[Senate Executive Report 106-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                               Exec. Rpt.
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                   106-12

======================================================================



 
 CONVENTION (NO. 182) FOR ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOR

                                _______
                                

                November 3, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


          Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany Treaty Doc. 106-5]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the Convention (No. 182) Concerning the Prohibition and 
Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of 
Child Labor, adopted by the International Labor Conference at 
its 87th Session in Geneva on June 17, 1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-
5), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with 
two understandings, one declaration and one proviso, and 
recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to the 
ratification thereof as set forth in this report and the 
accompanying resolution of ratification.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary..........................................................2
 IV. Entry Into Force and Termination.................................4
  V. Committee Action.................................................5
 VI. Committee Comments...............................................5
VII. Resolution of Ratification.......................................7
VIII.Annex............................................................9


                               I. Purpose

    In general, the Convention obligates ratifying countries to 
take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition 
and elimination of the worst forms of child labor as a matter 
of urgency.

                             II. Background

    The Convention for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of 
Child Labor was adopted on June 17, 1999 during the 
International Labor Conference. The stated goals of the 
Convention include:

   the effective elimination of the worst forms of 
        child labor;
   ensuring that Parties take into account the 
        importance of free basic education;
   removal of children from all work in violation of 
        the Convention;
   provision of rehabilitation and social integration 
        for children who have been engaged in work in violation 
        of the Convention.

    The Convention requires members to provide for the 
immediate elimination of certain forms of child labor. The 
Convention defines the worst forms of child labor as slavery, 
prostitution, pornography, or work that is likely to harm the 
health, safety and morals of children under the age of 18. The 
types of work that may be unhealthy, unsafe, or immoral are to 
be ``determined by national laws and regulations or by the 
competent authority, taking into consideration relevant 
international standards.'' The Executive Branch, in its 
submittal to the Senate, has indicated that implementing 
legislation is not required because current U.S. law meets the 
standards in the Convention.
    The Convention requires that treaty parties designate 
appropriate mechanisms to monitor implementation of the 
Convention. Parties must consult with employer and worker 
organizations in creating these mechanisms. The Convention is 
binding on a ratifying party for ten years, at which point, a 
treaty party may, for a period of one year, denounce the 
Convention.

                              III. Summary


                       a. Description of Articles

    Article 1 of the Convention requires member states to take 
immediate and effective steps to end the worst form of child 
labor abuses.
    Article 2 states that the provisions of the Convention 
apply to all persons under 18.
    Article 3 defines the worst forms of child labor as: (a) 
all forms of sale, trafficking, or slavery of a child; (b) use 
of child in child prostitution or pornography; (c) use of child 
in illicit activities, particularly in the production or 
trafficking of drugs; and (d) any work that is likely to harm 
the health, safety, or morals of children.
    Article 4 states that the type of work referred to under 
Article 3(d) is to be determined by national laws or 
regulations or by the competent national authority, after 
consultation with concerned employer and worker organizations. 
Under Art. 4(3), these types of work are may be re-examined 
periodically.
    Article 5 states that each member, after consultation with 
employer and worker organizations, shall establish mechanisms 
to monitor the implementation of the Convention's provisions.
    Article 6 requires that each member design and implement 
programs to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in 
consultation with employer and worker organizations.
    Article 7 requires each member to implement enforcement 
measures. It also provides that members should take measures 
that, in addition to removing children from abusive child 
labor, provide rehabilitation, social integration, access to 
free basic education, and vocational training. Specifically, 
member states should identify and reach out to children at 
special risk.
    Article 8 provides that members should provide assistance 
and/or cooperate with efforts of other members in giving effect 
to the Convention's provisions.
    Article 9 states that formal ratification of the Convention 
should be forwarded to the Director-General of the 
International Labor Office.
    Article 10 states that the Convention is only binding on 
members who have registered with the Director-General and that 
the Convention shall take effect 12 months after the date at 
least two members have been registered. Thereafter, the 
Convention takes effect for any member 12 months after the date 
the member registered.
    Article 11 allows a member to denounce the Convention ten 
years from the date it takes effect. The denunciation does not 
go into effect until one year after the date on which it was 
registered. If a member fails to denounce the Convention within 
the one year following the expiration of the ten year period, 
the member is bound for another ten years. The member has an 
opportunity to denounce the Convention at the end of each ten 
year period.
    Article 12 states that it is the responsibility of the 
Director-General to notify all members of ratifications or 
denunciations.
    Article 13 provides that the Director-General notify the 
Secretary-General of ratifications and denunciations.
    Article 14 states that the provisions of the Convention may 
be revised in whole or in part, and reports may be submitted on 
the working of the Convention.
    Article 15 provides that if a new Convention is adopted, if 
a member ratifies it, it effects a denunciation of this 
Convention upon the effect of the newly adopted Convention.

                    b. Applicable United States Law

    Currently, the United States provides for the prevention of 
abusive child labor in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The FLSA prohibits an 
employer from using oppressive child labor in commerce or in 
the production of goods or in any enterprise engaged in 
commerce. (29 U.S.C. 212.) The child labor provisions are 
enforced by the Secretary of Labor.
    ``Oppressive child labor'' is defined under the FLSA as 
employment of a child under the age of 16, or between the ages 
of 16 and 18 if employed in an occupation that the Secretary 
has declared to be particularly hazardous for children between 
those ages, or which is detrimental to their health or well-
being. In addition to the oppressive child labor provisions, 
the FLSA provides for a minimum wage under section 206 and 
overtime provisions of employees under section 207 of the Act.
    Oppressive child labor does not include employment of a 
child under 16 by a parent or other person standing in the 
place of the parent who employs her own child in an occupation 
other than manufacturing or mining, or other than an occupation 
determined to be hazardous or unsafe by the Secretary. The 
Secretary has authority to allow employment of children between 
the ages of 14 and 16 in an occupation other than manufacturing 
or mining that does not interfere with their schooling or 
health and well-being.
    The FLSA also contains a number of exemptions to its child 
labor provisions. The FLSA child labor provisions do not apply 
to: (1) a child below the age of 16 employed in agriculture on 
a farm owned by the child's parent, or such employment is on 
the same farm where the parent works; (2) child employed in 
newspaper delivery; (3) child actors; and (4) child employed to 
hand-harvest short-season crop.
    The Secretary has promulgated extensive regulations 
regarding what occupations are considered hazardous and what 
occupations are permissible for certain ages. The Secretary has 
authority to investigate and inspect workplaces and may bring 
an action to prevent any act or practice of oppressive child 
labor. The Secretary may impose a penalty not to exceed $10,000 
for each employee who was the subject of a violation of the 
oppressive child labor provisions and $1,000 for each repeated 
and willful violation of Sections 206 or 207.
    In regard to the worst forms of child labor as defined by 
the Convention, U.S. law already prohibits and provides for 
criminal sanctions for child pornography and prostitution. 
Slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment in 1865. U.S. law 
also criminalizes the use of persons under 18 in drug 
trafficking or distribution. States also have their own laws in 
the areas of child pornography, prostitution and drug 
trafficking.
    In sum, U.S. law is sufficient in order for the United 
States to comply with the Convention. U.S. law prohibits the 
use of oppressive child labor. The United States has designated 
an agency to identify and eradicate child labor. That agency 
has broad investigatory and enforcement powers. The agency has 
issued regulations to prohibit child labor in hazardous and 
unsafe occupations. The FLSA and accompanying regulations focus 
on occupations for children that do not or would not interfere 
with their schooling. While the Act has a number of exemptions, 
they do not apply to occupations that would be considered the 
worst forms of child labor under the Convention.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A thorough legal analysis of the Convention and relevant U.S. 
law is set forth in the ``Report of the Tripartite Advisory Panel on 
International Labor Standards to the President's Committee on the 
International Labor Organization Regarding Convention No. 182 on the 
Worst Forms of Child Labor.'' It is set forth at pp. 29-73 of Treaty 
Doc. 106-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  IV. Entry Into Force and Termination


                          a. entry into force

    The Convention shall come into force 12 months after the 
date on which the ratifications of two Members have been 
registered with the Director-General of the ILO. Thereafter, 
this Convention shall come into force for any Member 12 months 
after the date on which its instrument ratification has been 
deposited.

                             b. termination

    A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it 
after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the 
Convention first came into force. Such denunciation shall not 
take effect until one year after the date on which written 
notice is deposited with the Director-General.
    Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which 
does not, within the year following the expiration of the 
period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, 
exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this 
Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, 
thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of 
each period of ten years.

                          V. Committee Action

    The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on 
the proposed Convention on October 21, 1999 (a transcript of 
the hearing and questions for the record can be found in the 
annex to this report). The Committee considered the proposed 
Convention on November 3, 1999 and ordered the proposed 
Convention favorably reported by voice vote, with the 
recommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to 
the ratification of the proposed Treaty subject to two 
understandings, one declaration, and one proviso.

                         VI. Committee Comments

    The Committee on Foreign Relations recommends favorably the 
proposed Convention. On balance, the Committee believes that 
the proposed Convention is in the interest of the United States 
and urges the Senate to act promptly to give its advice and 
consent to ratification. Several issues did arise in the course 
of the Committee's consideration of the Convention, and the 
Committee believes that the following comments may be useful to 
Senate in its consideration of the proposed Convention and to 
the Labor and State Departments.

                      A. Children working on Farms

    During the course of negotiation and Senate consideration 
of the Convention, several concerns were raised about the 
application of the Convention to children working on farms. 
Specifically, the President of the American Farm Bureau wrote 
the Chairman indicating two areas that the Bureau recommended 
be clarified: (1) clarification that the employment in 
agriculture provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
regarding 16 and 17 year-olds are fully consistent with the 
provisions in the Convention; and (2) clarification that 
children under the age of 16 may work on the family farm.
    The Resolution of Ratification proposed by the Committee 
addresses both of these issues. The Resolution includes an 
``understanding'' regarding Article 3(d) which defines one 
category of the ``worst forms of child labor'' as ``work which, 
by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, 
is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.'' 
The understanding in the Resolution makes clear that the 
Article does not apply to situations in which children are 
employed by a parent or by a person standing in the place of a 
parent on a farm owned or operated by such parent or person. In 
addition, the understanding makes clear that the Article does 
not change, nor is it intended to lead to a change in the 
agricultural employment provisions or any other provision of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act in the United States.
    In response to a written question from Senator Helms 
regarding this issue, the Secretary of Labor stated:

        [The Department] can assure the Committee that even 
        without the proposed understanding, nothing in the 
        Convention could be construed to apply to the work of 
        children on family farms. This assurance is based upon 
        the clear negotiating history of the Convention, 
        described in detail in the Statement of United States 
        Law and Practice with respect to the Convention, which 
        has been submitted to the Senate.

Even so, the Committee believes it is necessary to fully 
clarify this issue for purposes of United States implementation 
of the Convention, and believes this understanding will ensure 
that all Parties to the Convention are on notice as to the U.S. 
interpretation of Article 3(d) with regard to U.S. employment 
laws for children working on farms.

                  B. Recruitment by the Armed Services

    Employment in the United States armed forces on both a 
part-time and full-time basis is voluntary and the United 
States does not engage in any forced or compulsory recruitment. 
Seventeen year-olds may volunteer to serve in the U.S. Armed 
Forces with parental consent.
    Article 3(a) of the Convention prohibits ``forced or 
compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.'' 
It is clear from the terms of the Convention that the words 
``forced or compulsory recruitment'' do not apply to the U.S. 
practice of permitting voluntary enlistment by seventeen year-
olds. The Committee understands that this was compromise 
language achieved by the United States in the course of 
negotiations, and applauds the negotiators for their efforts to 
include a standard that is compatible with U.S. law and 
practice. The Committee agrees that coercive recruitment into 
the military should not be tolerated and is particularly 
concerned by young boys in certain war-torn countries who are 
forced to join the military at a very young age.
    The Committee expects that the United States will continue 
to oppose any efforts to require by treaty a prohibition on the 
voluntary enlistment of seventeen year-olds in the U.S. Armed 
Forces when they have parental consent. Such a fundamental 
change in U.S. national security policy is a matter for 
domestic decision-making.

                  C. Implementation of the Convention

    According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of 
Labor, there are some 250 million children aged 5-14 engaged in 
economic activity in developing countries. For close to one-
half of these children the work is on a full time basis, while 
the remaining one-half combine work with schooling or other 
non-economic activities. (These figures do not include children 
who work on a full-time basis in their own parents' or 
guardians' home.) About 61 percent of these children are from 
developing countries in Asia, and 32 percent are from African 
countries.
    Reducing the abusive use of children in the workforces of 
these countries, which are typically poor and unable to provide 
adequate education for their children, will be a challenge. 
Despite existing Conventions prohibiting child labor, the 
problem persists in developing countries. Whether this treaty 
will bring about a willingness by countries to substantially 
reduce the worst forms of child labor is not clear. In a 
response to a question from Senator Helms, the Secretary of 
Labor stated:

          Many nations of the world have too many children 
        working full time, who miss the opportunity to acquire 
        basic literacy and numeracy. Some, but not all, of 
        these children are engaged in the worst forms of child 
        labor, which are targeted by the Convention. 
        Ratification of the Convention by member states will 
        not in and of itself eliminate the worst forms of child 
        labor. But it will introduce an additional scrutiny and 
        accountability mechanism on ratifying states through 
        the ILO reporting and supervisory procedures. It will 
        also be an additional and important element in the 
        effort of many parties in these countries to move the 
        issue of abusive child labor high enough on their 
        national agendas that sufficient resources are 
        allocated to provide the education and other support 
        services necessary to take children out of the 
        workplace and to put them in school rooms.

    Although the Secretary's work plan is laudable, the ability 
to effect change in countries with severe poverty and high 
corruption remains to be seen. The Committee expects that the 
Departments of Labor, State, and Commerce will use this 
Convention to encourage voluntary actions by U.S. and 
multinational businesses to ensure children are not used for 
production of their products. The Committee also expects that 
the Department of State will ensure that this issue will remain 
a high priority in bilateral relations with countries utilizing 
children for the worst forms of labor as defined in the 
proposed Convention. Finally, the Committee expects the 
Departments of State and Labor to report regularly to the 
Committee regarding their efforts to encourage ratification of 
and implementation of the goals of the Convention in other 
countries.

                    VII. Resolution of Ratification

    Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of Convention (No. 182) Concerning the Prohibition 
and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of 
Child Labor, adopted by the International Labor Conference at 
its 87th Session in Geneva on June 17, 1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-
5), subject to the understandings of subsection (a), the 
declaration of subsection (b), and the proviso of subsection 
(c).

    (a) Understandings.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following understandings, which shall be 
included in the instrument of ratification:

        Children Working on Farms.--The United States 
        understands that Article 3(d) of Convention 182 does 
        not encompass situations in which children are employed 
        by a parent or by a person standing in the place of a 
        parent on a farm owned or operated by such parent or 
        person, nor does it change, or is it intended to lead 
        to a change in the agricultural employment provisions 
        or any other provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
        in the United States.

        Basic Education.--The United States understands that 
        the term ``basic education'' in Article 7 of Convention 
        182 means primary education plus one year: eight or 
        nine years of schooling, based on curriculum and not 
        age.

    (b) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding on 
the President:

        Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.

    (c) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject to 
the following proviso, which shall not be included in the 
instrument of ratification to be signed by the President:

        Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in the Treaty 
        requires or authorizes legislation or other action by 
        the United States of America that is prohibited by the 
        Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the 
        United States.
                               VIII. Annex

                              ----------                              




    ILO CONVENTION FOR ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOR

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, October 21, 1999

                               U.S. Senate,
                    Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                            Washington, DC.

