles from Burma. I am pleased that U.S.
Congressman Tom Lantos from California is introducing the companion
bill in the U.S. House of Representatives at the same time.
Most Americans think that a trade ban with Burma already exists. This
is simply not true.
In fact, imports of apparel and textiles from Burma are increasing,
sending hundreds of millions of US dollars straight into the coffers of
the Burmese military dictatorship. These ruthless military dictators
and their drug-trafficking cohorts are spending this hard currency to
purchase more guns and to buy loyalty among their troops to continue
their policy of repression and cruelty.
According to the National Labor Committee, U.S. apparel imports from
Burma between 1995 and 1999 increased
[[Page S11134]]
by 272%. The World Trade Atlas shows that in just one year (1998-1999),
apparel imports more than doubled, dramatically rising from $61 million
to $131 million. In particular, knit and woven apparel accounted for
over 80% of US imports from Burma during 1999.
In other words, every time American consumers buy travel and sports
bags, women's underwear, jumpers, shorts, tank tops and towels made in
the Burmese gulag, they are unwittingly helping to sustain and tighten
the repressive military junta's grip on power.
US apparel imports from Burma provide the SPDC with critically-needed
hard currency because the military dictators directly own or have taken
de facto control of production in many apparel and textile factories.
They profit even more from a 5% export tax. As I said earlier, this
hard currency is used to buy new weapons and ammunition from China and
elsewhere, thus underwriting the perpetuation of modern-day slavery,
forced labor and forced child labor in Burma.
But you don't have to take my word for it. At a recent news
conference in Washington, DC, U Maung Maung, the General Secretary of
the Federation of Trade Unions in Burma stated that ``the practice of
purchasing garments made in Burma extends the continued exploitation of
my people, including the use of slave labor by the regime, by further
delaying the return of democratic government in Burma.'' At grave
personal risk, he and other NLD leaders have disclosed that apparel and
textile exports to America and other foreign markets are increasingly
important in helping sustain the Burmese military junta in power.
Some may ask whether a ban on Burmese apparel and textile imports
might harm American companies and consumers. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Currently, U.S. apparel and textile imports from Burma
account for less than one-half of one percent of total US apparel and
textile imports.
Other may assert that enactment of this legislation would violate WTO
rules. But if and when the Government of Burma should file a WTO
complaint, I don't think we should shy away from such a case. It would
present the opportunity to argue the view that WTO member nations
should have the right, at a minimum, to enact laws to block imports of
products made by forced labor or in flagrant violation of other
internationally-recognized worker rights. In effect, if national
governments cannot take a stand against trafficking in products made
with forced labor in international trade, then under what human rights
conditions or by what standards of civility will it ever be possible in
the WTO system?
Mr. President, America must take a stronger stand in solidarity with
the Burmese people and in defense of universal human rights and worker
rights in that besieged nation. Banning apparel and textile imports
from Burma reflects the belief of the American people that increased
trade with foreign countries must promote respect for human rights and
worker rights as well as property rights.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President, Office of the White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express concern that
developments in trade between the U.S. and Burma may be
strengthening the Burmese military junta. To support the
duly-elected democratic government of Burma and promote
internationally recognized human and worker rights, and to
remedy this inconsistency in U.S. policy toward Burma, a ban
on U.S.-Burmese trade in apparel seems warranted.
Since the U.S. instituted a ban on new investment in Burma
at your initiative in May, 1997, little has changed. The
authoritarian regime continues to actively violate human
rights and tacitly condone narcotrafficking. A 1998
International Labor Organization (ILO) Commission of Inquiry
detailed the military's ``widespread and systematic'' use of
forced labor (Attachment 1). The most recent State Department
Human Rights Country Report on Burma also addresses forced
labor practices and other human rights violations; according
to the Report, in March 2000, about 1300 political prisoners
remained in detention (Attachment 2). Democratically-elected
Aung San Suu Kyi and eight other leaders of the National
League for Democracy have been confined to their homes since
this Saturday, September 2, in yet another standoff with the
State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Furthermore,
Burma continues to be the world's second leading producer of
opium (Attachment 2).
