[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 16 (Friday, January 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1235-S1236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CRACKING DOWN ON SWEATSHOP ABUSES

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this week I am introducing a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that every Member of the Senate should 
support. The legislation aims to crack down on sweatshop abuses taking 
place in overseas factories that produce merchandise for sale in the 
American marketplace.
  The United States currently prohibits the importation of products 
made with prison labor but does not similarly prohibit the importation 
of products made in sweatshops under slave-like conditions. What is 
more, if a U.S. retailer finds that one of its competitors is importing 
products made in a foreign sweatshop, it has no recourse in U.S. courts 
and is placed at a competitive disadvantage.
  I am certain that if Members of the Senate were asked to raise their 
hand if they support abusive sweatshop conditions at foreign factories 
producing for the United States, not one hand would go up. Yet, as the 
media and watchdog groups have documented all too well, these 
conditions are prevalent in a number of our major trading partners.
  We have to put a stop to this. Sweatshop factories undermine the 
foreign workers who work in them, and they undermine U.S. workers who 
are asked to compete with them.
  The bill I am introducing is called the Decent Working Conditions and 
Fair Competition Act, and it is really very simple.
  First, the bill says that it is illegal to bring the product of 
sweatshop factories to this country. In this bill, a ``sweatshop 
factory'' is one where workers are abused in violation of that 
country's labor laws.
  Second, the bill allows U.S. retailers the right to sue their 
competitors for damages in U.S. court if their competitors are sourcing 
their merchandise from sweatshop factories.
  Let me give you an example of why such legislation is essential, 
involving the country of Jordan.
  Our trade negotiators signed the Jordan Free Trade Agreement in 
October of 2000. The agreement was negotiated under the Clinton 
administration, and it was supposed to be a model trade agreement. I 
give the Clinton administration credit for at least giving some thought 
to putting labor provisions in the trade deal with Jordan.
  But those labor provisions were not enforced, and the result has been 
the proliferation of sweatshops in Jordan. In May of last year, the New 
York Times described this trend.
  It turned out that when the agreement was signed in 1999, Jordan 
began to fly in so-called guest workers from countries like Bangladesh 
and China to make products in Jordan for sale at stores like Wal-Mart 
and Target. The conditions for these so-called guest workers in Jordan 
were slave-like.
  This is how the New York Times described it: ``Propelled by a free 
trade agreement with the United States, apparel manufacturing is 
booming in Jordan, its exports to America soaring twenty fold in the 
last five years. But some foreign workers in Jordanian factories that 
produce garments for Target, Wal-Mart and other retailers are 
complaining of dismal conditions--of 20-hour days, of not being paid 
for months and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they 
complain.''
  These were some of the other conditions documented at these 
factories. Workers were promised $120 a month but in some cases were 
hardly paid at all. One worker was paid only $50 for 5 months of work. 
And 40-hour shifts were common. Incredibly, the 40-hour shift 
apparently had replaced the 40-hour workweek.
  To its credit, Wal-Mart admitted to the New York Times that it had 
found ``serious problems with the conditions at several major Jordanian 
factories.'' But it should not have taken a New York Times 
investigation to uncover these abuses.
  Here is another instance of sweatshop conditions. In November 2006, 
BusinessWeek had a cover story on sweatshop abuses entitled ``Secrets, 
Lies, and Sweatshops.'' The article begins with the description of a 
Chinese company called the Ningbo Beifa Group. This company has made a 
lot of money as a top supplier of pens, mechanical pencils, and 
highlighters to Wal-Mart Stores and other major retailers.
  In 2005, Wal-Mart inspected this company's factories. It found that 
the company was paying its 3,000 workers less than China's minimum wage 
and violating overtime rules. So Wal-Mart asked the company to fix 
these serious problems.
  The Chinese company failed to do so. Wal-Mart then returned to the 
company, found the same problems, and told the company to shape up. 
Again, the Chinese company failed to do so and happily continued making 
pens and highlighters for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart returned a third time and 
gave the Chinese company its third warning. Once again, the Chinese 
company failed to treat its workers according to Chinese law.
  So finally, even Wal-Mart had had enough, and they issued a fourth 
warning--comply with the law or we will stop doing business with you. 
What did the Chinese company do? It turned to another Chinese company 
called the Shanghai Corporate Responsibility Management & Consulting 
Co. For a $5,000 fee, the company promised to send a consultant to take 
care of the Wal-Mart problem.
  The consultant provided advice on how to create fake but authentic-
looking payroll records. The consultant also told the company that, on 
the day of the fourth Wal-Mart audit, they should give the day off to 
any workers with grievances, so that they would not tell any 
inconvenient stories. After following the consultant's advice, the 
Chinese factory passed the Wal-Mart audit--even though the Chinese 
company later admitted that it didn't change any of its practices.
  Now, I am not suggesting that Wal-Mart deliberately turned a blind 
eye in this case. And there are certainly documented cases of other 
companies selling sweatshop products in the United States.
  But I do think that companies that decide to import products for sale 
in this country should not be allowed to gain an unfair competitive 
advantage by deliberately sourcing from sweatshop factories. And the 
bill that I am introducing would address such abuses by banning the 
importation or sale of products made in factories under sweatshop 
conditions.
  For purposes of the bill, ``sweatshop conditions'' are gross 
violations of the labor, health, and safety laws of the country where 
the labor is performed. Enforcement would be divided between the 
Customs Service and the Federal Trade Commission. If the Federal

[[Page S1236]]

Trade Commission determined that a factory was operating under 
sweatshop conditions, it would issue an order prohibiting the sale of 
products from that factory. Violations of those orders would then carry 
a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each individual violation.
  The import ban deals only with goods that can be proven to have been 
made with sweatshop labor and is not a ban of products based on the 
country of origin. In order to comply with nondiscrimination provisions 
of the WTO, the sales ban would apply to both domestic and imported 
goods. The President could waive the application of this section to 
particular goods, but the Congress would also be able to pass a joint 
resolution rejecting a Presidential waiver.
  The legislation also creates a private right of action for U.S. 
retailers and their investors to bring a civil action against 
competitors who import or sell sweatshop goods. For each offense, 
plaintiffs can sue for damages of the higher of $10,000 or the actual 
value of the goods. They can also sue for injunctive relief, to prevent 
the further entry of these goods into the U.S. marketplace.
  This legislation is similar to S. 3485, a bill that I introduced late 
in the last Congress. I am happy that, in introducing the legislation 
in the 110th Congress, I am being joined by Senator Graham of South 
Carolina, who has agreed to lead the effort to advance it from the 
other side of the aisle. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senator 
Sherrod Brown, who last year introduced a companion piece of 
legislation in the House of Representatives. And I would also like to 
thank the other original cosponsors of the bill, Senators Byrd, 
Feingold, and Sanders.
  I believe that one of the messages the American people sent to 
Congress in the November elections is that they demand fair trade. The 
legislation I am introducing is a way for Congress to show that the 
message has been heard.

                          ____________________