[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1215-E1217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          HONORING FIRST PLACE WINNERS OF EXPLORAVISION AWARDS

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 13, 2005

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two very 
bright young men from the Eleventh Congressional District of Ohio, Alec 
Lai and Atreya Rajagopalan. These two students from Hawken Middle 
School in Lyndhurst, Ohio received first place honors in the 
Exploravision Awards.
  Exploravision is a competition for students of all interest, skill, 
and ability levels in grades K-12. The purpose of the competition is to 
encourage students to combine their imaginations with the tools of 
science to create and explore a vision of a future technology.
  Alec and Atreya's project was titled ``Visible-Light 
Photocatalysis,'' this technology is intended to be used to clean and 
detoxify water and air, to create self-cleaning walls, and to prevent 
bacteria contamination and spreading. Their project was selected as a 
regional winner and then given the first place award for the middle 
level (grades 7-9) at the national competition.
  I am very proud to say that such creative young men from my district 
have been honored so greatly. They are part of the next generation of 
great minds that keeps our country leading in the field of new and 
profound ideas.

            INTRODUCTION OF THE YOUTH WORKER PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 13, 2005

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, while many of us think that exploitive child 
labor is no longer a problem in the United States; the sad fact is that 
some of the most exploitative forms of child labor continue to occur in 
our country. In farm fields and in fast-food restaurants all over this 
country, employers are breaking the law by hiring under-age children 
and making them work in hazardous conditions.
  In fact, the Child Labor Coalition (CLC), a consortium of over 30 
non-profits and non government organizations (NGO's) has a new report 
that shows how the Administration has failed to meet its obligations to 
eliminate the worst forms of child labor in our country. This 
extraordinary report, which I urge all of my colleagues to read, is 
titled Protecting Working Children in the Untied States--Is the 
Government's Indifference to the Safety and Health of Working Children 
Violating an International Treaty? I request the executive summary of 
this report and the recommendations made by the CLC be placed in the 
Congressional Record.
  The CLC's report details four specific developments that have 
occurred in the five years since the United States ratified the 
International Labor Organization Convention 182 Concerning the 
Prohibition and Immediate Action for Elimination of the Worst Forms of 
Child Labor (a/k/a ILO Convention 182), which raise serious concerns as 
to whether or not the United States remains compliant with its ILO 182 
obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure you agree with me that the United States must 
remain committed to enforcing its international obligations. That is 
why I am pleased to announce that along with 25 of our colleagues, 
today I am introducing the Youth Worker Protection Act (YWPA), 
legislation that would erase any doubt whether the United States is in 
compliance with its ILO 182 obligations.
  Among the worst forms of child labor that the signers of the ILO 182 
agreed to prohibit and eliminate included work which, by its nature and 
the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the 
health, safety or morals of children. The United States regulates these 
types of practices through regulations known as Hazardous Orders (HOs) 
that are issued by the Secretary of Labor. These regulations are 
amended from time to time as new information becomes available or when 
revisions are recommended.
  Despite numerous changes in our nation's economy, these HOs have not 
been substantially changed or revised for over thirty-years. Even more 
troubling is that because of the law creates a difference for the rules 
governing Agriculture and non-agriculture employment, the HO's contain 
numerous anomalies, including the fact that a 16-year-old worker can 
use a power driven circular saw if they're working on the farm--but not 
if they're working in the shop.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the Department of Labor 
recognized that it had not substantially revised the Hazardous Orders, 
and that this recognition was the impetus behind the Department's 
commissioning of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH) to engage a detailed analysis of the HOs. After a 
comprehensive view of injury data and scientific literature NIOSH's 
recommended revising existing HOs as well as the creation of some new 
orders.
  The NIOSH report was completed more than three years ago and 
unfortunately the Department of Labor has taken zero action on NIOSH's 
recommendations, including such common-sense proposals such as revising 
the rules on children whose employment involves construction work, 
using chainsaws, or operating dangerous motorized vehicles.
  Given the gravity of the fact that more than 200,000 youth are 
injured in the workplace every year, and a young person is killed while 
working in this county once every five days, this inaction is 
inexcusable and inappropriate. The Youth Worker Protection Act would 
implement the NIOSH recommendations into Law ensuring that our nation's 
children are prevented from working in hazardous jobs and keeping 
America compliant with ILO 182.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to ensuring that the United States is in 
compliance with its international obligations to end the worst forms of 
child labor, the YWPA also takes crucial steps to modernize America's 
child labor laws to reflect the changed nature of America's economy 
since our child labor laws were enacted nearly 70 years ago.
  In some ways kids today are working just as long as their ``Mill 
Children'' predecessors, especially when one considers the hours a 
student is in school. Mr. Speaker, the average time a student is in 
class is about 7 hours a day, or 35 hours a week. This does not include 
additional time for extracurricular activities or homework. Going to 
school is almost a full-time job itself. Therefore, in addition to 
devoting a minimum of 35 hours a week to their schoolwork, many high-
school students are also working 30 to 40 hours a week for some of 
America's largest corporations, often working well past midnight while 
simultaneously trying to balance school requirements. When one combines 
the hours some of today's teens are at school with their hours at work, 
the 70-hour workweek is still in place.
  Mr. Speaker, research clearly indicates that working more than 20 
hours a week in addition to a normal school schedule has a negative 
effect on student's academic progress. Additional studies show that 
children who work long hours also tend to use more alcohol and drugs, 
which is why the YWPA creates common-sense limits on the hours that 
students can work during the school year.
  Mr. Speaker, my legislation will reduce the problem of children 
working long hours when school is in session, and it strengthens 
existing limitations on the number of hours children