I am concerned that allowing rapidly increasing apparel
imports from Burma by U.S. importers implicitly supports the
SPDC and may undermine the effects of divestment. Between
1995 and 1999, Burmese apparel imports by the U.S.
skyrocketed by 272% and the trend continues (Attachment 8).
Compared with last year's data, apparel imports rose 121% in
the first five months of 2000 alone (Attachment 9). As U.S.
apparel companies attracted by low production costs increase
their apparel orders, critically-needed hard currency
earnings in the form of U.S. dollars flow in ever-greater
amounts into the coffers of the Burmese military. This
revenue is spent on arms from China and elsewhere, further
oppressing the Burmese people. We cannot ignore the impact
that our dollars are having on the human rights and core
labor standards of the people of Burma. Furthermore, a ban on
apparel imports would not significantly hurt U.S. businesses
or consumers, since Burma accounts for only 0.46% of U.S.
apparel imports (Attachment 10).
As Burma's economy continues to deteriorate, the apparel
industry serves as a valuable lifeline for the SPDC. Both
labor and human rights organizations, and prominent leaders
of the democratic Burmese government in exile, have
emphasized the connection between apparel and Burma's
military (Attachment 3 and 4). U Bo Hla Tint, Minister for
North and South American Affairs of the National Coalition
Government for the Union of Burma, stated in a recent press
conference that ``it is the Burmese military that directly
owns most of the garment and textile manufacturing facilities
in Burma'' (Attachment 5). Furthermore, U Muang Muang, the
General Secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma
and the President of the Burma Institute for Democracy and
Development, argued in a recent speech that ``the military
regime and Burma's drug lords control most commercial
activities in Burma and this is especially true of the
garment and textile industry. By purchasing garments made in
Burma, American companies are directly enriching and
strengthening those most brutal and un-democratic elements in
Burma that continue to oppress the people'' (Attachment 6).
Not only does the SPDC benefit from direct ownership of
apparel factories, but also from an export tax of 5% on all
apparel leaving Burma (Attachment 7). We should act to curb
this significant source of hard currency earnings to the
SPDC.
A ban on apparel imports from Burma would further
demonstrate U.S. opposition to the Burmese military junta and
reinforce our commitment to universal human rights and
internationally recognized worker rights. In addition,
cutting back revenue for the SPDC may help lead to a more
rapid demise of that brutal military regime and allow Aung
San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy to assume
their positions of power in a duly-elected democratic
government.
I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your attention
and thoughtful consideration of my concerns and proposal for
a complete ban on apparel imports from Burma.
With best regards.
Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senator.
______
Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3247. A bill to establish a Chief Labor Negotiator in the Office
of the United States Trade Representative; to the Committee on Finance.
legislation to establish a chief labor negotiator
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am also introducing legislation today
that would ensure working men and women the representation they deserve
in future trade negotiations.
The Trade and Labor Negotiation Fairness Act would create a new,
Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed position of Chief Labor
Negotiator at the United States Trade Representative's USTR office. The
Chief Labor Negotiator would represent the interests of workers during
trade negotiations.
Nearly three years ago, farmers and others in the U.S. agriculture
sector felt they needed stronger representation and greater attention
by USTR. So I called for the creation of a new position at USTR having
ambassadorial rank and devoted solely to representing the U.S. in
agricultural trade matters. I met with Ambassador Barshefsky and
pursued my proposal in the Administration. Peter Scher was appointed
early in 1997 to the new USTR position and was succeeded by Greg
Frazier. Both of them have done a good job representing U.S. farmers
and our agriculture sector.
Earlier this year, in the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Congress
specified in statute that USTR shall
[[Page S11135]]
have a Chief Agricultural Negotiator. That position will exist
regardless of who is in the White House or USTR. This position would
have equal status to that of the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at USTR.
Why do we need a Chief Labor Negotiator at USTR? Because the crucial
role that worker rights play in the global economy has been ignored for
too long. Enforceable labor standards have been left out of the trade
agreements the U.S. has negotiated.
U.S. working men and women are placed at a disadvantage by this
unfair competition. If this trend continues, U.S.-based companies will
face continuing pressure to lower their standards to compete in the
global economy.
The result will be depressed wages, fewer benefits, unsafe working
conditions for American workers, and little or no improvement in other
countries.