    The committee met at 10:34 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms (chairman of the 
committee) presiding.

    Present: Senators Helms, Biden, Feingold, and Wellstone.

    The Chairman. The committee will come to order. There is 
not a clamor of Senators to be here or in any other committee 
meeting, but everybody has got to be two places at once. 
Senator Biden sent word that he will be here as soon as a 
matter is settled in the Judiciary Committee, and there will be 
other Senators I am sure.

    In any case, the committee meets this morning to consider 
the International Labor Organization Convention on the Worst 
Forms of Child Labor. The Convention was adopted unanimously on 
June 17, submitted to the Senate on August 5, and of course, is 
now on the committee's agenda this morning.

    This is a fairly prompt consideration for a treaty, and it 
is a tribute to the treaty's negotiators. The negotiators 
consulted regularly with members of this committee and the 
committee staff during negotiations and were able to ensure 
that the treaty tracked consistently with the United States 
Fair Labor Standards Act.

    Now, nothing in this treaty even implies that young people 
will be prohibited from working on family farms, even if they 
are under 16 years of age, or if they work in a paid capacity 
at age 16. Nor does the treaty hinder the ability of the United 
States armed forces to continue voluntary enlistment of 
students finishing their high school degrees.

    Instead, the treaty sets basic standards that each party to 
the Convention must take measures to implement. The treaty 
defines the words ``worst forms of child labor,'' quote/
unquote--I do it that way to indicate that it is a part of the 
preamble--as using or procuring children for, one, slavery or 
practices similar to slavery; two, prostitution or pornography; 
three, illicit activities such as drug trafficking; and four, 
other works which by its nature or circumstances are likely to 
harm the health, safety, or morals of the children.

    Now, most Americans will agree that anyone using children 
to perform these abhorrent activities should be punished to the 
fullest extent of the law. As I thought about being here this 
morning, I could think of several personal ways to punish them, 
Tom, but I guess that would be unlawful too.

    In any case, there are countries that continue to have 
thriving economic sectors that profit by using children as 
cheap laborers.

    Now, the reasons for turning a blind eye toward child labor 
could be complex, of course. In many cases, governments are 
corrupt and exhibit little concern for the health, safety, or 
morals of their nation's children. As a result, families may be 
merely struggling to survive and perhaps need the additional 
income their children can provide. In other cases, countries 
maintain a class system and simply ignore the welfare of a 
whole segment of their population, including of course the 
children.

    Now then, according to the statistics of the Department of 
Labor, there are some 250 million children between the ages of 
5 and 14 engaged in economic activity in the developing 
countries. For close to one-half of these children, the work is 
on a full-time basis while the remaining one-half combine work 
with schooling or other non-economic activities. And these 
figures do not include children who work on a full-time basis 
in their own parents' or guardians' home.

    About 61 percent of these children are from developing 
countries in Asia, and 32 percent are from African countries. 
So, it is questionable whether ratification of this or any 
other treaty, to be honest about it, will do much to reduce the 
abusive use of children in the work forces of these countries 
which are typically poor and unable to provide adequate 
education for their children.

    The United States is already party to a number of treaties, 
including the ILO Forced Labor Convention which was ratified in 
1992, and requires the abolition of forced labor of children 
under the age of 18. But despite this treaty, the problem 
persists, as I say, in the developing countries.

    Now then, on today's private panel are witnesses who will 
speak more directly to implementation of the goals highlighted 
by the Convention. Although I support ratification of the 
Convention, in all candor I fear that it will do little to 
change many of the most corrupt and impoverished countries 
around the world. On the other hand, we must do what we can to 
try. I am hopeful that the witnesses today will lay out some of 
the policies that will engender economic and political self-
interest for governments to stress the adequate education of 
their children rather than their full employment.

    Now, we are going to have three panels this morning. 
Senator Harkin, my colleague, whom I admire and respect, 
requested to testify and will be the first panelist, and he 
will be followed by the distinguished Labor Secretary, Alexis 
Herman. We welcome her. And the third panel will consist of 
distinguished witnesses: Mr. John J. Sweeney, the President of 
the AFL-CIO; Ambassador Thomas M.T. Niles, President of the 
U.S. Council for International Business; Mr. Casey Harrell, a 
member of the Duke University chapter of Students Against 
Sweatshops; and Mrs. Francoise Remington, the Executive 
Director of Forgotten Children.

    Senator Harkin, we welcome you and you may proceed, sir.

      STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA

    Senator Harkin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your 
leadership and guidance on this issue. From the bottom of my 
heart, I just want to thank you for the expeditious manner in 
which you have moved this issue. As you said, it just came to 
you in August, if I am not mistaken, and was just ratified on 
June 17th in Geneva. And your having this hearing today 
indicates your interest in and your desire to, as you say, do 
all we can. We may not be able to accomplish everything, but we 
must try. And I think that is the right attitude in which we 
must approach this. So, again, I thank you for that.

    I am honored to be here with Secretary Herman and President 
Sweeney and others and Mr. Niles of the business community. 
They will be speaking a little bit later about some of the 
intricacies than I will. I just thought I would just give it a 
broad brush stroke and get out of your way.

    But again, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a meeting of 
the ILO governing body in November, and others will speak about 
this, but it would be, I think, a great thing for us if we 
could get this out while they are there meeting and say the 
United States has taken the leadership position on this.

    Well, Mr. Chairman, as you said in June, the ILO ratified 
this unanimously, the United States included. For the first 
time in history, the world spoke with one voice in opposition 
to abusive and exploitative child labor. Countries from across 
the political and economic and religious spectrum, from Jewish 
to Muslim and Buddhist to Christians, came together to proclaim 
unequivocally that abusive and exploitative child labor is a 
practice which will not be tolerated and must be abolished.

    We have heard all these arguments all the time. Well, child 
labor is an acceptable practice because of a country's economic 
circumstances. Well, gone is that argument. Then we heard, 
well, it is acceptable because of cultural practices. Well, now 
that argument is gone. Then we heard that it was a necessary 
evil on the road to economic development. That argument is gone 
also. That is what all of these countries have basically said, 
that we are not going to abide by those old arguments. The U.S. 
business community and everyone agreed on the final version.

    Mr. Chairman, I have made this an interest of mine. I have 
been working on it for the better part of a decade, and quite 
frankly, we have made great progress in this area.

    As you indicated about child labor, we are not talking 
about kids working after school or on the family farm. Since I 
have been 10 years old I have worked, and I bet you did too. We 
are not talking about that. Quite frankly, I think there is a 
benefit to kids working and knowing the responsibility of work 
and hard work and knowing how to get there on time and doing a 
good job. That is a real benefit. That is not what we are 
talking about.

    We are talking about kids that are basically ripped from 
their families. Many of them are chained to looms or to the 
places they work. They are not allowed to go to school. They 
are really virtually slaves is what they are. So, they are 
denied an education. They are denied any kind of character 
formation with their families in many cases. That is really 
what we are talking about here in the worst forms of child 
labor.

    I just thought I would show you this and tell you a little 
story, Mr. Chairman.

    Senator Harkin. This is a picture which I actually took. 
Last year, I did a tour. This is in Kathmandu, Nepal. I had 
never been there before. But I had heard about all the 
different child labor there. But, see, if you ask to go visit a 
plant, of course by the time you get there, all the kids are 
out the back door and they are gone. So, through contacts I had 
found this young man who had been a former child laborer, and 
he knew the guard at one of the gates of this factory on the 
outskirts of Kathmandu. He found out that the owner was not 
going to be there. So, he said, if we go there at night, I can 
get us in.

    So, it was a Sunday night, about 7:00-7:30 in the evening. 
It had just gotten dark. We got in an unmarked car and we drove 
out to the outskirts of Kathmandu and up to this plant. The 
first thing that I saw was this sign outside of the gates. This 
is all locked up in gates and stuff. It is in both Nepalese and 
in English, and it says, ``Child labour under the age of 14 is 
strictly prohibited.''




    Well, as I said, this young man knew the guard and the 
guard let us in. So, we walked down this sort of back alley and 
down around in the back and we come in this building. These are 
some of the pictures--I do not have them all here--of what I 
found.
    Senator Harkin. We walked in there. Kids as young as 6 and 
8 years old--mind you, this is at night. This is like 7:30, 8 
o'clock at night. Hundreds of these kids in these big 
buildings. You cannot see it here, but these kids are way back 
in these long lines sitting there. That is me looking over 
their shoulders. These kids were working on these looms that 
late at night. You cannot see. There is all this dust that 
comes off and stuff like that, and it is dirty. There are just 
dirt floors.




    And these kids live in barracks next to the looms. So, they 
work, they go back to these barracks to sleep, they get up in 
the morning, the come back to work again. They have nothing 
else. No play. No family. A lot of these kids are taken away 
from their families.

    My flash bulb was not good enough to get all the way back 
on that.

    The Chairman. Yes. Well, I think you did well doing that.

    Senator Harkin. And there is another kid. I could not speak 
Nepalese, but I had this other guy with me and we are talking 
to him. As best as I could determine, he was 7 years old. The 
best I could determine in terms of age and stuff like that.

    The Chairman. Now, hold that one up, if you will. I think 
they would have an interest in that too.




    Senator Harkin. Now, the sequel to this story is--you will 
appreciate this, Mr. Chairman--we were talking to these kids. 
Of course, they are starting to look at us but they were doing 
their job. They have been trained. They do not look up. They do 
their job. And by gosh, would you not know it? They were wrong. 
The owner was there. He came in the back door and he was 
furious. Of course, there was a slight confrontation there. Of 
course, we were forced to leave right away. But it was a moment 
of contention standing there because, obviously, I was on 
private property and that kind of thing. So, I really was not 
legally there I suppose.

    But I wanted to get the evidence. I wanted to see for 
myself, and that is the only way I could do it because I had 
others who had told me, well, yes, if you set up a visit, they 
will have all those kids out of there when you go there and you 
will not see them. So, that was the only way I could actually 
get to see that.

    The Chairman. Senator, that was a very instructive stop and 
a good part of your trip, I am sure, but I commend you for it.

    Senator Harkin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The other story I would just relate to you on this same 
trip--this next story I am going to relate to you is an 
indication of how things can work. Several years ago, when I 
first introduced my child labor protection act to stop the 
importation of goods coming into this country made by child 
labor, I was visited by a group of Bangladeshi businessmen who 
are part of the garment manufacturers. They make shirts, a lot 
of shirts, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and they visited me in my 
office. Boy, I tell you, they were hot. I mean, they were 
really hot. Thankfully, they were in the United States and I 
was not in their country at that time.

    But they were just telling me you just do not understand, 
Senator Harkin. These kids need it for their families, all the 
old arguments. You have heard them all. Their families need the 
money. If they do not have it, they will be out on the streets 
and they will be prostitutes and all that kind of stuff.

    So, I listened to them, and I thought, well, some of what 
they said might have made sense. So, I said, let us see if we 
can work together to form some kind of a group to get these 
kids out of these factories and into schools.

    Well, over a process of just a couple of years, the 
Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, 
this group that came to see me, the Bangladeshi Government, 
UNICEF, the ILO-IPEC all got together and decided that they 
would set up a procedure, a process to get these kids out of 
these plants. Most of them are girls; about 90 percent of these 
are young girls, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10-year-old girls.

    Well, in about 3 years, they got about 10,000 of these kids 
out of the plants and into 353 schools. Now, I say schools. 
They are not like we may think of a school. They are one room. 
Many of them just had a dirt floor, but I visited them. And 
they have got a teacher there. They are learning the language. 
They are learning writing. They are learning basic arithmetic 
and mathematics, and they are even learning English. There may 
be 20 in this little room, but at least they are learning 
something and they are in these classes.

    Well, what the ILO did through IPEC--or UNICEF--I forget 
how it all worked together--but they provided money to the 
families. These young girls were making about 7 bucks a month. 
They were working 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 and a half to 7 days 
a week, depending on if they got their quota or not, making 7 
bucks a month. So, what we did is we provided to the families 
half of that amount of money if they would show their little 
badge and get it stamped if they went to school. So, if they 
went to school and got it stamped, the family got half the 
money. So, it kind of gave them an economic incentive. They did 
not have all of it taken away from the families.

    Then we set up an inspection procedure. In fact, I went 
with the ILO. They had all these plants in Dhaka, Bangladesh 
laid out on a book. And I said, how do you know that your 
inspection procedures--or how do you know that they do not know 
you are coming, that kind of thing. They said, well, pick one 
and whichever one you pick, that is where we will go. So, I 
just went down the list and I just pointed. I did not know what 
I pointed at. Okay, we know where that is. Let us get in the 
van and let us go. We went out and did an unannounced 
inspection of this plant. And the owners had agreed to this. 
The owners had agreed that they signed up with this.

    We went there and I got to walk through and talk to all 
these people. There were not any young girls working there. 
There had been but now they were in school.

    So, I am just saying that it can work. And it does not take 
much money and it does not take much at all to get something 
like this to work. So, those who say, well, if you do this, 
they are going to be out on the streets and they are going to 
be prostitutes and they are going to be criminals, that is not 
necessarily true. It can work because I have seen it work. And 
if it can work in Bangladesh, probably the poorest country in 
the world, it can work in Latin America and Africa and a lot of 
other places.

    So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for doing this and for 
having this important hearing. I would ask that my full 
statement be made a part of the record. Obviously, I diverged 
from it a lot.

    The Chairman. Of course, without objection, it will be 
done.

    Senator Harkin. But I just wanted to relate those stories 
to you because they are just personal events of mine.

    I also just might say that I visited a place in Pakistan. I 
have one more picture. I could show you that too.

    [The material referred to by Senator Harkin was not 
available at press time.]

    Senator Harkin. This is a picture of a young boy in 
Pakistan. He is 8 years old and he is making surgical 
equipment. You see he is making some surgical scissors there. 
He is 8 years old and again no protective things. He is not in 
school, and that is his lot in life at 8 years of age.

    Again, we are working. Things are happening there to get 
these kids out of there and into schools, but I think with the 
adoption of this Convention and with the United States taking a 
leadership position on this, I believe this is the one place 
where the United States can really make an impact on these 
countries. And we can get other countries to start changing 
also.

    I do not believe it is going to cost a lot of money, but it 
is going to take leadership and I believe that is the kind of 
leadership that you have shown, Mr. Chairman, in moving this so 
expeditiously. I congratulate you for it. I commend you for it, 
and I hope that we can get this thing out and hopefully get it 
passed before we leave for this year.