[[Page E1216]]

under 18 years of age can work on school days. The bill would eliminate 
all youth labor before school, and after-school work would be limited 
to 15 or 20 hours per week, depending on the age of the child. 
Additionally, it will require better record keeping and reporting of 
child labor violations.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues of children working early in the morning or 
late into the evening is a problem facing our country. Students 
continuously tell me that working long hours, late into the night 
negatively affects their school performance, that they are too tired 
for class, and that the long hours on the job take away from important 
extra-curricular activities and take away time from their family.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 60 years our nation's agribusinesses have 
enjoyed special exemptions under the FLSA. Many of these exemptions 
were based on the historical prominence of the family farm in the 
American economy. Current labor laws allow children--even those less 
than 10 years of age--to be employed in agriculture. Child farm 
laborers can work unlimited hours before and after school, and they are 
not even eligible for overtime pay. At the age of 14, or even earlier, 
children working in agriculture are using knives and machetes, 
operating dangerous machinery, and are exposed to dangerous toxic 
pesticides. In no other industry are children so exploited as they are 
in agriculture. Despite all these dangers, there are no protections for 
children working on farms and in the fields.
  Mr. Speaker, most of today's farms are not owned by families, but by 
large corporate entities, and deserve to be treated like any other 
company employing children. Although I am pleased to report the YWPA 
keeps the existing family farm exemption, I am delighted that it amends 
the FLSA to treat companies such as Archer-Daniels-Midland and Dole 
just like McDonalds and Wal-Mart, because obtaining parity in the 
regulations and restrictions of jobs in agriculture and the rest of the 
economy is long overdue.
  My colleagues and I introduced the Youth Worker Protection Act 
because the exploitation of child labor is a national problem that 
continues to jeopardize the health, education and lives of many of our 
nation's children and teenagers. This legislation seeks to eliminate 
the all-too-common exploitation of children working long hours late 
into the night while school is in session, and working under hazardous 
and dangerous conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I adamantly want to make it clear, as supporters of 
child labor reform, we do not oppose young people working. We 
wholeheartedly believe that children need to be taught the value of 
hard work and to learn the valuable lessons of responsibility and enjoy 
all the rewards of working. It is not our aim to discourage employers 
from hiring young people. Rather, our goal is to ensure that the job 
opportunities available to young people are meaningful, safe and 
healthy.
  What we oppose are the senseless deaths and needless injuries of our 
teenagers. We oppose the negative effects on academic achievement that 
result when children work excessive hours while school is in session. 
An education, not after-school employment, is the key to a successful 
future.

