[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3810-3813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 553. A bill to provide additional trade benefits to countries that 
comply with the provisions of the ILO Convention; to the Committee on 
Finance.


             the international child welfare protection act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Kerrey, to introduce legislation that will chart a new United 
States approach to the terrible problem of child exploitation in 
overseas labor markets.
  This legislation, the International Child Welfare Protection Act, 
will target new, additional trade benefits to countries that comply 
with the provisions of the International Labor Organization's 
Convention Number 138 concerning the Minimum Age for Admission to 
Employment, also known as the Minimum Age Convention.
  The aim of the Minimum Age Convention is to abolish child labor 
throughout the world by establishing a minimum age at which children 
may be employed.
  Our legislation will do two things:
  It will give the President the authority to grant a country that 
complies with the Minimum Age Convention up to a fifty-percent tariff 
rate cut on items produced in that country that would not otherwise be 
eligible for preferential tariff rates.
  It will also permit the President to waive current limitations on the 
amounts of additional goods that countries complying with the Minimum 
Age Convention may export to the United States. If, in the unlikely 
event the President finds that domestic industries are hurt because of 
these special, targeted trade benefits, the President also has the 
authority to suspend, limit, or withdraw the benefits.
  This legislation is important for three reasons.
  First, it is a tragic fact that child labor is rampant in many places 
in the world, despite more laws aimed at stopping this inhumane 
practice. International Labor Organization statistics show that between 
100 million and 200 million children worldwide are engaged in providing 
goods and services. Ninety-five percent of these children, according to 
the ILO, work in developing countries. Why are children pressed into 
service as low-paid or un-paid workers? Because, according to the ILO, 
children are ``generally less demanding, more obedient, and less likely 
to object to their treatment or conditions of work.'' We must all do 
what we can to stop this unconscionable practice.
  The second reason we need this legislation is because it is clear 
that regulation and enforcement alone will not work. Incentives are 
needed as well. The reason that it is so tough to enforce child labor 
standards is that it is often very difficult to trace specific products 
to specific plants in specific countries. The Department of Labor's 
Bureau of International Labor Affairs says that quantifying the extent 
of child labor in a particular country's export industry ``can seldom 
be done with specificity.'' If you can't even trace the goods or 
services with certainty, you can't expect enforcement alone to be the 
answer.
  Finally, we need this legislation because even though the ILO Minimum 
Age Convention was adopted in 1973, only twenty-one developing country 
member states out of 173 ILO member states have ratified the Convention 
to stop child labor. Out of the twenty-one developing country member 
states that have ratified the Convention, none are from Asia, where 
over half of all working children are to be found. If even one 
additional ILO member state ratifies the Convention because of the 
trade incentives this legislation offers, we have achieved a great 
deal.
  I encourage all my colleagues to join me in this effort.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, earlier this morning, Senator Grassley of 
Iowa introduced a bill that I am a cosponsor of called the 
International Child Welfare Protection Act. I would like to talk about 
that piece of legislation and the objective of that legislation.
  I first became aware of this problem through the efforts of the 
junior Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, who came before the Finance 
Committee earlier this year to describe the need to put in our trade 
authority language that would have the negotiators negotiating for the 
purpose of reducing the use of child labor worldwide. I support that. I 
believe the Finance Committee should, when we mark up the normal trade 
authority, put that language in. My hope is that this piece of 
legislation will provide a stimulus to do that.
  This legislation Senator Grassley and I are introducing says that 
economic growth is not just about the bottom line; it is about 
improving human lives.
  I believe this piece of legislation can help do that, Mr. President, 
by taking an incentive-based approach to encourage developing countries 
to do the right thing on child labor. Instead of threatening them with 
access to U.S. markets, this bill says we are going to hold out an 
incentive and offer them U.S. markets at a price they currently can't 
access.
  Now, the action we ask them to take in exchange is to sign the 
International Labor Organization's Convention on Child Labor. That 
convention states that the minimum age for admission to employment 
shall not be less than the age of completion of compulsory schooling: 
either 14, 15, or 16 years of age. For that agreement, we will provide 
preferential access to the world's largest consumer market for 
additional products.
  As I said, I believe this is a good move for the United States to 
make. I think it does provide incentives, for developing nations 
especially, to change their own policies toward child labor. But I also 
think it is important to try to get into our negotiating authority 
language that directs our negotiators to keep child labor in mind and 
try to negotiate for the purpose of reducing the use of child labor in 
nations with which we trade. There should be a connection between trade 
and growing the middle-class worldwide.
  Unfortunately, all too often, trade is measured only in terms of the 
dollars that we export and the dollars we import. For me, it is far 
better and more likely that we will have public support for good, open 
trade policies, if we use trade as a means to an objective, not just to 
produce a better bottom line, not just to produce higher trade numbers, 
but to increase the standard of living of people in the United States 
and to increase the standard of living of people throughout the world.
  The single best way for us to assure access for U.S. goods overseas 
is for us to help the middle class grow in other countries. The only 
way to do that is for people to produce and sell goods that other 
countries want to buy and their own people can afford. It is a very 
difficult process for developing nations. We went through it in the 
United States of America. But for those developing nations to lift 
their middle class, they have to open up their markets and subject 
their businesses to competition. Otherwise, their standard of living 
will constantly be depressed as a result of simply saying that we are 
only going to complete up to the standard of our domestic marketplace.
  When I talk about international trade issues, Mr. President, that is 
the fundamental truth with which I began. Free trade--reducing tariffs 
both here and abroad--will help the middle class to grow. And a 
prosperous and growing middle class has a positive effect on the issues 
we face in trade policy today. Indeed, I argue that it is one of the 
reasons we have struggled to get