We need to use trade negotiations to raise standards around the
world--not drag down standards here at home. We must ensure that labor
rights are a key consideration in future trade negotiations and an
integral part of future trade agreements. The Chief Labor Negotiator's
primary job would be to make this happen by ensuring that the interests
of workers are represented in future trade negotiations.
I've heard the argument that other countries don't want to talk about
labor rights in trade discussions. USTR needs to take the lead and
insist labor standards are an essential part of future trade
negotiations. Our own economy and the well being of our families depend
on it. And if trade is truly going to improve living standards around
the world, it is essential that labor standards are included in future
trade agreements.
USTR needs someone who represents workers' interests--not on the
sidelines, but in the room during discussion of future trade
agreements. Because the Chief Labor Negotiator at USTR will have
ambassadorial rank, that person will be able to meet with the highest-
level trade officials of other countries--and to insist that labor
standards are on the table and are included in future agreements.
Vice President Gore recognizes that. He has repeatedly said that as
President, he would work to ensure workers' rights are included in
future trade agreements. Establishing a Chief Labor Negotiator position
at USTR would help him and future Presidents keep that commitment.
I urge my colleagues to review this bill over the coming weeks
because I will be re-introducing it next year with the hope of getting
it passed in the Senate and signed into law.
______
Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 3249. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the
Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in
labor disputes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
workplace fairness act--striker replacement
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I along with 15 of my colleagues are
introducing a bill today that addresses an issue we haven't talked
enough about in the Senate in recent years--but it's a critically
important issue that we cannot continue to ignore.
I am talking about workers rights--specifically the erosion of a
worker's fundamental right to strike, to protect that right.
Today, we are introducing the Workplace Fairness Act. This may sound
familiar to many of my colleagues here in the Senate. It was a bill my
good friend and former colleague Senator Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio
introduced in the 102d and 103d Congress.
The Workplace Fairness Act would amend the National Labor Relations
Act and the Railway Labor Act by prohibiting employers from hiring
permanent replacement workers during a strike. It would also make it an
unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to allow a striking
worker who has made an unconditional offer to return to go back to
work.
Why do we need this legislation?
Because right now, a right to strike is a right to be permanently
replaced--to lose your job. Every cut-rate, cutthroat employer knows
they can break a union if they are willing to play hardball and ruin
the lives of the people who have made their company what it is. In my
own state of Iowa--Titan Tire Company out of Des Moines, is trying to
drive out the union workers with permanent replacements--the union has
been on strike for two and a half years now.
Over the past two decades, workers' right to strike has too often
been undermined by the destructive practice of hiring permanent
replacement workers. Since the 1980s, permanent replacements have been
used again and again to break unions and to shift the balance between
workers and management.
Titan Tire just outside is just one of many examples.
On May 1, 1998, the 650 members of the United Steelworkers of
America, Local 164, who work in Des Moines Titan Tire plant, were
forced into an Unfair Labor Practice Strike.
During the contract negotiations preceding this strike, Titan
International Inc. President and CEO, Morry Taylor, attempted to
eliminate pension and medical benefits and illegally move jobs and
equipment out of the plant. He also forced employees to work excessive
mandatory overtime, sometimes working people as many as 26 days in a
row without a day off.
Well, the membership decided that Titan's final offer was impossible
to accept, and they voted to strike. Two months later, in July, 1998,
Titan began hiring permanent replacement workers.
During the past two and a half years, approximately 500 permanent
replacement workers have been hired at the Des Moines plant. And little
or no progress has been made toward reaching a fair settlement. In
fact, on April 30, 2000, the day before the second anniversary of the
Titan strike, Morrie Taylor predicted that the strike would never be
settled.
Workers deserve better than this. Workers aren't disposable assets
that can be thrown away when labor disputes arise.
When we considered this legislation in 1994, the Senator Labor and
Human Resources Committee heard poignant testimony about the emotional
and financial hardships caused by hiring permanent replacement workers.
We heard about workers losing their homes; going without health
insurance because of the high costs of COBRA coverage; feeling useless
when they were permanently replaced after years of loyal service.
The right to strike--which we all know is a last resort since no
worker takes the financial risk of a strike lightly--is fundamental to
preserving workers' right to bargain for better wages and better
working conditions. Without the right to strike, workers forego their
fair share of bargaining power.