 Protecting Working Children in the United States: Is the Government's 
Indifference to the Safety and Health of Working Children Violating an 
                         International Treaty?


                           Executive Summary

       In 1999, the United States ratified an international treaty 
     known as International Labor Organization Convention 182, 
     which requires the U.S. to ``take immediate and effective 
     measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the 
     worst forms of child labor as a matter of urgency.'' The U.S. 
     claimed that it was already in compliance with the treaty at 
     the time of ratification. This report shows that U.S. 
     compliance with the treaty is in serious doubt as a result of 
     disturbing developments since 1999.
       First, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which enforces 
     the federal child labor laws, has done almost nothing to 
     update its outmoded ``Hazardous Order'' regulations, which 
     are designed to forbid employers from permitting children to 
     do particularly hazardous jobs. This failure is particularly 
     shocking in view of the fact that more than three years have 
     gone by since the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
     and Health (NIOSH) in May 2002 published a detailed study, 
     commissioned by DOL, which pointed out numerous safety 
     hazards to young workers that require many improvements in 
     the Hazardous Order regulations.
       Second, a DOL report from November 2004 discloses that 
     during the last four years, the time spent by DOL 
     investigators in enforcing the child labor laws has decreased 
     by 21.6 percent. The equivalent of only 34 full-time 
     investigators are available to enforce the law, even though 
     there are an estimated 3.2 million workers under age 18. This 
     amounts to one investigator per 95,000 working children. 
     Moreover, even though the maximum fine that can be imposed 
     for a child labor violation is $11,000, the average fine 
     actually imposed by DOL last year was only $717.78. This in 
     the lowest seven percent of the entire range of fines, from 
     $1.00 up to $11,000, that DOL has the authority to assess.
       Third, Congress's watchdog agency, the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO), issued a report in September 
     2002 that was highly critical of DOL's child labor 
     enforcement priorities. DOL has done little to heed this 
     report, and what it has done shows that DOL's enforcement 
     activities continue to suffer from serious flaws.
       Fourth, In March 2000, the GAO issued a report urging the 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve its 
     pesticide regulations in order to ensure the safety of 
     farmworkers and their children. The GAO noted, among other 
     deficiencies, that the EPA's Worker Protection Standard for 
     farmworkers has reentry intervals, or REIs (which establish 
     the minimum amount of time that workers must be kept out of a 
     field after pesticides have been applied), that are based 
     on the effect of pesticides on a 154-pound adult male, and 
     hence do not adequately protect children. EPA has made no 
     changes to remedy this deficiency, or other deficiencies, 
     in the Worker Protection Standard that would better 
     protect children from toxic pesticides.
       These failings are deeply troubling in themselves, and they 
     also raise the question of whether the U.S. government is in 
     compliance with the 1999 international child labor treaty.
       The last few pages of this report set forth specific 
     recommendations for action that should be taken by DOL and 
     EPA, as well as by the U.S. Congress, to remedy these 
     failings. Only by taking these actions can the United States 
     live up to its obligations under International Labor 
     Organization Convention 182, and thereby provide adequate 
     protection against the safety and health hazards facing 
     America's working children.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                           7. Recommendations