    [The prepared statement of Senator Harkin follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin

    Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Helms and the 
Committee for holding this hearing seeking input from others about the 
importance of this Convention. I appreciate this opportunity to testify 
today on an issue that I believe is vital to the future peace and 
stability of the world. One which the U.S. must take a leadership role 
in because of the very nature of our society. I am speaking about 
abusive and exploitative child labor.
    In June, the International Labor Organization's member states--
including the United States--unanimously approved a new convention 
banning the worst forms of child labor. I was privileged to accompany 
President Clinton on his trip to Geneva to address the ILO on this 
Convention.
    For the first time in history, the world spoke with one voice in 
opposition to abusive and exploitative child labor. Countries from 
across the political, economic, and religious spectrum--from Jewish to 
Muslim, from Buddists to Christians--came together to proclaim 
unequivocally that ``abusive and exploitative child labor is a practice 
which will not be tolerated and must be abolished.''
    Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is 
an acceptable practice because of a country's economic circumstances. 
Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is 
acceptable because of cultural tradition. And gone is the argument that 
abusive and exploitative child labor is a necessary evil on the road to 
economic development. When this Convention was approved, the United 
States and the international community as a whole laid those arguments 
to rest and laid the groundwork to begin the process of ending the 
scourge of abusive and exploitative child labor.
    Also for the first time in its history, the U.S. tripartite group 
to the ILO, which consists of representatives from government, 
business, and labor went to Geneva to negotiate on this important 
Convention, and they unanimously agreed on the final version.
    So, I would like to commend Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, John 
Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, and Tom Niles, President of the U.S. 
Council on International Business, for their leadership on this 
Convention.
    For the better part of a decade, I have been working to end abusive 
and exploitative child labor around the globe, including in our own 
backyard. The ILO estimates that 250 million children worldwide many as 
young as 6 or 7 are economically active. Many of them work in dangerous 
environments which are detrimental to their emotional, physical, and 
moral well-being. I have traveled to Pakistan, India, Nepal and 
Bangladesh where I witnessed the travesty of abusive and exploitative 
child labor firsthand.
    Last year in Kathmandu, Nepal, I visited a carpet factory. It was 
on a Sunday evening and I was taken there by a young man who had 
previously been a child laborer. As you can see by this picture, the 
sign outside the gate clearly states in English and Nepalese that child 
labor under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited.
    Well, this is what I found. Children as young as 7 and 8 years old 
working with dangerous tools in very dusty, and dirty conditions, as 
virtual slaves, unable to leave, unable to do anything but work.
    This gives you an idea of what I was able to glimpse on my trip. 
Unfortunately, these children are not alone as the scourge of child 
labor continues in all corners of the world.
    According to the ILO, Latin America and the Caribbean have about 17 
million children working; Africa, 80 million; Asia, 153 million; and 
about half a million in Oceania. This totals about 250 million children 
world wide that are working.
    Let me be clear about what I mean by abusive and exploitative child 
labor. It is not kids helping on their family farm. It is not after 
school work. There is nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth--
you probably did too. But this is not what we are speaking about. The 
Convention the ILO adopted in June and that we are considering here 
today deals with children who are chained to looms, handle dangerous 
chemicals, ingest metal dust, are forced to sell illegal drugs, forced 
into prostitution, forced into armed conflict, forced to work in 
factories where furnace temperatures exceed 1,500 degrees.
    These children are forced to work with no protective equipment 
under hazardous and slave-like conditions. They endure long hours for 
little or no pay. They simply work only for the economic gain of 
others. They are denied an education and the opportunity to grow and 
develop. This is in sharp contrast to any kind of part-time job after 
school for spending money for the latest CD.
    In this picture, taken in the Sialkot region of Pakistan, 8-year-
old Mohammad Ashraf Irfan is making surgical equipment for export. He 
is 8 years old working around hot metal and sharp instruments. He has 
no protective clothing or safety glasses to protect his eyes. This is 
his lot in life at the ripe old age of 8. This is what the ILO 
Convention seeks to prevent.
    The Convention defines the worst forms of child labor as: all forms 
of slavery, debt bondage, forced or compulsory labor, or the sale and 
trafficking of children, including forced or compulsory recruitment of 
children for use in armed conflict; child prostitution; children 
producing and trafficking of narcotic drugs; or any other work which by 
its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely 
to harm the health, safety, or morals of children. It also defines a 
child as any person under the age of 18.
    When children are exploited for the economic gain of others, the 
child loses, his family loses, and his country loses. And the world 
loses too. Every child lost to the work place in this manner is a child 
who will not receive an education, learn a valuable skill, help their 
country develop economically or become an active participant in the 
global market. When just one child is exploited, every one of us is 
diminished.
    Recently, I came across a startling statistic. According to a 
recent report by UNICEF, nearly 1 billion people will be functionally 
illiterate on the eve of the new millennium because they worked as 
children and were denied an education. This is a formula for 
instability, violence and conflict.
    I am especially pleased that this ILO Convention places a priority 
on education as a means to reduce the instances of abusive and 
exploitative child labor. Additionally, the ILO Convention calls on 
member nations to identify and reach out to children at special risk 
and to take into account the special situation of girls with regard to 
education. I strongly believe that child laborers must go from 
exploitation to education.
    With the adoption of the new Convention on the Worst Forms of Child 
Labor, the ILO has written an important new chapter in an effort to 
honor international values and protect the world's children.
    So Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the Committee will report 
favorably on the treaty and recommend that the Senate give its advice 
and consent to ratification. The time has come to build on the growing 
world consensus to ban the most abusive and exploitative forms of child 
labor--to lead in the world community and say there are some things we 
cannot or will not tolerate.
    We will not tolerate children being used in pornography or 
prostitution. We will not tolerate children being forcibly recruited to 
serve in armed conflicts. We will not tolerate children in slavery or 
bondage. We will not tolerate young children risking their health and 
damaging their fragile bodies in hazardous and dangerous working 
conditions.
    This Convention was approved by all ILO member states, even those 
who have the worst record on child labor. They have committed 
themselves to rid the world of this miserable existence for far too 
many children.
    As we all know, words on paper alone will not free children from 
the shackles of child slavery. This Convention is more than words--it 
will hold countries accountable for their actions and inactions. For 
the first time, a convention on child labor will require countries to 
work with the tripartite group, including experts on child labor, to 
forge actions plans that will move children from the work rooms to the 
classrooms.
    Let there be no doubt. Ridding the world of the most abusive forms 
of child labor will not be easy and change will not happen overnight. 
But with the United States pledging to do its part, we can work with 
the international community to provide children a better life and a 
brighter future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the committee's swift approval of 
ILO Convention 182.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. We will be glad to have 
you stay with us and sit up here.

    Senator Harkin. I have got to go back to the floor, Mr. 
Chairman.

    The Chairman. I see. Well, thank you for being here. We 
enjoyed it.

    Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Now, we are honored to have the Honorable 
Alexis Herman who is Secretary of Labor, and if she will come 
forward.

    We will stipulate at the outset that your prepared text 
will be made part of the record, without objection, and since I 
am the only one here, nobody will object.

    You may proceed.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXIS M. HERMAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 
                     LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Secretary Herman. It is a good way to run a meeting, Mr. 
Chairman.

    The Chairman. It sure is.

    Secretary Herman. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very 
much for inviting me to be with you to testify today in support 
of the ratification of the Worst Forms of Child Labor 
Convention, which was unanimously adopted by the International 
Labor Organization this past June. Mr. Chairman, I want you to 
know today that I appreciate and thank you for your personal 
interest and attention to this Convention. Let me also 
acknowledge the leadership of Senator Harkin, as he has 
departed this hearing room.

    I also want to acknowledge and to thank this morning Tom 
Niles of the U.S. Council for International Business, and John 
Sweeney of the AFL-CIO, our partners on ILO matters. Without 
their diligent work on this Convention, we would not be here 
today.

    Today, Mr. Chairman, we have a rare opportunity to take the 
struggle of the world's children to a new and higher level of 
commitment and action by ratifying Convention 182. As you have 
rightly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this Convention addresses 
the most abusive forms of child labor, slavery, prostitution, 
drug trafficking, pornography, and the worst forms that are 
likely to endanger the health, the safety, and the morals of 
our children.

    It was carefully reviewed by a tripartite group of legal 
experts chaired by the Solicitor of Labor, Henry Solano, who is 
with me today. The process that they followed used ground rules 
endorsed by the Senate in 1988 and applied to other ILO 
Conventions that have been ratified by the United States. Just 
days after it was passed, the Senate commended the ILO for its 
action and encouraged the President to submit this Convention 
promptly. That was done.

    And now, with your advice and consent, the United States 
can ratify the Convention and demonstrate one of our country's 
deepest values, and that is that every child everywhere is 
precious. Every country in the world should outlaw the most 
abusive forms of child labor. U.S. law already prohibits the 
worst forms of child labor as defined in this Convention, and 
ratification would not require any change in our current laws 
or regulations.

    Protecting children here and abroad is one of the 
administration's top priorities, and it is a special priority 
for me as Secretary of Labor. So, I would like to take just a 
moment to put the problem of abusive child labor in perspective 
and describe how the United States is addressing this issue 
around the world today.

    As you have pointed out, the International Labor 
Organization estimates that over 250 million children are 
working around the world. An estimated 120 million of these 
children, in fact, work full time. Today I would like to tell 
you the story of just two of these children, Amna and Alfaz, 
who have been helped by programs administered by the ILO and 
funded by the United States.

    Amna was born to a poor family in Sialkot, Pakistan. She 
was not sent to school because her family could not afford to 
buy her school uniforms or shoes. Before she turned 10, Amna 
was stitching soccer balls to contribute to her family's 
income.

    But today Amna has new hope. A project supported by the 
funds approved by this Congress allowed Amna to go to school. 
In less than a year, she learned to read and to write in her 
local language and to differentiate letters also in the English 
alphabet. Amna plans to stay in school, and Amna's younger 
siblings now have a shot at a brighter future, one that does 
not include stitching soccer balls to meet the family's basic 
needs.

    Alfaz, an 11-year-old child living in Bangladesh, worked 
long hours in a garment factory. As other children went to 
school in the morning, he went to work. But thanks to an ILO 
project, Alfaz is now in school, but best of all, he too is 
learning now to read and to write.

    Amna and Alfaz represent just two of the millions of 
children who go to work every day when they should be going to 
school. Some of these children work in mines, crawling 
underground through small, unlit, and unventilated passageways. 
Others, mostly girls, work long days as domestic servants and 
often suffer physical and emotional abuse. Some are sold as 
carpet weavers to repay their parents' debts. In exchange for 
working long hours, they receive no pay. Instead, they are 
yelled at, slapped, or beaten. Children do hard labor in rock 
quarries where they often have to break and carry heavy stones 
in the hot sun. And girls are sold into the nightmare of child 
prostitution.

    But there is hope. Over the past few years, abusive child 
labor has now drawn the attention of the international 
community. You asked earlier, Mr. Chairman, what is different 
and what perhaps can we expect to see in terms of different 
results. Well, what is different today--and this is a very 
important change from a decade ago--is that today governments 
and organizations are finally now acknowledging the problem. 
That was not true a decade ago. Today many international 
organizations and governments in developing and industrialized 
countries and non-governmental actors are developing and 
implementing strategies and initiatives to address child labor.

    The United States has taken the lead on a number of fronts. 
Over the past years, the Department of Labor's International 
Bureau of Labor Affairs has studied and reported on 
international child labor in its By the Sweat and Toil of 
Children series.

    The United States is also supporting direct action to 
improve the lives of children working around the world. Since 
1995, with bipartisan congressional support, the Department of 
Labor has committed $37 million to support activities that 
address international child labor, including nearly $30 million 
in 1999, to the ILO's International Child Labor Fund, IPEC, 
which has been the most effective and innovative international 
program today targeting abusive child labor. IPEC projects are 
showing real signs of achieving real success in improving the 
lives of children in need, and we look forward to continuing 
this important work with the ongoing support of this Congress.

    The problem of abusive child labor demands a global 
solution. The work of the ILO, including the new Worst Forms of 
Child Labor Convention, is an important contribution to that 
solution. As adopted, the Convention is clear, concise, and 
well-focused. Representatives of the United States Government, 
American workers, and American employers played an important 
role in its creation. I am confident that it can be ratified 
not only by the United States but by countries around the 
world.

    This was a very long and a very difficult process. It 
involved, Mr. Chairman, over 2 years of active negotiation on 
our part and consultation with your office, with this 
committee, to achieve the results that we have achieved to 
date. I believe that wide ratification is a key to eliminating 
the worst forms of child labor. If we are to eliminate the 
worst forms of child labor, we must have a core standard that 
is accepted and applied globally. Convention 182 gives us that 
standard.

    Mr. Chairman, the new Convention speaks of eliminating the 
worst forms of child labor as a matter of urgency. Well, it is 
an urgent matter. One child working in abusive conditions is 
one child too many. You have recognized as much by swiftly 
taking up consideration of this Convention.

    Again, I thank you for your swift action and for your 
response. And by ratifying Convention 182, we will be able to 
give all of our children the 21st century that they, in fact, 
deserve.

    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to be with 
you today, and I will be pleased to answer any of your 
questions or that of Senator Biden and Senator Wellstone before 
this committee. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Secretary Herman follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Alexis M. Herman