Permanent striker replacement not only affects the workers who were
replaced. It affects other workers in competing companies. When one
employer in an industry breaks a union, hires permanent replacements,
and cuts salaries and benefits, it affects all the other companies in
the industry. Now they either have to find a way to compete with the
low-wages and shoddy benefits of a cut-rate, cut-throat business--or
they have to follow suit.
Also, workers faced with being replaced are forced to make a choice.
They can either stay with the union and fight for their jobs, or they
can cross the picket line to avoid losing the job they've held for ten
or twenty or thirty years.
Is this a free choice, as some of our colleagues would suggest? Or is
this blackmail that takes away the rights and the dignity of the
workers of this country? What does it mean to tell workers, ``you have
the right to strike''--when we allow them to be summarily fired for
exercising that right?
In reality, there is no legal right to strike today. And because
there is no legal right to strike, there is no legal right to bargain
collectively. And since there is no legal right to bargain
collectively, there is no level playing field between workers and
management.
In other words, Management gets to say that you must bargain on their
terms--or find some other place to work. If you're permanently
replaced,
[[Page S11136]]
that means you're out of work; you lose all your pension rights; you
lose your seniority; you lose your job forever.
How did this happen? We've got to go back to the 1930's for the
answer.
In response to widespread worker abuses--and union busting--Congress
passed the National Labor Relations Act--the Wagner Act--in 1935 and it
was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The Wagner Act guarantees
workers the right to organize and bargain collectively and strike if
necessary. It makes it illegal for companies to interfere with these
rights. In fact, it specifies the right to strike and states: `Nothing
in this act--except as specifically provided herein--shall be construed
so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to
strike.'
In 1938, the Supreme Court dealt the Wagner Act a mortal blow in the
case National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Mackay Radio and
Telegraph Co. In that case, the Court said that Mackay Radio could hire
permanent replacement workers for those engaged in an economic strike.
There are two types of strikes: economic and unfair labor practices.
Employers must rehire employees in unfair labor practice strikes. The
NLRB determines if the strike is economic or based on unfair labor
practices. Union cannot know in advance whether NLRB will rule that
their employer has engaged in unfair labor practices. So any employee
participating in a strike runs a risk of permanently losing his or her
job.
What's interesting is that following the Court's ruling, companies
did not take advantage of this loophole until the 1980s. Before then,
they recognized that doing that would upset this level playing field.
For almost 40 years, management rarely hired permanent replacements.
That began to change in the 1980s. Since then, hiring permanent
replacements has become a routine practice to break unions and shift
the balance between workers and management.
Again Mr. President, the Workplace Fairness Act would restore the
fundamental principle of fair labor-management relations--the right of
workers to strike without having to fear losing their jobs.
Permanent striker replacement keeps us from moving forward as a
nation into an era of high-wage, high-skilled, highly productive jobs
in the global marketplace. Without the right to strike, workers' rights
will continue to erode. The result will be fewer incentives and less
motivation to produce good work, and companies will also suffer with
less quality in their products.
Obviously, Mr. President, this legislation won't be adopted this
year. But we are introducing it today to begin the debate and to signal
our intent on raising it and other fundamental labor law reforms in the
next session of Congress. Its time for us to level the playing field
for hard-working Americans.
______
Mr. BIDEN:
S. 3251. A bill to authorize the Secretary of State to provide for
the establishment of nonprofit entities for the Department's
international educational, cultural, and arts programs; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
assistance for international educational, cultural, and arts programs
of the Department of State
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would
authorize the establishment of nonprofit entities to provide grants and
other assistance for international educational, cultural and arts
programs through the Department of State. This is an initiative I have
discussed with officials of the Department of State and introduce today
to initiate discussion on how to best stimulate a vibrant exchange of
international educational, cultural and arts programs.
We are in a era in which cultural issues are increasingly central to
international issues and diplomacy. Trade disputes, ethnic and regional
conflicts and issues such as biotechnology all have cultural and
intellectual underpinnings.
Cultural programs are increasingly necessary to promoting
international understanding and achieving U.S. national objectives.
American multinational companies and other Americans doing business
overseas welcome opportunities to show their support for the unique
cultures of nations in which they do business, as well as their
interest in telling the story of America's diversity in other
countries.