[[Page 3811]]

normal trade authority from the President. As least as I see it in 
Nebraska, there is growing skepticism that there is a connection 
between the standard of living of the people who are in the workforce 
today and the trade policies.
  Many of my citizens have reached a conclusion that there is a 
negative connection, and that free trade policies have depressed their 
standard of living and made it more difficult for them to earn the 
wages they feel they deserve as a consequence of the work they are 
doing every day. We have many problem in trade policies that make it 
difficult for us to convince the American people that free trade is 
unquestionably a good thing. The legislation Senator Grassley and I 
have introduced today says we want to make progress on these issues.
  The International Labor Organization estimates that more than 250 
million children worldwide between the ages of 5 and 14 are obliged to 
work either full-time or part-time in developing countries alone. Many 
work under condition that are debilitating for their physical, moral, 
or emotional well-being.
  Far too many are employed in the fields, rug factories, and 
electronic factories that hope to export products to the United States 
of America. What this bill does is go directly to that desire.
  This bill would immediately cause other countries to say, ``We can 
sell products to the U.S. consumers that we could not sell before. All 
we have to do is agree to an internationally recognized standard on 
child labor.''
  If they sign that agreement today, they gain access to American 
markets and American dollars tomorrow. It is an approach that has 
worked for the Europeans. It is an incentive-based, rather than a 
punitive, approach; it is a trade policy that is increasingly 
recognized as a better way to proceed on some of these very difficult 
issues.
  We want children to be the beneficiaries of economic growth, not the 
engines of it. To us, it is evident that it is self-defeating for 
economic growth to come at the expense of our children.
  This bill is a step in the right direction, and I hope it represents 
to the people I serve that I am willing, in fact, I look forward to 
coming to the table on these very difficult and sticky trade issues 
that have divided us in the past.
  I hope it is seen, as well, as an important first step--but a first 
step only--in reducing the terrible consequences of allowing these 
young children to be used for labor in these developing countries. It 
is a very important issue that Senator Harkin has worked on for years. 
He brought it to the attention of the Finance Committee. I believe the 
committee is responding in a first-step fashion, and I hope they will 
follow this action with further changes in the negotiating language 
that will say to our negotiators: we want you to put child labor at the 
top of your concerns when you are negotiating trade agreement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 554. A bill to amend section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961 to provide alternative certification procedures for assistance for 
major drug producing countries and major drug transit countries; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