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
    I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today, in 
support of United States ratification of the Worst Forms of Child Labor 
Convention, 1999 (Convention No. 182), unanimously adopted by the 
International Labor Organization (ILO) in Geneva on June 17, 1999. 
Representatives of the United States government, American workers, and 
American employers played an important role in assuring that the 
Convention is clear, well-targeted, and capable of U.S. ratification.
    Today, we have a rare opportunity to take the struggle for the 
world's children to a new and higher level of commitment and action. 
Just days after the ILO's historic step, the Senate adopted a 
resolution condemning abusive and exploitative child labor, commending 
the member states of the ILO for their achievement in Geneva, 
supporting a policy of continued international cooperation to end child 
labor abuses, and looking forward to the President's prompt submission 
of the Convention to the Senate. I am pleased that the President was in 
a position to transmit the Convention to the Senate by August and that 
this Committee has been willing to give most rapid consideration to 
this treaty.
    I serve as chair of the tri-partite President's Committee on the 
ILO, which advises the President on ILO matters and which includes the 
Secretaries of Labor, State, and Commerce, the National Security 
Advisor, the Director of the National Economic Council, and the 
presidents of the U.S. Council for Intemational Business (USCIB) and 
the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
Organizations (AFL-CIO). The President's Committee unanimously 
recommended that Convention 182 be submitted to the Senate for its 
advice and consent to ratification.
    It is our hope that, with this Committee's support and with the 
Senate's advice and consent, the United States will become one of the 
very first countries to ratify the Worst Forms of Child Labor 
Convention. Ratification of the new Convention would reflect one of our 
country's deepest values: that every child, everywhere, is precious. No 
child should be compelled to endure a life of forced labor. No child 
should ever be brutalized by work in the commercial sex trade. No child 
should be involved in illicit activities like drug trafficking. And no 
child should do work that is likely to harm the child's health, safety 
or morals. We must reaffirm our commitment to the principle that even 
one child working in such abusive conditions is too many.
    Before discussing the provisions of Convention 182, I want to 
describe the problem of abusive child labor around the world and what 
the United States has done, and is doing, to address it. Protecting 
children, both here and abroad, is one of the Administration's top 
priorities. It is also one to which I have a deep and personal 
commitment.
    The International Labor Organization estimates that over 250 
million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are working around the 
world, often in occupations that are clearly harmful to their health 
and future development. An estimated 120 million children work full 
time and tens of millions work under dangerous or abusive conditions, 
deprived of opportunities for education and the promise of a better 
future.
    Let me mention two of these children, who have been helped by 
programs administered by the ILO and funded by the United States. The 
first is Amna, a girl born to a poor family in Sialkot, Pakistan, 
deprived of schooling because her family could not afford the cost of 
the required school uniform and shoes. Not past her tenth birthday, she 
began stitching soccer balls.
    But today, Amna has new hope. A project, supported by funds 
approved by this Congress, allowed Amna to go to school. In less than a 
year, she learned to read and write in her local language and to 
differentiate letters in the English alphabet. Amna plans to stay in 
school and, what is more, she hopes that her younger siblings will 
never have to stitch soccer balls to meet her family's basic needs.
    The second child is 11-year-old Alfaz in Bangladesh, working long 
hours in a garment factory. He would watch sadly as other children went 
to school--just as he went to work. Thanks to another project funded by 
the United States, Alfaz is now in school, and I am proud to say, is 
learning how to read and write.
    Amna and Alfaz are just two of the millions of working children who 
are daily forced to forgo the benefits of schooling because of child 
labor. Some work in mines, crawling underground through small, unlit 
and unventilated passageways. Others, mostly girls, work long days as 
domestic servants and often suffer physical and emotional abuse. Some 
are sold as carpet weavers to repay their parents' debts. In exchange 
for working long hours, they receive no pay. Instead, they are yelled 
at, slapped or beaten. Children do hard labor in rock quarries, where 
they break and carry heavy stones in the hot sun. And girls are sold 
into the nightmare of child prostitution.
    But there is cause for hope. Over the past few years, child labor 
has drawn the attention of the international community, provoking 
worldwide discussion of this issue. This represents an important change 
from a decade ago, when few governments or organizations even 
acknowledged the problem. Today, many international organizations, 
governments in developing and industrialized countries, and 
nongovernmental actors are developing and implementing strategies and 
initiatives to address child labor.
    The United States has taken the lead on a number of fronts: first, 
by issuing reports that document both the problem of child labor and 
solutions that work; second, by supporting direct action to improve the 
lives of working children; and third by helping to place the issue of 
abusive child labor firmly on the global agenda--as the new Convention 
illustrates.
    At the direction of the Congress, the Department of Labor's Bureau 
of International Labor Affairs has studied and reported on 
international child labor in its By the Sweat and Toil of Children 
series for over five years now. These reports describe the use of child 
labor in various industrial sectors; examine codes of conduct adopted 
by U.S. companies; report on voluntary labeling efforts enacted by 
industries; and provide examples of best practices being undertaken to 
end child labor.
    The United States has helped children directly, as well. Since 
1995, with strong Congressional support, the Department of Labor has 
committed funding to this effort, including nearly $30 million in FY 
1999 to support the International Labor Organization's International 
Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC). Amna and Alfaz 
have benefitted from these programs. IPEC works with governments, 
employers, workers, and non-governmental organizations to develop 
targeted programs that not only remove children from exploitative and 
hazardous work, but also provide these children with educational 
alternatives and their families with income-generating opportunities 
that reduce their reliance on the labor of children. IPEC projects 
funded by the United States include: a program in Thailand to help 
children at risk of being exploited in the sex industry; programs in 
Guatemala to remove children from hazardous work in stone quarries and 
in firework production; a program focusing on child domestic servants 
in Haiti; and a project to combat the trafficking of children for 
exploitation in West and Central Africa. Essential statistical surveys 
to provide the necessary data base to measure progress in the fight 
against child labor are also being funded.
    Last June, President Clinton issued an executive order (Executive 
Order 13126) designed to make sure that federal agencies do not buy 
products made with forced or indentured child labor. Forced and 
indentured labor, practices very close to slavery, represent some of 
the most shocking abuses of children. Our work to implement this 
Executive Order is on-going.
    Initiatives in these areas are part of the United States effort to 
show leadership in the fight to end abusive and exploitative child 
labor, especially in its most intolerable forms. As President Clinton 
said in Geneva when he addressed the ILO Conference this June, the 
problem of abusive child labor demands a global solution. The work of 
the ILO, including the new Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, is an 
important contribution to that solution.
    Convention 182 addresses intolerable abuses of children: slavery, 
the sale and trafficking of children, prostitution, pornography, drug 
trafficking, and work likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of 
children. In the United States, I am pleased to say, existing law 
prohibits the worst forms of child labor as defined by the Convention. 
Ratification of Convention 182 would not in any way require a change in 
current United States law and practice.
    This conclusion was reached unanimously by the expert body 
responsible for examining ILO Conventions in this country: the 
Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards (TAPILS), 
chaired by the Solicitor of Labor, which reports to the President's 
Committee on the ILO. Like the President's Committee, TAPILS includes 
not only government representatives, but also representatives of 
American business and labor. In conducting its review of Convention 
182, TAPILS carefully followed ground rules incorporated in a Senate 
declaration adopted in 1988. Accordingly, TAPILS confirmed that there 
are no differences between the Convention and federal law and practice 
and that ratification of the Convention would not cause conflicts 
between federal and state law. The TAPILS process has been used 
effectively in connection with five ILO conventions ratified by the 
United States, beginning in 1988: Convention 144 on tripartite 
consultations to promote the implementation of international labor 
standards, Convention 147 on minimum standards in merchant ships, 
Convention 160 on labor statistics, Convention 105 on forced labor, and 
Convention 150 on labor administration.
    The TAPILS report on Convention 182, as well as a detailed 
Statement of United States Law and Practice with respect to the 
Convention, have been submitted to the Senate for its consideration. 
Those documents were reviewed and approved by all of the interested 
federal agencies, including the Department of Labor, the Department of 
State, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the 
Department of Defense, and the Department of Education, as well as the 
National Security Council and the National Economic Council. I am 
grateful to those agencies for their help and cooperation.
    The TAPILS report describes the negotiating history of Convention 
182 and the sound resolution of the most significant issues addressed 
by the ILO. I should emphasize the unique, tripartite nature of the 
ILO. Governments, workers, and employers all are represented. That is 
as it should be. Success in adopting, promoting, and implementing core 
labor standards--standards that put a human face on the global 
economy--depends on consensus. And consensus was achieved with respect 
to Convention 182. Without the efforts of our business and labor 
partners, led by Thomas Niles of the United States Council for 
International Business and John Sweeney of the American Federation of 
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), we would not 
be here today.
    As adopted, the Convention is clear, concise, and well-focused. I 
am confident not only that the United States can ratify the Convention, 
but also that the Convention can be ratified by countries around the 
world. The unanimous adoption of the Convention in Geneva--and the 
praise it received from government, worker, and employer 
representatives from every continent--supports that expectation. Wide 
ratification is a key to eliminating the worst forms of child labor. We 
must have a core standard that is accepted, and applied, globally. 
Convention 182 gives us that standard. The United States can and should 
abide by it--and so should the rest of the world. Our children deserve 
no less.
    The provisions of Convention 182 are straightforward. Article 1 of 
the Convention imposes a basic obligation on all countries that ratify 
the Convention. They must ``take immediate and effective measures to 
secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child 
labor, as a matter of urgency.'' Article 3 of the Convention defines 
the ``worst forms of child labor.'' They are:

          (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, 
        such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and 
        serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or 
        compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
          (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for 
        prostitution, for the production of pornography or for 
        pornographic performances;
          (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit 
        activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of 
        drugs as defined in relevant international treaties;
          (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which 
        it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or 
        morals of children.

    Article 4 of the Convention provides that the types of hazardous 
work referred to in Article 3(d) are to be determined by individual 
ratifying countries, after consultation with employer and worker 
organizations. The Convention also contains several provisions 
describing how it is to be implemented.
    As I have said, ratification of Convention 182 would not in any way 
require a change in current United States law and practice. The 
tripartite legal analysis submitted to the Senate explains that 
conclusion in great detail. Each of the ``worst forms of child labor,'' 
as defined by Article 3 of the Convention, is already addressed by U.S. 
law. Existing programs, in turn, satisfy the provisions that deal with 
the implementation of the Convention. They include programs 
administered by the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, 
and the Department of State. Certain provisions in Convention 182 call 
for government consultation with worker and employer organizations, as 
well as considering the views of other concerned groups. Those 
provisions are consistent with current practice in the United States.
    The report of the Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor 
Standards, which I have mentioned, thoroughly examines certain issues 
that were of particular interest to the United States in the course of 
adopting Convention 182. Each of those issues was resolved in ways that 
created no obstacles to U.S. ratification of the Convention. That 
outcome was due, at least in part, to the role played by the United 
States in the Geneva negotiations. The Administration has proposed two 
understandings to accompany U.S. ratification of the Convention. One 
confirms that the Convention is not intended to encompass work by 
children on their parents' or guardians' farms. The other confirms the 
meaning of the term ``basic education'' as used in the Convention. 
These understandings confirm the meaning of the Convention as it 
relates to domestic law. They are desirable for the sake of clarity, 
but they would not modify or limit the international obligations of the 
United States.
    Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful for your leadership and your 
support, and for the support of your distinguished colleagues. The new 
Convention speaks of eliminating the worst forms of child labor ``as a 
matter of urgency.'' It is an urgent matter, and you have recognized as 
much by swiftly taking up consideration of the Convention. Ratification 
of Convention 182 will help us give our children the Twenty-First 
Century they deserve.
    I would be pleased to answer your questions about the Convention.

    The Chairman. To the contrary, Madam Secretary, it is I who 
thank you for coming. I welcome your testimony.

    Senator Biden has arrived.

    Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand you 
explained my absence being in the Judiciary Committee. I am 
happy to be here. I will submit my statement for the record.

    The Chairman. Very well.

    [The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Senator Biden

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing 
today, and for your willingness to move this important 
Convention.
    Certainly no discussion of this issue would be complete 
without the participation of Senator Harkin, who for years has 
given voice here in the Senate to the needs of children around 
the world on this and many other issues.
    We have assembled a distinguished group of witnesses here 
today, led by Secretary Herman, who directed the 
Administration's efforts to conclude the talks on this 
Convention last June in Geneva.
    I think it is one of the real strengths of the 
International Labor Organization--and one of the best-kept 
secrets about that important institution--that it is a forum 
for labor, business, and government to come together to 
identify and act on labor issues that have a global dimension. 
This is a remarkable arrangement, that makes the ILO a unique 
institution.
    Several years ago, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to 
submit testimony at a hearing before the Labor Department's 
international affairs bureau on the issue of child labor. That 
opportunity, I might add, that was the result of Senator 
Harkin's successful efforts to require a full set of hearings 
on that issue. As I said then, in the age of the Internet, the 
cell phone, and space travel, it is all too easy for us to 
forget that in many parts of the world, children are sold into 
servitude, chained to machines, and forced to work under the 
most dangerous and unsanitary conditions.
    For most Americans, the plight of these children has been 
as distant as a novel by Charles Dickens, not a present day 
reality. But with the work of Senator Harkin and others, it is 
harder for us to claim ignorance of this human tragedy.
    We are here today to consider a Convention that will commit 
us, along with other nations, to take the first steps to 
relieve that suffering, to eradicate the worst forms of child 
labor. Across the globe today, on every continent, an estimated 
250 million children, fully one quarter of the children between 
the ages of 5 and 14, are engaged in some form of economic 
activity.
    Not all of that labor can be quickly or easily eliminated. 
But far too much of that activity is dangerous and degrading. 
No rationale, economic or otherwise, can justify it.
    The Convention we are examining in today's hearing will 
commit us--along with the others who will sign and ratify it--
to take immediate steps to eradicate the worst forms of child 
labor--slavery, child pornography and prostitution, use of 
children in illegal activities, or in dangerous or harmful 
situations.
    Here in the United States, we have outlawed such practices 
for years. But in far too many other countries around the 
world, such practices are far too common, and entrenched in 
local economies and cultures.
    What's in this for us, then? Isn't this a problem for other 
countries to solve? I think that there are a couple of easy 
answers to those questions. Countries in which children are 
subjected to the worst forms of child labor are crippling their 
own futures, making the world a poorer, less stable, more 
dangerous place. That is a world in which we are less safe, in 
which our values and interests are at risk. Our influence in 
the world is based not only on our military and economic 
strength. It depends also on our moral leadership.
    Mr. Chairman, a lot of us support free trade, and look to 
an international trading system that will open markets around 
the world to American goods and services, and that will open up 
opportunities for other countries to raise their living 
standards by their own inventiveness and hard work. But such a 
system must be built on a foundation of fairness, where no 
country can make a mockery of free markets by compelling the 
labor of the weakest and most defenseless.
    So we should welcome the opportunity, at this time of 
unprecedented affluence in our country, to do something to lift 
the burden of the worst forms of labor from the backs of the 
world's children and from our own consciences, as well.

    The Chairman. Before we call the third panel, I want each 
Senator to have 5 minutes, and I do not want them to make a 
long speech and then ask a question when the yellow light comes 
on. So, we are going to limit it to 5 minutes so that we can 
get to the next panel as well. But I think every Senator is 
going to want to compliment you, as I certainly do.

    Senator Biden.

    Senator Biden. Madam Secretary, the chairman is correct. We 
all appreciate the work you have done.

    Let me ask you one question. Assuming that we get this 
through the Senate, which I think we can, what are the 
administration's plans for bringing on other nations to ratify 
quickly?

    Secretary Herman. We have just recently had a meeting, 
Senator, with Juan Somavia, the Director General of the ILO, to 
embark upon a global campaign to press for the urgent 
ratification of this Convention. We believe, given the fact 
that this is the first time in the history of the ILO that this 
Convention was, in fact, adopted unanimously, that other 
countries will move to ratification. But we intend to work with 
the ILO to keep the issue on the front burner of the global 
agenda to help with its ratification in other countries.

    Senator Biden. I am going to ask you another question that 
is awfully basic, and I apologize for being so literal but it 
may help the process here in the Senate. Can you speak with us 
a few minutes about implementation of this treaty? I understand 
the administration has concluded that we do not need to make 
any changes in our domestic law or practices in order to comply 
with this treaty. Is that correct?

    Secretary Herman. That is correct. We had a tripartite body 
of our workers, our employers, headed by our own legal team as 
well, Henry Solano, the Solicitor of Labor, and we have looked 
very carefully at the fact that this Convention is very 
consistent with existing U.S. law.

    Senator Biden. Now, can you give us a brief description of 
how your Department and the Department of Justice deal with 
these issues? We are not the Labor Committee. That is down the 
hall, and I just came from the Judiciary Committee. I apologize 
for what may seem to be a very basic question, but this is not 
an everyday focus for the State Department or for our 
jurisdiction. So, could you walk us through how this gets done 
in your shop?

    Secretary Herman. Basically we work on the international 
level through the International Affairs Bureau at the 
Department of Labor, and there we are funding projects, through 
the ILO primarily, to work with other countries and other 
organizations to make sure that we are not only engaging in 
research and documentation of the worst forms of child labor in 
those countries, but that we are following up with concrete 
programs to assist those countries to get the children out of 
those situations, into classrooms, into work rooms that will be 
more compatible with what they need as children today.

    Senator Biden. The yellow light is not on yet, so I am 
going to ask another one. What happens if the ILO determines 
that a nation is not complying with its obligations under the 
treaty?

    Secretary Herman. The ILO has no direct enforcement 
authority per se. But what we do believe has happened as a 
result of unanimous adoption of this Convention and the fact 
that for the first time the ILO is also agreeing to publish a 
global report on what is occurring inside countries with regard 
to child labor, that with this document we will be able to use 
the moral powers, as well as the political powers, to put the 
spotlight on the worst actors on the world stage today when it 
comes to the most abusive forms of child labor.

    Senator Biden. But there is no actual enforcement.

    Secretary Herman. But there is no actual enforcement 
mechanism here.

    Senator Biden. One question that has been raised by some of 
my constituents--I think the answer is clear but I want it for 
the record. Article 3, section (a) bans ``compulsory 
recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.'' And the 
term ``child'' applies to all persons under the age of 18. Now, 
as you know, the United States military permits voluntary 
enlistment for 17-year-olds with the consent of their parents. 
It seems to me that this enlistment is not forced and would not 
be covered, but can you tell me whether or not my understanding 
is correct?

