[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 37 (Tuesday, April 5, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3195-S3196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CHILD LABOR

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with extreme disappointment that I

[[Page S3196]]

come to the floor today. This week the New York Times ran a story 
detailing a recent agreement signed between Wal-Mart Stores and the 
Department of Labor. Wal-Mart was fined just over $135,000 for 24 child 
labor violations that occurred in New Hampshire, Arkansas, and 
Connecticut. One of the most egregious violations involved a boy who 
injured his thumb while using a chain saw to cut Christmas trees. 
Others were operating cardboard balers and chain saws, which are 
illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to work on. The $135,000 figure 
is a paltry figure that demonstrates DOL's lax enforcement policy. A 
$135,000 penalty against a company the size of Wal-Mart has the same 
financial impact as a 40-cent penalty for a million-dollar company. DOL 
has sent American companies a message with this settlement: violators 
of child labor laws needn't worry about child labor, even if they are 
caught.
  Beyond this minimal fining of Wal-Mart, the Labor Department recently 
released new regulations that place young workers at greater risk of 
serious injuries. The new regulations are the first since the May 2002 
release of a report detailing dozens of deficiencies in our Nation's 
child labor laws. The report, published by NIOSH, recommended over 40 
changes in child labor laws to better protect America's employed youth 
from dangerous jobs and equipment. Since the 2002 release, it is 
estimated that more than 600,000 child workers have been injured in the 
United States. Among the disappointments in the new regulations, fast 
food restaurants can now employ 14- and 15-year-olds to operate deep 
fryers and grills that are cooled to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According 
to NIOSH, however, half of all burn injuries among child laborers occur 
in fast food restaurants. In another regulatory change, 16- and 17-
year-olds are now allowed to load paper balers and compactors that meet 
specified safety standards. Since 1954, children under the age of 18 
have been prohibited from any contact with these machines. As with 
cooking, compliance with this standard will require vigilance by 
employers who put youth in contact with these machines. Unfortunately, 
the Labor Department requires no specific training for young workers 
under these new regulations. Issuing regulations that sometimes allow 
exposure to certain machines, equipment, and hot surfaces, but not to 
others, is confusing both to workers and employers. It is bound to 
result in young workers being exposed to greater dangers. Additionally, 
young workers still work at dangerous heights, on tractors, in 
pesticide handling, and in exposure to lead and silica. These hazards 
and more are recognized in the NIOSH report but have yet to be 
addressed by the Labor Department.
  Sadly, this is not the first instance of Wal-Mart employing dangerous 
and illegal child labor. In March 2000, the State of Maine fined the 
company $205,650 for violations of child labor laws in every one of its 
20 stores in the State. In January 2004, a weeklong internal audit of 
128 stores found 1,371 instances in which minors worked too late at 
night, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. In the most 
recent fine levied against Wal-Mart, the average fine per violation is 
approximately just $5,600. This is about half of DOL's maximum penalty 
of $11,000 per violation. Wal-Mart banks $285 billion in annual sales. 
This is not what one would classify a financial hardship.
  The most disturbing part of Wal-Mart's settlement with the Labor 
Department is not even the small and insignificant fines, however. The 
distressing part of the agreement are the special favors handed out to 
Wal-Mart. The agreement, which was signed on January 6, was not even 
made public until now. It took a reporter to question officials about 
concerns raised by several DOL employees that the agreement gave Wal-
Mart special favors. Those employees have remained anonymous, however, 
due to their fear of retaliation.
  What special favors were given to Wal-Mart? First off, DOL promises 
to give the retailer 15 days' notice prior to any ``wage and hour'' 
investigation, like failure to pay minimum wage or overtime. As my 
colleagues will recall, I have tried for the past year to get the 
Department of Labor to reverse their damning new overtime provisions 
which stripped overtime pay benefits from thousands of American 
workers. This administration's Labor Department continues to stand 
opposed to respecting worker rights, child labor rights, and overtime 
rights. But Wal-Mart is really their perfect ally, since they do not 
allow their workers to unionize. DOL's cozying up to Wal-Mart is 
outrageous and completely unacceptable. By doling out these special 
privileges, worker rights in America are taking a giant leap backwards.
  The degree to which the current administration has relaxed worker 
rights should not be seen in a partisan light. Elizabeth Dole, U.S. 
Secretary of Labor in the first President Bush administration, launched 
a crackdown amidst record levels of reported child labor law violations 
in America in 1990. She reminded all Americans that ``the children of 
America are our future. The Department of Labor will do everything 
within its power to protect children against those who violate our 
child labor laws. The first step in this process is to reassess our 
fine structure and take immediate action to step up enforcement.'' This 
was the view of a previous Republican Department of Labor. Sadly, we 
have regressed.
  According to John R. Fraser, who was our Government's top wage 
official under the first President Bush and President Clinton, said the 
advance-notice provision was unusual. Quoting Mr. Fraser from the New 
York Times article:

       Giving the company 15 days' notice of any investigation is 
     very unusual. The language appears to go beyond child labor 
     allegations and cover all wage and hour allegations. It 
     appears to put Wal-Mart in a privileged positions that to my 
     knowledge no other employ has.

  And an anonymous DOL employee, who is a 20-year veteran of the 
Department's Wage and Hour Division, said ``with child labor cases 
involving the use of hazardous machinery, why give 15 days' notice 
before we can do an investigation? What's the rationale?''
  I don't know what the rationale is, Mr. President. There is no viable 
excuse for this agreement. It flies in the face of our labor laws. It 
seems more than coincidental that this Labor Department which has taken 
away overtime pay is now coming close to rewarding a corporation for 
doing the same. Is it mere coincidence also, then, that Wal-Mart gives 
more money to the Republican Party than any other corporation in 
America? Wal-Mart's political action committee, the biggest company PAC 
in America, gave Republicans 81 percent of its $1.3 million in 
donations in the past 2 years, the highest proportion of any of the top 
25 corporate PACs, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan 
Washington-based group.
  Wal-Mart's top three managers each gave the maximum individual 
contribution of $2,000 to President Bush's campaign last year and Jay 
Allen, vice president for corporate affairs went one step further. He 
raised at least $100,000 to reelect the President, earning him the Bush 
campaign's designation of ``Pioneer.'' I bet he had to work some 
overtime to fit that into his busy schedule.
  It is often said that money buys influence in Washington, DC. I 
certainly hope that is not the case here. I would hope that just 
because Wal-Mart gives so heavily to the Republican Party they are not 
given special favors by our Republican President. So Mr. President, I 
urge the Department of Labor to rethink this agreement. How can child 
labor be investigated if companies are given 2 weeks' advance notice? 
Of course they will clean up their act temporarily, but what is to stop 
them from again regressing into their illegal ways? Nothing. There is 
no incentive. This agreement was completely unwarranted and should be 
reversed at the earliest possible time.

                          ____________________