             the drug certification improvement act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Drug Certification 
Improvement Act of 1999 to strengthen and improve the annual drug 
certification process of countries which are fully cooperating with the 
United States to fight drug trafficking. This bill is based on 
legislation, S. 457, which I introduced in the 105th Congress.
  I am concerned that the current system, in place since 1986, no 
longer works as Congress intended. As we witnessed last Friday, 
February 26th, the administration issued its certification for 1999. 
This certification penalizes only two countries--Burma and 
Afghanistan--for not fully cooperating with the United States to combat 
drug trafficking. The administration's certification also granted 
waivers on national security grounds to four countries--Paraguay, 
Haiti, Cambodia, and Nigeria--so they will continue to receive United 
States aid.
  This certification, with only two countries sanctioned, raises 
serious concerns about the viability and effectiveness of the existing 
certification process and its underlying statutory authority. This 
concern is reflected in a Washington Post news report of February 27, 
1999, which stated: ``The Administration's relatively forgiving 
approach reflects an effort to lower the profile on the certification 
reviews and thereby reduce the political tensions it has often 
created.''
  Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too 
late and not specific enough to address the problems. Congress also 
lacks timely and specific information that would assist in exercising 
its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
  The existing law also gives a free ride to countries which are 
decertified but then granted waivers and continue to receive aid 
because it is deemed to be in the national interest of the United 
States. These waivers allow the provision of aid year after year to 
countries not fully cooperating with the United States. What incentive 
do these countries have to improve their cooperation?
  The current certification process is set forth in section 490 of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It requires the President to submit to 
Congress by March 1 of each year a list of major illicit drug producing 
and transiting countries which he certifies are fully cooperating with 
the United States.
  Under existing law, the President has three options: One, certify a 
country which has cooperated fully with U.S. anti-drug efforts or has 
taken adequate steps on its own to comply with the 1988 U.N. anti-drug 
trafficking convention. Two, decertify a country for not fully 
cooperating. Or three, decertify a country but provide a waiver because 
it is in the national interests of the United States to continue to 
provide aid.
  Currently, when a country is decertified, at least 50 percent of U.S. 
bilateral foreign aid is suspended in the current fiscal year. In fact, 
that country may lose more than 50 percent of its current funding if 
the State Department has not yet released the aid. Unless the country 
is recertified, all U.S. aid is suspended in subsequent fiscal years. 
And, the United States is required to vote against loans in the 
multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter-
American Development Bank.
  Congress has 30 days from receipt of the President's certification to 
enact a joint resolution disapproving the President's action. If 
Congress passes such a resolution, the President can veto it and 
require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto. 
Congress also has its prerogative to pass a resolution at other times, 
but it too would be subject to a presidential veto.
  The alternative I am proposing today would basically put countries 
``on probation.'' By putting countries on notice that the United States 
has serious concerns about their lack of cooperation, it would provide 
a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. 
concerns.
  My legislation builds on the existing carrot and stick approach in 
the certification process. The carrot is certification although for a 
finite period of time of 7 months. During this ``probationary period,'' 
all U.S. aid continues to flow and the United States remains supportive 
in international development banks. The President also stipulates which 
specific conditions must be met by that country to improve its 
cooperation with the United States and to continue receiving U.S. aid. 
Not only is sufficient notice provided to the country, but to the 
Congress as well.
  The stick is a penalty similar to that under existing law. If after 7 
months the country does not comply with the stipulations made by the 
President to improve its cooperation with the United States, 100 
percent of U.S. bilateral aid is cut off. The United States also would 
vote against aid in the multilateral development banks if the country 
does not comply with U.S. stipulations, as provided for under current 
law. These penalties would remain

[[Page 3812]]

in effect until the President notifies Congress that the country has 
complied with the stipulations made in the President's original 
probationary certification.
  My bill also provides reasonable notice to Congress. Under this 
alternative, Congress would be informed about those specific concerns 
which the President identified regarding a country's lack of 
cooperation. Congress also would be able to track that country's 
progress during the 7-month probationary period and, of course, 
maintain its prerogative to pass legislation as it deems necessary. I 
believe this would help avoid contentious battles between Congress and 
the administration which appear to be a main reason for the limited 
certification we see from the administration this year.
  It is clear that the existing certification process is flawed. The 
Drug Certification Improvement Act of 1999 provides a new certification 
option to fix the process, and I urge my colleagues to support passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 554