    Secretary Herman. Your understanding is absolutely correct, 
Senator. The operative language here is forced and compulsory. 
As you know, here in the United States, it is on a voluntary 
basis.

    Senator Biden. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

    The Senator from Minnesota.

    Senator Wellstone. I think Senator Feingold was first. 
Thank you.

    The Chairman. Senator Feingold then.

    Senator Feingold. Thank you, Senator Wellstone. And thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and moving forward 
on this important issue.

    I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today to 
discuss this Convention. I want to recognize Senator Harkin's 
work on this. I unfortunately missed his remarks. I was at the 
same Judiciary Committee meeting that Senator Biden was. I also 
want to thank Secretary Herman for her work on this.

    I have always been a strong supporter of labor rights and 
human rights standards and try to point out violations when and 
where they occur. This is an especially important Convention 
because it deals with the worst form of this kind of abuse, 
child labor. Every youngster involved in illegal child labor is 
degraded by the practice--the children themselves, the 
employers who gain from the exploitation, the society whose 
labor market is distorted by this practice, and the consumer 
who unknowingly sustains injustice and exploitation when they 
purchase the products.

    In particular, I welcome today's focus on the most urgent 
elements of the child labor tragedy, Mr. Chairman. I am glad 
you mentioned that children learning about agriculture on 
family farms is not the problem. The problem, though, is real. 
From fireworks factories in South Asia to tin mining in South 
America, children are working in dangerous conditions that 
threaten not just their development, but also their immediate 
safety. Debt bondage steals children's infinite possibilities 
and replaces them with one of never-ending obligation. And 
perhaps most tragically where children are exploited through 
prostitution and pornography, innocence is betrayed for profit. 
What we are talking about is not just a waste of human 
potential, it is the active destruction of the next generation 
for the purpose of material gain.

    Mr. Chairman, for several years now, I have served on the 
Subcommittee on Africa, in fact for 7 years. I know that some 
of the worst forms of child labor can be found on that 
continent. According to the ILO, 32 percent of the world's 
child labor force lives in Africa. Children from Mali are sold 
into forced labor in Cote d'Ivoire. In Tanzania, children spend 
their days in the mines braving hazardous conditions to recover 
gems and gold. In Sudan, they toil in factories. In Kenya, they 
labor on coffee plantations. These are issues that concern me 
today and will concern me also, Mr. Chairman, in the days to 
come as we have a floor debate on our trade policy toward 
Africa, which I think is an important opportunity for us to 
address some of these issues as well.

    Sadly, several African countries are also home to child 
soldiers. I have seen this personally in both Angola and 
Liberia, and of course it is occurring in places like Sierra 
Leone, Uganda, and Sudan. We have seen the devastating effects 
of putting weapons into the hands of children, exposing them to 
the horrors of war and in alienating them from their own 
societies. I am pleased to see that this Convention explicitly 
addresses the issue of child soldiers and mentions the need for 
rehabilitation programs when child labor abuses end.

    So, I very much appreciate this hearing and I would like, 
if I have a second, to ask the Secretary a question. Again, my 
thanks for your leadership.

    I am wondering if there is not some tension between the 
administration's support for this Convention and its support 
for trade mechanisms, such as the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, that may not adequately address human rights 
and labor rights standards. Do you think the comprehensive 
trade packages should include provisions to protect against 
abuses like those that are actually addressed in this 
Convention?

    Secretary Herman. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold, 
first of all, for your comments and for your leadership as well 
on this issue.

    I believe very strongly that there is not tension on this 
issue. First of all, when we look at the question of trade 
today, in my view--and I think I speak for the administration 
certainly in this regard--the whole question of trade today and 
issues like child labor and what we have to do to lift up these 
basic standards are not mutually exclusive issues. They really 
are mutually reinforcing as we look at the whole question of 
trade today, as in fact they should be.

    I do not think that you would find any disagreement that 
the banning of the most abusive forms of child labor is 
something that every country should be bound to and want to 
work on. I said earlier that this Convention is the very first 
time that it was ratified unanimously by ILO countries. We 
worked very closely with all of our international partners on 
this, including I might add many of the countries in Africa. As 
a matter of fact, the subcommittee, the work group in the ILO 
was actually chaired by one of our leaders from one of our 
African countries. So, they were very much a part of this 
debate and were very committed to the objectives that are in 
this Convention. And through our own direct action programs 
now, we are collaborating with African countries on specific 
programs on child labor.

    Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a quick follow-
up?

    The Chairman. Make it quick.

    Senator Feingold. Because I had asked about the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act. Would you support an amendment to 
toughen the labor standards?

    Secretary Herman. I have been working very closely with 
members of the Congress to talk about the need to have more 
discussions on child labor as a part of our ongoing trade 
policies.

    The Chairman. Very well.

    The Senator from Minnesota.

    Senator Wellstone. Madam Secretary, thank you for being 
here.

    I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I missed the testimony of 
Senator Harkin. I understand it was riveting and I really 
appreciate his support, and I also appreciate your support for 
this ILO Convention. I appreciate what you had to say.

    I want to welcome Casey Harrell from the Duke Students 
Against Sweatshops. The reason I do that is that I think the 
Students Against Sweatshops movement is a significant justice 
movement and justice organizing by students across the country. 
As a college teacher, I want students who are here to know that 
I am really excited about your work, and I think it is 
important.

    I also note that just last week Nike, formerly one of the 
staunchest opponents of disclosure, released a complete list of 
factories worldwide manufacturing Duke apparel as well as for 
four other universities. So, for the students here, your 
organizing, your voice, your pressure is making a difference.

    Madam Secretary, this anti-sweatshop movement is fighting 
against these abuses, really awful labor abuses against 
children, as well as adults. We exchanged letters this summer 
about the need to improve the FLA agreement, especially to 
improve public disclosure and accountability. I appreciate your 
prompt response to my letter. I wonder whether you could tell 
us what kind of progress has been made with FLA and what you or 
what we can expect in the future.

    Secretary Herman. As you have just pointed out, first of 
all, Senator Wellstone, I think more broadly this issue today 
is getting the attention of government organizations, non-
government organizations alike, and the student movement, as a 
part of this effort, has made an enormous contribution and I 
think, quite frankly, is helping to further the work of the 
partnership itself. When we look at some of the specific 
actions that employers are engaged in through the partnership, 
we are finding that the issue of transparency is becoming more 
and more of a practice now for more employers. That is a good 
thing. There are other organizations that I would point to, in 
addition to Nike, like the Gap organization that is being much 
more aggressive in terms of monitoring its efforts, its 
subcontractors in other countries. And all of this is making a 
difference.

    This is important work in progress, and I think that we are 
really at the floor of these activities. It is my expectation 
that as we continue to not only spotlight the practices that 
other countries and other companies are taking, but as we have 
other movements like the student movement, we are going to see 
much more direct action in the future.

    Senator Wellstone. Well, Madam Secretary, I hope that you 
will actually support work of students and that you will really 
speak out strongly, making it clear that we have got to improve 
this Fair Labor Association agreement on the issues of public 
disclosure and accountability.

    As you well know, there are a lot of organizing. In fact, I 
think it is pretty exciting for the WTO meeting coming up in 
Seattle, a lot of NGO's, labor. Labor is on the march 
organizing the unorganized. President Sweeney will be 
testifying before our committee today. A lot of farm activists.

    Can you give us a report on whether or not there is any 
effort to incorporate labor rights into this WTO?

    Secretary Herman. There is very much an ongoing dialogue 
right now to make sure that the whole question of labor is 
going to be increasingly at the center of these issues. We were 
very pleased by the recent actions of the activist committee 
that has now called for a working group within the WTO with the 
ILO to begin to look at these issues. I will be traveling on 
Monday to Seattle to meet with workers there who are in the 
process of planning many of the meetings inside the room and 
outside the room that will be taking place in Seattle. So, I 
think it is an exciting time to bring these issues to the 
forefront of our national and international agenda.

    Senator Wellstone. I am running out of time. Well, I would 
urge you as Secretary. I appreciate your voice. And I would 
urge the administration to really be bold and be strong and 
public in pushing for the inclusion of these labor rights 
because it is not as if anybody I know wants to put a wall up 
at our borders, but I think people are very serious about 
making sure that these international agreements respect child 
labor and the basic rights of people in the work force. So, we 
need you. Thank you.

    Secretary Herman. Thank you, Senator.

    The Chairman. Madam Secretary, I am not going to ask you 
any questions. I am going to submit them, and I want you to 
initial the responses. Most of them can be answered in yes and 
no, and I need them because I am going to prepare a report on 
what my understanding of your positions are. So, I will submit 
these in writing to you.

    Secretary Herman. I will be happy to do that, Senator.

    [Responses to additional questions submitted to Secretary 
Herman follow:]

 Additional Questions Submitted to Secretary Herman by Members of the 
                               Committee

                 questions submitted by chairman helms
Family Farms
    Question. The President has requested an understanding to the 
Treaty that makes clear the treaty will not apply to situations in 
which children are working on family farms. The American Farm Bureau 
has written me asking that this point be clarified as well. intend to 
include a similar understanding in the Resolution of Ratification.

    Will you assure the Committee that even without this understanding, 
nothing in the Convention could be construed to apply to the work of 
children on family farms?

    Answer. Yes, we can assure the Committee that even without the 
proposed understanding, nothing in the Convention could be construed to 
apply to the work of children on family farms. This assurance is based 
upon the clear negotiating history of the Convention, described in 
detail in the Statement of United States Law and Practice with respect 
to the Convention, which has been submitted to the Senate.
Implementation
    Question. The Convention was adopted unanimously by 176 countries. 
Many of the countries adopting the Convention include some of the worst 
violators of child labor standards, according to the Labor Department's 
own statistics.

    Are you concerned that the unanimous support for the Treaty may be 
an indication that most countries are reading the commitments set out 
inthe Convention too broadly?

    Answer. No, in light of the discussions that led up to the 
Convention, we are not concerned. Like most international instruments, 
the Convention represents a balancing of many views and considerations. 
It is the product of more than two years of consultations and 
negotiations, which included very active involvement from all regions 
of the world. We believe the end result is a well-targeted and narrowly 
focused instrument, which appropriately defines, for the first time, 
the worst forms of child labor that ought to he eliminated as a matter 
of urgency by ail nations. We are encouraged by the unanimous ILO vote 
adopting the Convention, because it signals agreement with our view. 
Moreover, we believe that broad-based ratification of the instrument 
will increase the accountability of ratifying states to actually take 
the steps necessary to eliminate these abuses.

    Question. According to Labor Department statistics, Bangladesh, 
Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, the Phillippines, Tanzania, 
Thailand, and Turkey, all employ more than 10 percent of their children 
under the age of 14. If these countries ratify the Convention would you 
expect a sharp reduction in these numbers?

    Answer. Many nations of the world have too many children working 
full time, who miss the opportunity to acquire basic literacy and 
numeracy. Some, but not all, of these children are engaged in the worst 
forms of child labor, which are targeted by the Convention. 
Ratification of the Convention by member states will not in and of 
itself eliminate the worst forms of child labor. But it will introduce 
an additional scrutiny and accountability mechanism on ratifying states 
through the ILO reporting and supervisory procedures. It will also be 
an additional and important element in the effort of many parties in 
these countries to move the issue of abusive child labor high enough on 
their national agendas that sufficient resources are allocated to 
provide the education and other support services necessary to take 
children out of the workplace and to put them in school rooms.
Statistics
    Question. According to the report by the Department of Labor, 
entitled ``By the Sweat and Toil of Children,'' each country reports 
differently what constitutes a ``child'' and what it classifies as 
``labor.'' In some cases these definitions may under-represent the 
numbers of children working.

    Will this treaty require that the reporting be more uniform and 
consistent?

    Answer. Yes, we expect the reporting to be more uniform and 
consistent. The Convention defines both ``child'' and the ``worst forms 
of child labor.'' Countries which have ratified the Convention will be 
required to report on their implementation of the Convention using a 
uniform questionnaire, with uniform definitions of the data required.

    Question. Has the Department off Labor attempted to assess which 
countries are under-reporting the number of children working?

    Answer. No, the Department has not conducted an assessment of child 
labor data around the world. However, the accurate collection and 
reporting of child labor data is one of the highest priorities of the 
Department in its work with the ILO in this area. In 1998, with the 
encouragement of the United States, the ILO established the Statistical 
Information and Monitoring Program on Child Labor (SIMPOC) which works 
with statistical agencies in developing countries to carry out accurate 
child labor surveys. The ILO has already undertaken 15 national child 
labor surveys. With U.S. Government funding, 15 additional child labor 
surveys will soon be conducted in countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin 
America. It is our view that measuring whether we are making progress 
in efforts to eliminate abusive child labor through periodic and 
accurate child labor surveys is of the highest importance.
Policy Coordination
    Question. Many of the countries that permit children to work also 
have high unemployment, high illiteracy, and are listed by Transparency 
International as some of the most corrupt countries.

    What coordination do you undertake with the State Department and 
other U.S. agencies to attempt to combat corruption and other economic 
factors that often lead to the employment of children in jobs that harm 
their health, safety and morals?

    Answer. While there may be a correlation between countries with 
high rates of child labor and inadequate law enforcement and 
corruption, the U.S. government seeks to address the issue of abusive 
child labor through programs that can be effective despite this fact. 
Working with the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of 
Child Labor (IPEC), the Department of Labor has funded targeted 
programs designed to raise awareness about the root causes of child 
labor, remove children from hazardous work, and provide these children 
and their families with education and viable economic alternatives. 
These programs are often implemented by non-governmental actors and 
closely monitored by IPEC to ensure that the programs' objectives are 
met. Similarly, various agencies of the U.S. Government support 
initiatives targetingcorruption and other economic factors that lead to 
exploitative child labor. In addition, Department of Labor works 
closely with the Department of State, -the Treasury Department, and 
other agencies to raise the issue of exploitative child labor in 
international fora such as the World Bank and other international 
financial institutions. Initiatives in this area include4 the 
establishment of a Global Child Labor Program dnd International 
Advisory Panel on Child Labor within the World Bank and U.S. Government 
funding for a grant to Transparency International to implement anti-
corruption programs in a number of countries.

    Question. What coordination is undertaken with U.S. companies and 
private organizations?

    Answer. The U.S. government works closely with U.S. companies and 
private sector organizations to address the many factors that lead to 
the economic exploitation of children. For example, the Department has 
collaborated with the private sector on the development of the 
Department's child labor reports. Also, as indicated in my written 
testimony, partnerships were established with industry groups and 
companies during the implementation of projects to eliminate child 
labor in the soccer ball and carpet industries of Pakistan and the 
garment industry of Bangladesh. Individual companies have also joined 
the fight against child labor by developing codes, of conduct/ethics 
that prohibit the employment of underage children.
Prostitution/Pornography
    Question. The treaty defines the ``use, procuring or offering of a 
child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for 
pornographic performances'' as one of the worst forms of child labor. 
However, these terms are not further defined.

    Does the negotiating history more clearly define ``prostitution'' 
and ``pornography''?

    Answer. No. The meaning of these terms was not a matter of 
discussion or debate during the negotiation of the Convention. While 
the negotiating history does not more clearly define ``prostitution'' 
and ``pornography,'' there is nothing in either the language of the 
Convention or its negotiating history to suggest that these terms were 
intended to have meanings different from those recognized by United 
States law and practice. The Tripartite Advisory Panel on International 
Labor Standards carefully reviewed this element of the Convention's 
definition of the ``worst forms of child labor'' and concluded that 
United States law and practice was fully consistent with the 
Convention.

