[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24843-24848]
[From the U.S. 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.


              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

[[Page 24844]]

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 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.

[[Page 24845]]

  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 U.S. 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 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 U.S. 
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.
  U.S. 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

[[Page 24846]]

     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 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

[[Page 24847]]

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, 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

[[Page 24848]]

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.

     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.

                          ____________________