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR MAJOR DRUG PRODUCING AND DRUG 
                   TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1990 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Alternative Certification Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--In lieu of submitting a certification 
     with respect to a country under subsection (b), the President 
     may submit the certification described in paragraph (2). The 
     President shall submit the certification under such paragraph 
     at the time of the submission of the report required by 
     section 489(a).
       ``(2) Certification.--A certification with respect to a 
     country under this paragraph is a certification specifying--
       ``(A) that the withholding of assistance from the country 
     under subsection (a)(1) and the opposition to assistance to 
     the country under subsection (a)(2) in the fiscal year 
     concerned is not in the national interests of the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) the conditions which must be met in order to 
     terminate the applicability of paragraph (4) to the country.
       ``(3) Effect of certification in fiscal year of 
     certification.--If the President submits a certification with 
     respect to a country under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year--
       ``(A) the assistance otherwise withheld from the country 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1) may be obligated and expended 
     in that fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the requirement of subsection (a)(2) to vote against 
     multilateral development bank assistance to the country shall 
     not apply to the country in that fiscal year.
       ``(4) Effect of certification in later fiscal years.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subparagraph (B) shall apply to a 
     country covered by a certification submitted under this 
     subsection during the period beginning on October 1 of the 
     year in which the President submits the certification and 
     ending on the date on which the President notifies Congress 
     that the conditions specified with respect to the country 
     under paragraph (2)(B) have been met.
       ``(B) Prohibition on assistance.--
       ``(i) Bilateral assistance.--During the applicability of 
     this subparagraph to a country, no United States assistance 
     allocated for the country in the report required by section 
     653 may be obligated or expended for the country.
       ``(ii) Multilateral assistance.--During the applicability 
     of this subparagraph to a country, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director 
     of each multilateral development bank to vote against any 
     loan or other utilization of the funds of such institution to 
     or by the country.
       ``(5) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `multilateral development bank' shall have the meaning 
     given the term in subsection (a)(2).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (a) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``subsection (b)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``subsections (b) and (i)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 555. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to continue payment of monthly 
educational assistance benefits to veterans enrolled at educational 
institutions during periods between terms if the interval between such 
periods does not exceed eight weeks; to the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs.


                        VETERANS' EDUCATION BILL

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' 
Education Benefits Equity Act. A similar bill has already been 
introduced in the House of Representatives by my distinguished Ohio 
colleague, Congressman Ney.
  This legislation would fix an unintended oversight in veterans' 
educational benefits. Currently, the law stipulates that qualified 
veterans can receive their monthly educational assistance benefits when 
they are enrolled at educational institutions during periods between 
terms, if the period does not exceed 4 weeks. This time period was 
established to allow enrolled veterans to continue to receive their 
benefits during the December/January holidays. The problem with the 
current time period is that it only covers veterans enrolled at 
educational institutions on the semester system. Obviously, many 
educational institutions work on the quarter system, which can have a 
vacation period of eight weeks between the first and second quarters 
during the winter holiday season. Consequently, many veterans unfairly 
lose their benefits during this period because of the institution's 
course structures.
  It is my understanding that some educational institutions which have 
a sizable veteran enrollment frequently create a one credit hour course 
on military history or a similar topic specifically geared towards 
veterans in order for them to remain enrolled and eligible for their 
educational benefits. Consequently, the cost of extending the current 
eligibility period to eight weeks would have a minimal, if not 
negligible, cost.
  The Department of Veterans' Administration has recognized the need to 
correct this oversight and assisted in the drafting of this legislation 
and fully supports this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this common sense fix and allow all 
veterans to receive the uninterrupted educational assistance they 
earned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
Veterans' Education Benefits Equity Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 555

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Education Benefits 
     Equity Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE INTERVAL PAYMENT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (C) of the third sentence of 
     section 3680(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(C) during periods between school terms where the 
     educational institution certifies the enrollment of the 
     eligible veteran or eligible person on an individual term 
     basis if (i) the period between such terms does not exceed 
     eight weeks, and (ii) both the term preceding and the term 
     following the period are not shorter in length than the 
     period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to payments of educational 
     assistance under title 38, United States Code, for months 
     beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 556. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to establish 
guidelines for the relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction 
of post offices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


         THE POST OFFICE AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Post Office 
Community Partnership Act of 1999.
  There has been a great deal of debate lately on the importance of 
letting states and localities make their own decisions. Whether it is 
with highway funding, the the ``ed flex'' bill, or legislation to allow 
states more latitude in establishing rural hospitals, there is 
increasing sentiment that Washington really doesn't know better--states 
and localities should find solutions to the problems they know best. It 
is in the