    Question. According to the Labor Department's ``Sweat and Toil'' 
report, children in countries like Brazil, India, Mexico, Kenya, 
Thailand, the Phillippines, South Africa, Nepal, and Turkey are 
employed as ``commercial sex workers.''

    Do you expect dramatic reduction in this employment if these 
countries ratify the proposed Convention?

    Answer. This type of work certainly is one of the ``worst forms of 
child labor,'' as defined by the Convention. As I have observed in 
response to a previous question, ratification of the Convention by 
member states will not in and of itself eliminate the worst forms of 
child labor. But it will introduce an additional scrutiny and 
accountability mechanism on ratifying states through the ILO reporting 
and supervisory procedures. It will also be an additional and important 
element in the effort of many parties in these countries to move the 
issue of abusive child labor high enough on their national agendas that 
sufficient resources are allocated to provide the education and other 
support services necessary to take children out of the -commercial sex 
trade and to put them in school rooms.
                questions submitted by senator feingold
    Question. I'm pleased to see the Administration's support for this 
Convention. But I also know that the Administration supported the 
proposed Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which does not adequately 
address human rights and labor rights standards. Do you think that 
comprehensive trade packages should include provisions to protect 
against abuses like those addressed in the Convention?

    Answer. Current U.S. preferential trade programs, such as the 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, and the Andean Trade Preference Act, contain criteria on 
internationally-recognized worker rights, including child labor. A 
worker rights provision is included in the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act. In addition, this bill has a broader human rights 
provision. These provisions provide authority to respond to child labor 
concerns, including the type addressed in the Convention.

    Question. Would you support efforts to include labor rights 
provisions in U.S.-Africa trade legislation?

    Answer. As noted above, the U.S.-Africa trade legislation, H.R. 
434, currently contains a worker rights provision. This provision is 
supported by the Administration. Under this provision, concerns on such 
worker rights issues as freedom of association, the right to organize 
and collectively bargain, forced labor, minimum age for employment, and 
basic conditions of work, can be considered. Under the GSP worker 
rights provisions, eight SubSaharan African countries have been 
reviewed. At times, the following countries have been suspended from 
the program: Central African Republic, Liberia, Sudan and Mauritania. A 
review is pending on Swaziland.

    Question. I know that the U.S. position on children and family 
farms was made plain in the international negotiations on the drafting 
of this Convention, and I am pleased to see that the understanding to 
the Convention reinforces the crucial point that children on family 
farms are not the problem. Is there any reason for family farmers in 
the U.S. to be concerned about this Convention?

    Answer. No, there is no reason for family farmers in the U.S. to be 
concerned about this Convention. The Convention was carefully reviewed 
by legal experts from government, business, and labor (the Tripartite 
Advisory Panels on International Labor Standards) Those experts 
unanimously concluded that the Convention was consistent with the 
federal Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to work by children on 
their parents' or guardians' farms. Neither the Convention's provision 
on hazardous work, nor the comparable provision in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act covers such work.

    The Chairman. I know you will.

    Now, let me say I think I am the only guy in the room who 
remembers the Great Depression. It is said or has been said 
that some of us who were young at that time in our national 
life were working in sweatshops. Well, I did sweat working in a 
newspaper composing room and doing things like that. But we 
never could work longer than suppertime. So, what we did back 
in those days--I remember at one point I was making $9 a week 
from the 7 or 8 jobs I had, 50 cents here and 25 cents here, 
and it added up. But that was not a sweatshop. That was good 
experience, and I do not want anybody to compare that time 
because I think the parents were more dedicated then than maybe 
they are today about seeing that their children do their 
homework and go to bed early and get up early. I do not see 
that interest in a lot of the families today.

    But in any case, I appreciate your coming, and it has been 
a joy to have you.

    Secretary Herman. Thank you very much, Senator.

    The Chairman. Thank you, ma'am, and we will send you these 
questions.

    Secretary Herman. Thank you.

    The Chairman. Now then, here comes the meat of the coconut, 
fellows.

    Panel 3. Mr. John J. Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO in 
Washington; the Honorable Thomas M.T. Niles, president of the 
U.S. Council for International Business, New York City; Mr. 
Casey Harrell, who has already been referred to by my friend 
from Minnesota. He is a student at Duke University, which has a 
pretty good basketball team I might add.

    And Mrs. Francoise Remington, who is executive director of 
Forgotten Children, and she lives in Arlington as I do.

    I welcome all of you and we will give you a couple of 
minutes to get straightened there. I think I want to operate on 
the ``ladies first'' schedule if I may.

    There is a roll call vote at 11:30. It always happens.

    So, Mrs. Remington, if you will start, I will appreciate 
it. Now, your full text will be printed in the record as if 
read, and that may give you time to abbreviate a little bit and 
ad lib a little bit.

    Senator Wellstone. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? Are 
we going to have to break up for the vote and come back to this 
panel?

    The Chairman. I am going to send you two on, with hopes 
that you will hurry back and then relieve me to go vote. And if 
I miss the vote, I will scold you.

    All right, Mrs. Remington. It is nice to have you here.

    Senator Wellstone. That has happened to me before from you.

    The Chairman. Pardon?

    Senator Wellstone. It would not be the first time I got a 
scolding from you.

    The Chairman. I have never scolded you in my life. 
[Laughter.]

    That is a terrible libel. [Laughter.]

    You may proceed, ma'am.

STATEMENT OF FRANCOISE REMINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FORGOTTEN 
                    CHILDREN, ARLINGTON, VA

    Ms. Remington. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Minority Member, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for giving me 
the opportunity to appear before you and to speak on behalf of 
many forgotten children. Our organization is working in India 
and Haiti, and for this reason, my testimony will be based on 
our experience in those two countries. As a personal aside, my 
husband and I are the adoptive parents of three children from 
India, two of whom come from Mother Teresa.

    Child labor is not a new phenomenon. According to child 
labor activists in India, the number of working children has 
been increasing especially in the export sector. Alongside this 
growth in child labor, an international movement for the rights 
of children is gaining momentum to end child labor as defined 
in article 3 of the ILO Convention. My comments will mainly be 
on articles 5, 6, and 7 of the Convention in light of my 
experience and in response to the chairman's invitation to 
testify. My observations are designed to assist the committee 
and should not be read as an appeal to slow down the 
ratification process.

    As for article 5, I have to admit that I am puzzled about 
the word ``employers,'' especially for children who work in the 
sex, pornography, and the drug industries. I know that Father 
Fonseca and Father Matthew who work in the slums of Bombay and 
Calcutta with children in prostitution do not make any 
compromises with the employers of children. In fact, they do 
their utmost to stop any contact with the employer.

    I cannot picture the United States Government making deals 
with pimps or drug dealers to improve the working conditions of 
the children. Yet, these children need to be protected, and the 
ILO Convention brings their sad fate into world light. They are 
not forgotten anymore.

    I also think that the members of the Convention should be 
careful about consulting the owners of large factories that 
employ children. I will never forget the faces and deformed 
fingers of the little girl I saw working in the match factory 
of south India. The owners know full well that they are acting 
against the law of their country and they even hire protectors 
to keep reporters and child labor activists away from the child 
laborers. Members of the Convention will not want to deal with 
organized crime.

    The challenge posed by article 6 is how to implement a 
program in a country that does not have a functioning 
government such as is currently the case in Haiti. Yet, there 
is a great need for helping child workers there. The challenge 
is to find an appropriate mechanism to ensure that 
international and national funding reach the working children 
and non-governmental organizations.

    Article 7 stresses the need and duty of governments to 
enforce or reinforce their laws against child labor. In fact, 
it is sadly ironical that a country like India has sound labor 
legislation.

    Application of penal sanctions is a challenge for a country 
like Haiti where children who have stolen a piece of bread 
linger for months, if not for years, in jail while young 
children are openly involved in prostitution at night in the 
streets of Port-au-Prince without being troubled by the police. 
But Haiti needs help from all the other democracies.

    Mr. Chairman, a prevention program against the worst forms 
of child labor must include the family of the child. When the 
child is removed from the working world, the family should not 
be forgotten. For example, Forgotten Children's project in 
south India offers a loan of a cow or a goat to the poor family 
of a working child to compensate for the lost income of the 
child when he or she studies.

    As for special risk children, people who work among the 
poor can spot them. For example, in Haiti the Missionaries of 
Charity in Gonaives are very worried when they receive a mother 
who is dying of AIDS. They know that soon her children will be 
orphaned and will have nowhere to go except on the streets.

    In conclusion, given the urgency and the magnitude of the 
worst forms of child labor in the world today, I recommend that 
the Senate give its advice and consent to ratify the Convention 
No. 182 for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. 
Ratification will put pressure on governments that do not 
respect the rights of children. At the same time, it is my firm 
belief, based on my personal experiences, that the most 
effective way to improve the life of working children is 
through grassroots involvement and small projects and the use 
of the family in the solution. Volunteer organizations and 
religious groups are probably most effective than governments 
in reaching our children at risk. The Convention is merely a 
first step in a long process.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you. I brought some pictures, if you 
want.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Remington follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Francoise Remington

    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Minority Member, distinguished Members of 
the Committee, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity 
to appear before you and to speak on behalf of many forgotten children. 
I have been an advocate against child labor for the past fifteen years 
first as an individual and now as the founder and executive director of 
a small non-profit organization, FORGOTTEN CHILDREN, based in my home 
in Arlington, Virginia. Our organization is working in India and Haiti 
and for these reasons my testimony will be based on our experience in 
these two countries. As a personal aside, my husband and I are the 
adoptive parents of three children from India, two of whom come from 
Mother Teresa.
    Child labor is not a new phenomenon. According to child labor 
activists in India, the number of working children has been increasing 
especially in the export sector. Alongside this growth in child labor, 
an international movement for the rights of children is gaining 
momentum to end the child labor as defined in article 3 of the ILO 
Convention (no. 182) for Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor 
(``ILO Conventions''). In my opinion, the ILO Convention is a laudable 
development and should be encouraged and supported. I agree with 
President Clinton's statement in his Letter of Transmittal to the 
Senate, ``Convention No. 182 represents a true break through for the 
children of the world.'' My comments will mainly be on Articles 5, 6 
and 7 of the Convention in light of my experience and in response to 
the Chairman's invitation to testify. In exercising its advice and 
consent authority to the ratification of the ILO Convention, the 
Chairman is commended for holding this hearing.
    As Article I contemplates, there is ``urgency'' to the matter of 
child labor. My observations set forth below about Articles 5, 6 and 7 
are designed to assist the committee and should not be read as an 
appeal to slow down the ratification process. I, however, defer to the 
wisdom of the committee and the full Senate on this matter.
    Article 5 provides that:

          ``Each Member shall, after consultation with employers and 
        workers' organizations, establish or designate appropriate 
        mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions 
        giving effect to this Convention.''

    I have to admit that I am puzzled about the word ``employers'' 
especially for the children who work in the sex, pornography and the 
drug industries. I know that Father Fonseca and Father Matthew who work 
respectively in the slums of Bombay and Calcutta with children in 
prostitution or children being used as drug traffickers do not make any 
compromises with the ``employers'' of these children.\1\ In fact, when 
a child prostitute comes to their shelters, they do their utmost to 
prevent any contacts with the ``employers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See FORGOTTEN CHILDREN's network list of organizations set 
forth at the end of this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I cannot picture the United States Government or international 
organizations for that matter making deals with pimps or drug dealers 
to improve the working conditions of the children. I can imagine, 
however, a country that lacks any semblance of the rule of law being so 
weak as not to be able to confront criminally inclined employers. Yet 
it is children who engage in the worst ``form of child labour'' 
(defined by article 3 as including sex and drugs) and need to be 
protected. The Convention brings their sad fate into world light; they 
are not forgotten anymore.
    I also think that Members of the Convention should be careful about 
consulting the owners of large factories that rely heavily on child 
labor. A few years ago, when I visited the match factories in Sivakasi 
with a social worker who wanted to show me child labor, I was told not 
to take any photographs or ask questions. After my visit, I was further 
asked not to mention the name of the person who had arranged the visit 
in the factories. I will never forget the faces and deformed fingers of 
the little girls I saw that day. Some of them were as young as 6 years 
of age. Some of these exploitive factories, such as the ones in the 
match and fireworks industries in Karur or Sivakisi in South India, are 
protected by an ``organized criminal syndicates.'' The factory owners 
know full well that they are acting against the laws of their country 
and they therefore hire ``protectors'' to keep reporters and child 
labor activists away from the child laborers and their families.\2\ 
Members of the Convention will not want to deal with organized crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ For more information on child labour in India, see Burra, 
Neera, Born to Work, Child Labour in India, Oxford University Press, 
Delhi, 1995, p. 60, and ``Labour Market Analysis and Employment 
Planning, The Informalisation of Employment: Child Labour in Urban 
Industries of India,'' Working Paper No. 25, International Labor 
Office, 1988, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Article 6 states:

          1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of 
        action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child 
        labour.
          2. Such programmes of action shall be signed and implemented 
        in consultation with relevant government institutions and 
        employers' and workers' organizations, taking into 
        consideration the views of other concerned groups as 
        appropriate.

    Article 6 sets forth a good plan of attack to end the worst forms 
of child labor but it raises some concern as to its implementation. 
Again, consultation must occur with employer's organizations, but at 
least the views of other concerned groups will be considered, as is 
appropriate. The challenge posed by Article 6 is how to implement a 
program in consultation with a country that does not have a functioning 
government such as is currently the case in Haiti or, alternatively, in 
countries where governmental corruption has become a working habit. At 
the same time, there is a great need for helping child workers in these 
countries. Accordingly, the challenge raised by Article 6 is to find an 
appropriate mechanism to ensure that international and national funding 
reach the working children and non-governmental organizations in 
countries that do not have a functioning government or are known for 
widespread corruption.
    Article 7 provides that:

          1. Each member shall take all necessary measures to ensure 
        the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions 
        giving effect to this Convention including the provision and 
        application of penal sanctions or, as appropriate, other 
        sanctions.