       The Child Labor Coalition (CLC), representing a 
     constituency of more than 40 nongovernmental organizations 
     concerned about protecting the health and safety of working 
     minors, believes the U.S. government should address the 
     questions related to U.S. compliance with ILO Convention 182. 
     In light of the safety and health hazards to working children 
     outlined in this report, the CLC makes the following 
     recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and the Congress:
       To the U.S. Department of Labor:
       1. NIOSH Report. DOL should prioritize the many NIOSH 
     recommendations for strengthening Hazardous Orders, in order 
     to protect children from the most dangerous jobs. DOL should 
     revise first those HOs that would have the greatest 
     likelihood in reducing the greatest number of occupational 
     deaths and serious injuries and illnesses, and then address 
     the other HOs. DOL should issue proposed regulations making 
     these changes and invite comment from interested parties. All 
     of this should be done within 12 months. DOL has already had 
     more than three years to work on this important project, and 
     further delay is not justifiable. Prompt action is now 
     essential to protect working children from deaths and 
     injuries.
       2. Enforcement. DOL should take three steps immediately. 
     First, it should greatly increase the number of hours devoted 
     to child labor enforcement. Doubling the 58,043 hours spent 
     in fiscal year 2004 would still not reach the 143,000 hours 
     spent in fiscal year 1990 in child labor enforcement, but 
     doubling the hours should be accomplished within two years. 
     There are more children working now than in 1990, and in any 
     event until there is a private right of action, thus enabling 
     children to bring their own lawsuits, enforcement activity by 
     DOL is all the more important. Second, DOL should target 
     enforcement more effectively. The key is to find employers 
     who are most likely to have violated the law. Making use of 
     state workers' compensation data on deaths and injuries to 
     children is one very helpful way to do this. DOL needs to use 
     this approach and other means to find child labor violations. 
     Third, DOL must cease immediately the practice it used in the 
     Wal-Mart case and a few other cases in which it gives 
     employers advance notice of investigations and thereby 
     enables the employers to cover up evidence of violations.
       3. Civil Money Penalties. DOL needs to revise on a top 
     priority basis its regulations on determining the level of a 
     child labor civil money penalty. These penalty regulations 
     need to (a) use more objective criteria, (b) indicate how 
     each criterion is to be weighted, and (c) provide for higher 
     penalties. Penalties set by DOL are too often lowered by 
     judges, often drastically, because of the subjective factors 
     in the present regulations and inadequate regulatory guidance 
     on how to weight the various factors. And for a law in which 
     the maximum penalty is $11,000, the median penalty assessed 
     of $717.78 in 2004 is far too low.
       To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
       1. Pesticides. Within no more than 12 months, EPA needs to 
     make every reasonable effort to devise reentry intervals 
     (REIs) for children, so that young workers are not allowed to 
     reenter a field after pesticides have been used on it until 
     it is safe for children, with their developing organs and 
     greater sensitivity to toxic chemicals, to be there.

[[Page E1217]]

     This is the main revision needed to EPA's Worker Protection 
     Standard, but there are others, as well, spelled out in the 
     report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
       To Congress:
       1. Amend the FlSA to provide children in agriculture the 
     same protections as children in other industries. Three key 
     amendments are needed to achieve this result. First, the 
     minimum age for hazardous work in agriculture must be raised 
     from 16 to 18, so that all children in all employments will 
     be protected equally. Second, the normal minimum age for non-
     hazardous work in agriculture must be raised from 14 to 16, 
     in order to equalize the rules for all working children. 
     Third, the restrictions on hours that children can work must 
     be strengthened in agriculture, so that children in 
     agriculture enjoy the same hours of work protections as all 
     other children.
       2. Amend the FLSA to provide a private right of action for 
     child labor violations. Under existing federal law, if any 
     child is employed in violation of the child labor 
     requirements, only DOL can bring a lawsuit, and the penalty 
     that is finally determined must be paid to the United States 
     Treasury. In order to provide a greater incentive on the part 
     of employers to comply with the law, lawsuits should also be 
     permitted by children who are employed in violation of the 
     law. The maximum employer liability for each violation should 
     remain at the level for a penalty assessed by DOL (currently 
     $11,000), but the money in a private action should be paid by 
     the employer to the child (or, in the case of a death, to the 
     parents or guardians of the child). The inability of DOL to 
     enforce the law adequately requires that others have a role 
     in enforcement. FLSA minimum wage and overtime lawsuits are 
     permitted both by DOL and by individual employees, and the 
     FLSA should be amended to allow the same approach in child 
     labor cases.

                          ____________________