One way they could do this is by helping to sponsor cultural exchange
programs arranged through the Department of State. The problem is that
there is apparently no clear easy way to do that--no point of contact
for corporations or others interested in supporting cultural
diplomacy--no clear avenues to assist cultural programs supported by
our government. There also are concerns about possible conflicts of
interest. Moreover, many people in our own government are uncertain
whether they should engage in presenting the creative, intellectual and
cultural side of our nation.
Under this legislation Congress would authorize the establishment of
private nonprofit organizations for the support of international
cultural programs, making it both easy and attractive for private
organizations to support cultural programs in cooperation with the
Department of State. In so doing, we would affirm support for the
promotion and presentation of the nation's intellectual and creative
best as part of American diplomacy.
This initiative would support a broad range of cultural exchange
programs--projects that send Americans abroad and that bring people
from other countries to the United States. Its priority would be to
support the organization and promotion of major, high-profile
presentations of art exhibitions, musical and theatrical performances
which represent the finest quality of creativity our nation produces.
These should be presentations that reach large numbers of people, which
contribute to achieving our national interests and which represent the
diversity of American culture.
There would be authority to solicit support for specific cultural
endeavors, offering individuals, foundations, multinationals
corporations and other American businesses engaged overseas the
opportunity to publicly support cross-cultural understanding in
countries where they do business.
The nonprofit entity would work with the Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs as well as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy
and Public Affairs at the Department of State.
Mr. President, that is the overall purpose of this legislation. I am
sure we will be able to improve on how to encourage a vibrant exchange
of cultural programs, and I welcome suggestions on how best to do that.
It is for that purpose that I introduce this legislation at the end of
this Congress, with the intention of reintroducing it next year with
the benefit of those suggestions.
I ask consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3251
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the national interest of the United States to
promote mutual understanding between the people of the United
States and other nations.
(2) Among the means to be used in achieving this objective
are a wide range of international educational and cultural
exchange programs, including the J. William Fulbright
Educational Exchange Program and the International Visitors
Program.
(3) Cultural diplomacy, especially the presentation abroad
of the finest of America's creative, visual and performing
arts, is an especially effective means of advancing the U.S.
national interest.
(4) The financial support available for international
cultural and scholarly exchanges has declined by
approximately 10 per cent in recent years.
(5) Funds appropriated for the purpose of ensuring that the
excellence, diversity and vitality of the arts in the United
States are presented to foreign audiences by and in
cooperation with our diplomatic and consular representatives
have declined dramatically.
(6) One of the ways to deepen and expand cultural and
educational exchange programs is through the establishment of
nonprofit entities to encourage the participation and
financial support of multinational companies and other
private sector contributors.
(7) The U.S. private sector should be encouraged to
cooperate closely with the Secretary of State and her
representatives to expand and spread appreciation of U.S.
cultural and artistic accomplishments.
[[Page S11137]]
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH NONPROFIT ENTITIES.
Section 105(f) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, (22 U.S.C. 2255(f)) is
further amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(f)''; and by adding at
the end the following new paragraphs:
(2) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide for the
establishment of private, nonprofit entities to assist in
carrying out the purposes of the Act. Any such entity shall
not be considered an agency or instrumentality of the United
States government, nor shall its employees be considered
employees of the United States government for any purposes.
(3) The entities may, among other functions, (a) encourage
participation and support by U.S. multinational companies and
other elements of the private sector for cultural, arts and
educational exchange programs, including those programs that
will enhance international appreciation of America's cultural
and artistic accomplishments; (b) solicit and receive
contributions from the private sector to support these
cultural arts and educational exchange programs; and (c)
provide grants and other assistance for these programs.
(4) The Secretary of State is authorized to make such
arrangements as are necessary to carry out the purposes of
these entities, including the solicitation and receipt of
funds for the entity; designation of a program in recognition
of such contributions; and designation of members, including
employees of the U.S. government, on any board or other body
established to administer the entity.
(5) Any funds available to the Department of State may be
made available to such entities to cover administrative and
other costs for their establishment. Any such entity is
authorized to invest any amounts provided to it by the
Department of State, and such amounts, as well as any
interest or earnings on such amounts, may be used by the
entity to carry out its purposes.
____________________