    International organizations, governments, non-profit organizations 
and individuals working to end the worst forms of child labor play 
different roles. When addressing the issue of child labor, there are 
three angles to tackle the problem: prevention, protection and 
punishment. It is the duty of governments to apply penal sanctions and 
to enforce, or reinforce as the use may be, their laws against child 
labor. In fact, it is sadly ironical that a country like India has 
sound labor legislation: see the Factories Act, 1948; the Mines Act, 
1952; the Employment of Children Act, 1938; the Merchant Shipping Act, 
1958; the Motor Transport Workers' Act, 1951; the Plantations Labour 
Act, 1951; the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933; the Apprentices 
Act, 1961; and the Shops and Establishment Act,\3\ to name a few.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Sing, Sukumar, Exploited Children of India, Shila Singh, Multi 
Book Agency, Calcutta, 1989, p. 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    India also has laws to protect children from sexual abuse such as 
the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933. But, according to Joseph 
Gathia, an expert on child prostitution in India, new laws are needed 
for ``punishing traffickers, pimps (rather than the victims), 
prohibiting child employment in tourism and hotel industries and 
banning `traditional' forms of sexual exploitations.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Gathia, Joseph, Child Prostitution in India, Concept Publishing 
Company, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 65-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Indian government needs to enforce its laws and punish 
individuals who do not respect them as well as those who twist the law, 
such as those relating to the ``cottage industries'' to exploit 
children. The ``cottage industries'' laws contemplate the protection 
the traditional craft industries in India. What was not foreseen was 
that some employers use ``the cottage industry'' concept to their 
advantage: they transfer children working in factories into separate 
cottages like the ones I once visited in Aligarh.\5\ These children did 
not work at making traditional crafts in a warm family environment: 
they worked long hours and were paid at a low rate for piece work, and 
were unprotected from dust and chemical hazards. An international 
organization like the ILO can put pressure on governments--if they 
become Members--to reinforce domestic legislation against child labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Remington, Francoise, No Joy for Twilight's Children, Indian 
Express, New Delhi, November 11, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, if the Convention is ratified, this committee may wish 
to hold an oversight hearing or commission a report by the Department 
of State or Department of Labor.
    Application of penal sanctions is a challenge for a country like 
Haiti where children who have stolen a piece of bread have lingered for 
months, if not years, in jail while young children are openly involved 
in prostitution at night in the streets of Port-au-Prince and Pieton-
Ville, a rich suburb, without being troubled by the Police. However, 
this does not mean that Article 7 sets forth an unrealistic goal. But 
reinforcement of laws is more difficult to implement for some countries 
that are struggling to have a stable government. At the same time, 
fragile countries like Haiti need all the help they can from older 
democracies.
    Article 7 further provides that:

          3. Each Member shall, taking into account the importance of 
        education in eliminating child labour, take effective and time-
        bound measures to:
                  (a) prevent the engagement of children in the worst 
                forms of child labour;
                  (b) provide the necessary and appropriate direct 
                assistance for the removal of children from the worst 
                forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and 
                social integration;
                  (c) ensure access to free basic education and, 
                wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training, 
                for all children removed from the worst forms of child 
                labour;
                  (d) identify and reach out to children at special 
                risk; and
                  (e) take account of the special situation of girls.

    As regards subsection (a), prevention programs against the worst 
forms of child labor are urgently needed. They must include the family 
of the child. Behind every working child, there is a sad story, often 
the same story: poverty and debts for children working in factories and 
abuse for the children working in the sex industry. When I visited 
Snehasadan, a 24 hours shelter in Bombay under the direction of an 
Indian Jesuit priest, Father Fonseca, he told me that most of the 
children who come to his shelter have been physically abused at home 
before they ran away and took the train to Bombay in hope of a better 
life. ``We teach children to be--not to do'' he told me. ``When the 
fear is so big, the child is so small. We are here to make children 
whole--not holy'' he added.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Remington, Francoise, A Shelter of Love, Integration, Summer 
1995, p. 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Haiti, the Missionaries of Charity in Gonaives who live at the 
Escale, a house for the dying, also tell the same story: with poverty, 
disease and despair often the children are the first target of abuse 
from the parents who turn to drugs or alcohol. The children then run 
away and quickly become easy prey for the worst forms of child labor.
    Member states, international organizations, and non-profit 
organizations should ``provide the necessary and appropriate direct 
assistance'' for the removal of children from the worst forms of child 
labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration. Subsection 
2(b) is going to be hard to achieve. Based on my experience, small 
organizations are often better equipped to reach out to the poorest of 
the poor but in the case of India large numbers of working children--
from 60 to 115 million--make it difficult for small organizations to 
solve the problem. The ILO-IPEC India program is a good initiative but 
is still limited in its scope and out of reach for many small non-
profit organizations, according to our partners in India.
    Free basic education, the goal of subsection 2(c), is the ultimate 
solution for the eradication of child labor. According to Myron 
Weiner,\7\ India has the largest number of non-schooled working 
children in the world Each child should have a right to basic 
education. This right is one of the fundamental beliefs of FORGOTTEN 
CHILDREN and on a very small scale we try to respect it. But it is a 
drop in an ocean. In India, many families simply cannot afford to send 
a twelve year old child to school. When a child is removed from the 
working world to be placed in a school in a country like India or 
Haiti, the family should not be forgotten. Some economic aid should be 
granted to the family of the working child. For example, FORGOTTEN 
CHILDREN's project in South India offers a loan of a cow or goat to the 
poor family of a working child to compensate for the lost income of the 
child when he/she studies. The scope and need for free basic education 
and, when needed, vocational training for former working children is so 
great that every government in the developed world should assist. The 
Convention could not only bring everyone together to offer free basic 
education to eradicate child labor but also to stimulate the creation 
of a monitoring mechanism to insure that Member states are willing to 
use international funding towards free education to pay for schools and 
for teachers. In Haiti, for example, many teachers in the countryside 
have not received a salary for months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Weiner, Myron, The Child and the State in India: Child Labor 
and Education Policy in Comparative Perspective, Princeton University 
Press, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsection 2(d) requires Members to identify and reach out to 
children who are at special risk. It is not always easy to identify 
special risk children. But people who work amongst the poor can spot 
them. For example, in Haiti, the Missionaries of Charity in Gonaives 
are very worried when they receive a mother who is dying of AIDS. They 
know that soon her children will be orphaned and will have nowhere to 
go except on to the streets. Father Olivier, who runs a clinic for 
lepers and AIDS in Gonaives, Haiti, sees an average of sixty new cases 
of AIDS per month. Father Olivier told FORGOTTEN CHILDREN that the 
number of orphans and street children in Haiti is soon going to be 
enormous and that orphanages are needed to welcome them. Already, Haiti 
has about 5,000 street children.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr19.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsection 2(e) requires Member states to take account of the 
special situation for girls. It is true that girls are particularly 
venerable to abuse. In Haiti, many little girls work in slave 
conditions as domestic servants (the restavek). UNICEF estimates that 
there are 250,000 restaveks. These children have no where to turn and 
do not have access to school or even time to play with other children. 
In India, it is widely known that girls do not have equal access to 
education and that they are often seen as an extra burden because of 
the dowry practice which is still in existence.
    Finally, article 7 provides:

          3. Each Member shall designate the competent authority 
        responsible for the implementation of the provisions giving 
        effect to this Convention.

    In addition to being designated, a competent authority should be 
responsible for ensuring that funding is accessible to large as well as 
small organizations that are working with the children and that the 
working children profit directly from funding opportunities.
                               conclusion
    In conclusion, given the urgency and the magnitude of the worst 
forms of child labor in the world today, I recommend that the Senate 
ratify the Convention (No. 182) for the Elimination of the Worst Forms 
of Child Labor. Ratification will put pressure on governments that do 
not respect the rights of children. At the same time, it is my firm 
belief, based on my personal experiences, that the most effective way 
to improve the life of working children is through grass-roots 
involvement and small projects. Volunteer organizations and religious 
groups are probably more effective than governments in reaching 
children at risk.
                                 ______
                                 
  forgotten children network of organizations which work against the 
                       worst forms of child labor
India
Ms. N. Radhan, Executive Director, League for Education and Development 
(LEAD), 40, First Street, Rayar Thoppu (Sri Ramapuram), Sri Rangam, 
Tiruchirappalli--620 006
Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Radhan runs a micro-credit program for poor women. She has 
conducted awareness programs against child labor in the Karur's 
district where many children work in linen and silk factories. Her 
organization is offering non-formal education to working children. She 
receives funds from UNICEF, the India government and international non-
profit organizations including FORGOTTEN CHILDREN.

Sister Rita Thyveettil, Director, Congregation of the Sisters of the 
Holy Cross of Chavanod, SOC SEAD, Old Goods Shed Road, Teppakulam, 
Trichy 620 002 Tamil Nadu, South India

    Sister Rita offers informal and vocational education to working 
children. She receives funds from private organizations. FORGOTTEN 
CHILDREN implemented a three years project against child labor in 
collaboration with her organization.

Father Mathew Parakoknath, Director, Don Bosco Ashalayam, 158 Belilous 
Road, 711 101 Howrah, West Bengal
Email: [email protected]

    Father Anthony started his work in the City of Joy, one of the 
poorest slums of Calcutta. Later, he opened a shelter (Ashalayam) near 
the main railway station of Calcutta. The Salesian brothers operate a 
24 hours shelter for homeless children. The shelter is within walking 
distance from the railway station where many homeless children sleep. 
Once the children have decided to stay at the shelter, they receive a 
vocational education and after a while are moved to an orphanage. The 
brothers always try to reunite the child with his or her family before 
placing them in one of their homes. Fr. Panakonath works with worst 
forms of child labor. The shelter operates mainly with private funding. 
They receive some funds from UNICEF. FORGOTTEN CHILDREN supports, to 
the extent that small budget permits, the work of the brothers.

Joseph Gathia, Executive Director, Centre of Concern for Child Labor, 
201 Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar 1, New Dehli 91

    Joseph Gathia has been an advocate against child labor for many 
years. He is implementing action programs in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, 
for the children working in lock factories, and has a program for 
domestic girls in New Delhi. Mr. Gathia has written many books on child 
labor and is well-known in India.

    Father Placido Fonseca, J.S. SNEHASADAN, A home for homeless 
children. Behind Holy Family Church, Chakala Amrut Nagar, Andheri East, 
Bombay 400 093

    Father Fonseca operates a 24 hours a day shelter for homeless 
children in Bombay. Most of the children come to the shelter after 
living for a while in the railway station or on the streets. Once the 
child comes regularly to the shelter Father Fonseca and his staff start 
to give informal education to the child and eventually, with the 
child's consent, place him/her in a foster home. Father Fonseca always 
tries to reunite the child with his/her family. He works with the worst 
forms of child labor. His shelter receives funding from private donors.

Haiti
U.S.A. contact: Francoise Remington, Founder and Executive 
Director,FORGOTTEN CHILDREN, 1031 North Edgewood Street, Arlington, VA 
22201
Email: [email protected]
Tel/fax: (703) 351-9170

    FORGOTTEN CHILDREN is implementing an educational and vocational 
project for orphan street children in Gonaives in collaboration with 
Action Contre La Faim-Haiti La Defense and with the informal 
collaboration of the Missionaries of Charity from the Escale (House for 
the Dying) and Father Olivier, founder of a lepersorium in Gonaives. 
FORGOTTEN CHILDREN is also starting a project for domestic girls in 
Gonaives. Our project in Gonaives, Haiti, is implemented thanks to the 
generosity of private donors and a grant from the Kellogg Foundation.

    Mr. Sweeney, we welcome you, sir.

 STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, 
                               DC

    Mr. Sweeney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity to present the views of the AFL-CIO in support of 
United States ratification of the new ILO Convention on the 
Worst Forms of Child Labor.

    Estimates indicate that around the world over 250 million 
children between ages 5 and 14 are at work, half of them full-
time. Millions of these children are known to perform work that 
is harmful to their physical, mental, and emotional health, 
safety, and moral well-being. These are not children who are 
delivering newspapers before going to school. These are not 
children who are helping their parents with household chores. 
These are children whose work might not even occur to us as 
such, performing tasks we may not even think of as a job. Much 
of this work is invisible. It is often in the informal sector. 
It is dirty and dangerous and deadly. It is work which may 
require very little skill; yet the strength and stamina of a 
desperate, hungry child is enough to get it done.

    These children are valued not because they possess unique 
skill or talent, but because they are cheap, docile, and 
expendable. Children are employed in some of the world's most 
dangerous and degrading forms of work. They suffer from 
illness, injury, and disease, working long hours in terrible 
conditions. These are children whose families struggle every 
day to survive, where adults are without work, families locked 
in a cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and despair. This is one 
of the genuine nightmares of our time, one from which millions 
of children have not been able to escape.

    We have a long history of fighting child labor in this 
country, striving to prevent the brutal exploitation of child 
labor and to secure education for all children. In this way, 
the struggle in every nation is the same: to provide each 
generation with the opportunity to learn. There is no surer way 
to enrich the world.

    We have a new opportunity, an opportunity which calls on us 
all to renew this mission in all of our work. This opportunity 
was created when the new Convention No. 182 on the Worst Forms 
of Child Labor was adopted by unanimous consent at the ILO in 
June of this year. The Convention calls for steps to be taken 
toward the effective immediate elimination of the worst forms 
of child labor.

    While I would hope that no child or adult would suffer 
these conditions, these standards would apply to anyone under 
18 years of age, and encourage special attention to the 
situation of girls and children under the age of 12, those most 
vulnerable to workplace hazards and exploitation.

    Child labor thrives where it is least visible. The children 
who are forced into this work can be hard to find and they will 
not come looking for help from us. It is our duty to seek out 
and to help children who work in dangerous and degrading 
conditions.

    Ending these abhorrent practices, child prostitution, 
slavery, debt bondage, pornography, is one of the most urgent 
demands of our time. The sale and trafficking of children must 
never be permitted. Yet this practice is increasingly frequent. 
More young children are being forced into prostitution in hopes 
that they will be AIDS-free. Sexual exploitation of children is 
an outrage which cannot be justified in any society, for any 
reason at any time. Economic uncertainty, ignorance, and 
desperation create the conditions which drive children into 
such horrors.

    There are those who assert that child labor must be 
tolerated, that it can only be overcome when poverty is 
vanquished, that poor children have no alternatives to 
exploitation and abuse necessary to a nation's economic 
strength. We reject these arguments. We believe that economic 
development is based in education, that school is the best 
place for all children, regardless of their personal social 
standing, or their nation's economic vitality.

    Basic education is one of the most effective tools to lift 
families and communities and countries out of poverty. And yet 
little value is placed on education for the poorest, most 
vulnerable, often invisible members of our societies. Education 
is the best alternative for those rescued and rehabilitated 
today, as well as for long-term prevention.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as you take this 
Convention under consideration, remember that the importance of 
this instrument is that it gives definition to the worst forms 
of child labor. This definition creates a standard, identifies 
priorities, and focuses immediate action. With our partners in 
the U.S. Council for International Business, represented here 
today by Mr. Niles, and in the Government, represented by 
Secretary Herman, we agreed to this definition. Together we 
fought for this standard to be unanimously accepted, and 
together we hope to act against the exploitation of children 
forced into slavery, prostitution, pornography, or war.

    I hope that you will keep in mind the children for whom a 
schoolhouse is a dream, for whom a bed is a torture chamber, 
and for whom each meal is one worth suffering for. This 
Convention brings new hope to millions of these children.

    Just as they have reached out to help citizens of your 
State recover from the devastation of hurricanes and floods, so 
too do America's families reach out to the children who are 
suffering today.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. An excellent statement, as 
was yours, Mrs. Remington.

    Mr. Niles?

 STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS M.T. NILES, PRESIDENT, U.S. COUNCIL 
            FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW YORK, NY

    Mr. Niles. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am honored 
to be here today to speak in favor of the ratification of 
Convention 182, outlawing the worst forms of child labor.

    Our organization, the United States Council for 
International Business, through the International Organization 
of Employers represents employers in the International Labor 
Organization, and as has been pointed out, we played an 
important role in the negotiations of the Convention. I am 
pleased to say that the work that was done on the Convention, 
in cooperation with the AFL-CIO and the Department of Labor, 
really represents the best spirit of the tripartite process in 
the ILO, and I am pleased that we were able to play this part.

    Two of my colleagues who are here today, Mr. Michael 
Semrau, the labor counsel for the Coca Cola Corporation, and 
Mr. Edward Potter, an attorney here in Washington, played key 
roles in the negotiations. Mr. Semrau was responsible, Mr. 
Chairman, for finding the solution to the problem of family 
farms and also to the ability of the Department of Defense to 
take volunteers at an age under 18, 17-and-a-half to 18-year-
olds. So, I am pleased that we were able and the council was 
able to participate in the solution to those two problems, 
which could have prevented the ratification of the Convention 
by the United States Senate.