[[Page 3813]]

spirit of state and local control that I, along with Senator Jeffords, 
introduce legislation to give citizens a say in Postal Service 
decisions to open, close, relocate or consolidate post offices.
  Since its establishment over 200 years ago, with Benjamin Franklin as 
the first Postmaster General, the United States Postal Service has 
faithfully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. Across small 
town America, the post office is still the center of the community, the 
glue that holds towns like Livingston and Red Lodge, Montana together.
  Unfortunately, Americans all over have suffered as the Postal Service 
opens, closes, or moves post offices without considering the impact 
their decision will have on the community.
  Today, Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation to change 
that. With passage of the Post Office Community Partnership Act, 
downtown communities will have an increased say in their future. They 
will have input into Postal Service decisions that affect their 
communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer alternatives 
to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities have little 
say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would change that 
by allowing communities to work with the Postal Service in the 
decision-making process.
  With the exception of some minor changes, this is the same bill that 
we introduced last spring, the one that received 76 votes of support 
when it was attached to the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill.
  I was pleased when Senator Jeffords and I received such overwhelming 
support for our legislation in the 105th Congress.
  However, the amendment was stripped when the Senate and House 
reconciled their bills; I was very disappointed that the wishes of 
three in four senators were ignored in passing the final legislation 
through conference committee.
  That small communities across America are reeling from the effects of 
downtown post office closings is evidence enough that their voices need 
to be heard, and I am confident that this year we will pass this 
important bill. I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests 
of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed 
the very name--of this legislation is participation.
  We will not give up the fight. For the sake of small communities 
everywhere, I will continue to do my utmost to see that their views are 
heard and accounted for. I am confident that with this bill's passage 
our communities and this important American institution may begin a new 
era of cooperation for the good of all involved. And we can put the 
community back in the Postal Service.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and me 
in passing this important legislation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that my 
colleague Senator Baucus and I are reintroducing titled the ``Post 
Office Community Partnership Act of 1999''.
  Aside from a few technical changes, the bill is similar to the one we 
introduced in the 105th Congress that was supported by so many of our 
colleagues in a 76-21 vote last July. Unfortunately our postal language 
was dropped from the underlying bill during conference with the House. 
However, I am hopeful that this year our bill will become law. I should 
add that this year we have coordinated our efforts with Representative 
Blumenauer of Oregon and an identical companion bill is being put 
forward in both the Senate and the House.
  Mr. President, I live in a small town in Vermont. I understand the 
importance downtowns and village centers play in the identity and 
longevity of communities. Downtowns are the social and economic hearts 
of small communities. They are where neighbors catch up on the news, 
shop, worship, and celebrate national holidays.
  Our bill will enable the residents of small villages and large towns 
to have a say when the Postal Service decides that their local post 
office will be closed, relocated, or consolidated. Local post offices 
are important tenants in any vibrant downtown. A recent article in USA 
Today cited a 1993 study that found that 80 percent of the people who 
shopped downtown planned their visit around a visit to the post office.
  There is much talk in the news today about revitalizing our downtowns 
and encouraging smart growth. I say to my colleagues, if you want to 
encourage smart growth, let's start by doing what we can do to keep 
federal facilities such as post offices in downtowns.
  Some of my colleagues may ask why this legislation is necessary. A 
story from my home state of Vermont will answer that question.
  A few years ago the general store on the green in Perkinsville, 
Vermont went bankrupt and the adjacent post office wanted to leave the 
small village center for a new building outside of town. By the time 
the community was aware of the relocation, plans were so far along--the 
new building had actually been constructed based on the promise of the 
post office as the anchor tenant--that there was no time to fully 
investigate in-town alternatives. One elderly resident wrote that in 
contrast to families now being able to walk to the post office, ``we 
certainly won't be walking along the busy Route 106 two miles or more 
to get postal services.''
  Mr. President, post office closings and relocations are occurring all 
across the country and especially in small and rural communities. My 
colleagues will quickly discover similar examples in their own states 
where the removal of the post office has harmed the economic vitality 
of the downtown area, deprived citizens without cars of access, and 
contributed to sprawl.
  Mr. President, post offices in Vermont and across the nation are 
centers of social and business interaction. In communities where post 
offices are located on village greens or in downtowns, they become 
integral to these communities' identities. I believe that this 
legislation will strengthen the federal-local ties of the Postal 
Service, help preserve our downtowns, and combat the problem of sprawl. 
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and me in support of this 
important legislation.

                          ____________________