    My organization, Mr. Chairman, together with seven other 
business organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, 
the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, the National 
Foreign Trade Council, the National Retail Federation, the 
Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, has written to you 
and the other members of the committee advocating ratification 
of the Convention. A copy of the letter is attached with my 
testimony and I request that it, together with my full written 
testimony, be included in the hearing record as if read.

    The Chairman. Absolutely, without objection, sir.

    Mr. Niles. Thank you very much, sir.

    I am proud, as I said, that our organization played a key 
role from the beginning in the ILO in highlighting this 
terrible problem, the problem of abusive child labor, and 
pushing the work forward that led to the agreement on the 
Convention in June of this year. This is, as President Sweeney 
has just pointed out, really a moral necessity. The issue with 
which we are dealing here is one which cries out for 
international action. I would certainly urge the Senate to move 
quickly and I hope, as has been expressed previously by Senator 
Harkin, that ratification, advice and consent, could come prior 
to adjournment this year. This would give us, Mr. Chairman, an 
opportunity to use the upcoming governing body meeting of the 
ILO, which is between the 7th and the 18th of November, to 
press for other countries to follow the lead. So, I would hope 
that the United States Senate can give its consent to the 
Convention so that we can use that as a springboard to urge 
other countries, and some of those countries where there is a 
serious problem with abusive child labor, to follow the lead of 
the United States.

    Mr. Chairman, this is the first step in what promises to be 
a long process. The problem of child labor, as Mr. Sweeney and 
others have pointed out, involves hundreds of millions of 
children around the world. We believe that this Convention, 
combined with the IPEC program of the International Labor 
Organization, which was key, for example, in solving the 
problem of soccer ball production in Sialkot, Pakistan, as has 
been pointed out already, provides a basis for dealing with 
this terrible problem throughout the world.

    As I say, it is a moral necessity. It sets a standard for 
the future. It gives us hope that we can work more effectively 
through the ILO to deal with the problem throughout the world.

    I am proud that our organization was responsible, in part, 
for successfully pushing this through. I urge the committee to 
approve the Convention and the Senate to ratify it. Thank you 
very much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Niles follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas M.T. Niles

    I am Thomas Niles, President of the U.S. Council for International 
Business (USCIB). I serve as the U.S. business spokesman on 
International Labor Organization (ILO) matters in the President's 
Committee on the ILO and I am an elected employer member of the 
Governing Body of the ILO. With me today are Michael Semrau, Chief 
Labor Consultant for the Coca Cola Company, who was our representative 
in the child labor treaty negotiations and who played a significant 
role in facilitating the final result; and Edward Potter, the U.S. 
employer delegate to the ILO Conference, who helped develop the USCIB 
and U.S. consensus negotiating position on the Convention and who, as 
our international labor counsel, serves as the business community's 
representative on the Tripartite Panel on International Labor Standards 
(TAPILS). A partner in the law firm of McGuiness Norris & Williams, 
LLP, Mr. Potter played an active role in the intensive TAPILS' legal 
review of ILO Convention 182 concerning the worst forms of child labor, 
both during and immediately following the two years of negotiations 
this summer.
    The USCIB represents the interests of its members on international 
economic policy issues at the major international economic institutions 
and to the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. Government. 
As the U.S. member of the International Chamber of Commerce, it 
consults with various bodies of the United Nations. As the U.S. member 
of the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), it represents 
business views in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD). More particularly relevant to this hearing, the 
USCIB is the U.S. member of the International Organization of Employers 
(IOE) and has been the organization representing U.S. business in the 
ILO since 1979.
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NAM, the Business Roundtable, the 
American Apparel Manufacturers Association, the National Foreign Trade 
Council, the National Retail Federation, and the Sporting Goods 
Manufacturing Association joined with the USCIB in sending the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee a letter urging that the Senate give advice 
and consent to ratification of Convention 182. A copy of the letter is 
attached with this testimony. In addition, I request that my full 
written testimony be included in the hearing record as if read.
                               background
    Since the United States joined the ILO in 1934, it has taken a 
careful and cautious approach to the ratification of ILO conventions. 
In large part, this has been due to concern by the business community 
that domestic labor and employment law should not be made through the 
ratification of ILO treaties. That is ILO conventions should conform to 
U.S. law and practice before they are ratified by the United States. 
The business community continues to be concerned that many ILO 
conventions, including some of the so-called core conventions, are at 
variance with U.S. law, both at the federal and state levels.
    Convention 182 now before you addresses the issue of child labor 
more fundamentally and without prescriptive details that could impede 
ratification. Because of the approach taken in the development and 
negotiation of Convention 182--which was driven by a worldwide 
consensus on the importance of eliminating egregious and exploitive 
forms of child labor--the USCIB has concluded that there are no legal 
obstacles in law or practice to U.S. ratification of the Convention.
    We hope that this treaty signals a new era in the ILO wherein it 
seeks to develop high quality, high impact framework treaties 
appropriate for multilateral regulation that address fundamental 
problems and leave it to each ILO member to determine how best to 
address peripheral issues without multilateral oversight or rulemaking. 
Based on what we have seen so far in the performance of the new ILO 
Director General Juan Somavia, we expect and would applaud a consistent 
ILO approach to standard setting like the worst forms of child labor 
convention. This laudable approach to solving fundamental workplace 
problems, in our opinion, could be undercut if the ILO supervisory 
bodies do not allow ratifying countries to address less central 
questions in the context of their history, culture, law and practice, 
or if the supervisory process becomes a complaint process that does not 
address the effective implementation of governmental policies that go 
to the root cause of exploitative child labor.
                 worst forms of child labor convention
    The Committee should know that this Convention stems from 
international business efforts, sparked by U.S. employers. U.S. 
business supports U.S. ratification of Convention 182, because we 
believe a comprehensive, multilateral approach represents the best 
means to alleviate the deplorable problem of child labor. The U.S. 
business community was deeply involved in the development of this 
treaty and played a critical role in the negotiations of the 
Convention, in particular in ensuring that it does not conflict with 
U.S. law and practice.
    The ILO has long been concerned with child labor and in 1992 
established the International Program for the Elimination of Child 
Labor (IPEC), which is probably the most successful and effective 
international program to address the problem of child labor. IPEC is a 
multilateral technical assistance program, whose largest single source 
of funds is the U.S. Department of Labor. IPEC's recent noteworthy 
success is the initiative to remove and rehabilitate child workers in 
the soccer ball industry in Sialkot, Pakistan. Thousands of children 
have been removed from work and sent to schools. Adults in these 
families now sew the soccer balls previously sewn by children, thus 
ensuring that the family does not lose the income. Experience gained 
from these programs is being used to address child labor problems in 
other industries and in other regions of the world.
    At the initiative of the IOE in 1996, the Employment and Social 
Policy Committee of the ILO Governing Body asked for a policy report on 
child labor. In the report from the ILO Secretariat on child labor, we 
learned the horrendous dimensions of the problem. The report stated 
that there are an estimated 250 million child laborers between the ages 
of 5 and 14 working in developing countries. The Employment and Social 
Affairs Committee and the Governing Body recognized that dealing with 
this problem was going to be a long-term proposition that involved 
increased levels of development, living standards and improved 
education facilities in the countries with the highest incidence of 
child labor.
    However, the report also made clear some child labor was especially 
egregious. The more egregious forms include slavery and trafficking of 
children; debt bondage; serfdom; forced or compulsory labor, including 
forced or compulsory recruitment of children in armed conflict; child 
prostitution; child pornography; and use of children in the production 
and trafficking of drugs. This analysis led to a general policy 
understanding that the ILO should concentrate on the worst forms of 
child labor in the short run and economic development in the long run. 
In addition, the ILO should not act to get children out of current 
employment without providing alternatives, such as education and 
increased opportunities for the adult family members. In the case of 
Bangladesh, for example, trade boycotts led to an emptying of factories 
of child laborers, which left these children to beg and become 
prostitutes.
    Following the report and with these policy issues in mind, 
Employment and Social Affairs Committee, chaired by my predecessor 
Abraham Katz, passed an IOE resolution in 1996 on child labor. The 
substance of the resolution was picked up by the ILO Conference in 1997 
in a employer sponsored conference resolution and sparked the 
negotiations that developed the Convention.
               what the convention is and what it is not
    After a great deal of effort and goodwill by government, labor and 
business representatives from both developed and developing countries, 
for the first time in the 80-year history of the ILO, the ILO 
Conference unanimously adopted the Convention--419 to 0 with no 
abstentions. Now the Convention is set for ratification by ILO member 
countries.
    After a country ratifies the Convention, it will be binding on the 
government. The implementation of the Convention is subject to ILO 
supervisory machinery. Failure to comply with the implementation will 
be subject to multilateral criticism at the ILO Conference and the ILO 
will work with the government to help remedy the situation.
    In addition, the ILO will have at its disposal an expanded IPEC to 
provide the technical assistance necessary to ensure that implementing 
the Convention does not harm children and their families. President 
Clinton has pledged to support IPEC with a $30 million contribution, an 
initiative we fully endorse. IPEC is a notable success and the USCIB is 
pleased to put the Committee in touch with IPEC coordinators to 
increase your awareness of IPEC's efforts.
    Ratification of the Convention by the United States will continue 
the U.S. leadership role in eliminating this scourge and will be 
essential to encouraging other countries to ratify the Convention.
    The Convention is not a broad child labor convention regulating all 
aspects of child labor. Convention 182 deals with the worst forms of 
child labor. Another ILO Convention concerning minimum age--ILO 
Convention 138--involves more detailed subject matter relating to the 
age at which children and young people can join the workforce. In 1991, 
a TAPILS' legal review of Convention 138 found that Convention 138 
should not be could not be ratified unless differences in the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, Department of Labor implementing regulations, and 
state child labor standards were adjusted to meet Convention 138's 
requirements.
    After a thorough legal review, it is our view that ratification of 
this Convention banning the worst forms of child labor will not require 
any changes to federal or state child labor statutes. Nor will it have 
any impact on the recruitment policies of the U.S. Armed Forces. It 
does not apply to family farms. In sum, it will not mandate changes to 
U.S. domestic law and practice in any way. The legal reviews 
accompanying President Clinton's submission of the treaty--in which 
U.S. business participated--support this opinion by providing a 
detailed analysis of the Convention.
    It should be highlighted that U.S. business support to adopt an ILO 
treaty at an ILO Conference was not a decision taken lightly and, in 
the historical perspective it was an exceptional event. Our decision is 
based on whether, at the time of the vote, the Convention is 
appropriate for multilateral regulation and whether the United States 
can ratify the Convention without changing existing federal and state 
law. We believe that a multilateral approach to eradicating the worst 
forms of child labor is preferable to other piecemeal approaches that 
could apply varying standards. At the same time, the precedent-setting 
legal review of the treaty undertaken by the United States during the 
second year of the negotiating process gave us, at the time of the 
vote, a great deal of confidence that the United States could ratify 
this Convention without affecting current federal and state law. The 
comprehensive legal analysis that took place this summer has confirmed 
this earlier judgment.
    The legislative history of the Convention is very clear that it 
does not apply to 16 and 17 year olds who voluntarily enlist in 
military service with parental consent. With respect to health and 
safety, governments are given discretion to determine the types of work 
that constitute extreme hazardous work. At the same time, the 
legislative history makes clear that the convention does not apply to 
family farms or undertakings. Furthermore, it is clear that access to 
free basic education means primary education plus one year; that is, 
eight or nine years of schooling based on curriculum, not the age of 
the student.
    Convention 182 deals with fundamental issues, and not issues of 
detail, and its terms are quite clear. It will be interpreted by the 
ILO through its Committee of Experts (COE)--a body composed of 20 
recognized international law experts who are charged with the 
responsibility of assessing in detail a country's compliance with the 
requirements of ratified conventions. While the conclusions of the COE 
are not binding, per se, absent a decision of the International Court 
of Justice (ICJ) to the contrary (only one country has ever taken an 
ILO case involving interpretation to the ICJ), they are considered by 
the ILO to be presumptively valid. Thus, if after U.S ratification, the 
COE concluded that of Convention 182 were contrary to U.S. law and 
practice, international pressure would be brought against the U.S. 
Government to change existing law and/or practice.
    For these reasons, the U.S. business community places a great deal 
of emphasis on the indepth legal review of a Convention's requirements 
and current U.S. law and practice undertaken by TAPILS, which is 
composed of legal representatives of the Departments of Labor, State, 
and Commerce, and the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Council. As a consequence, 
we can have a great deal of confidence that the legal review was 
detailed, comprehensive and definitive. Absent a change in the current 
situation with respect to U.S. law and practice, there is no basis for 
any one to bring a complaint against the United States in the ILO or 
other fora with respect to this Convention.
     legal examination of the worst forms of child labor convention
    The legal review of Convention 182 began in the fall of 1998, 
following the first year negotiation of the Convention. The legal 
review process took place in accordance with the three ground rules 
agreed to by the President's Committee on the ILO in October 1985 and 
incorporated in a Senate declaration adopted when the Senate gave its 
advice and consent to United States ratification of ILO Convention 144 
concerning consultation on ILO matters at the national level in 1988. 
The ground rules provide that:

          1. Each ILO convention will be examined on its merits on a 
        tripartite basis;
          2. If there are any differences between the convention and 
        federal law and practice, these differences will be dealt with 
        in the normal legislative process;
          3. There is no intention to change state law and practice by 
        federal action through ratification of ILO conventions, and the 
        examination will include possible conflicts between federal and 
        state law that would be caused by such ratification.

From the fall of 1998 through completion of negotiations of the 
Convention, TAPILS was involved in the legal assessment and development 
of proposals that would solve differences in the draft Convention and 
U.S. law. These discussions also included lawyers from the Defense, 
Education, and Justice Departments and the government, business, and 
labor representatives negotiating the treaty. The meetings were 
frequent and in-depth.
    Following unanimous adoption of Convention 182 on June 17, 1999, 
the text went through another in-depth review from the end of June 
through the end of July, including a thorough examination of the 
negotiating history and comprehensive study of federal and state law. 
Subject to two understandings, TAPILS concluded that there are no legal 
obstacles to its ratification.
    The two understandings clarify the meaning of the Convention as it 
relates to its domestic application; it does not affect the United 
States' international obligations. The negotiating history of 
Convention 182 is quite clear that Article 3(d) concerning hazardous 
work does not include situations in which children work for their 
parents or guardians on bona fide family farms and undertakings. To 
make clear that this is consistent with a comparable provision in the 
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), TAPILS recommended an understanding 
that is an exact reflection of the FLSA language:

          The United States understands that Article 3(d) of Convention 
        182 does not encompass situations in which children are 
        employed by a parent or by a person standing in the place of a 
        parent on a farm owned or operated by such parent or person.

    The second understanding concerns the meaning of basic education 
under Article 7. The understanding is intended to confirm the 
Convention's negotiating history that:

          The United States understands the term ``basic education'' in 
        Article 7 of Convention 182 means primary education plus one 
        year: eight or nine years of schooling, based on curriculum not 
        age.

                               conclusion
    Convention 182 is not just another ``feel good'' measure. It 
guarantees concrete results for the future. U.S. ratification is 
essential to establishing global scope of understanding of the issue of 
child labor. U.S. ratification of this Convention allows us to 
demonstrate global leadership on this tragic problem, and universal 
ratification will provide children around the world an opportunity to 
have access to basic education and a more decent standard of living 
than otherwise possible.
    We believe that a comprehensive, multilateral approach represents 
the best means to alleviate the deplorable problem of child labor 
around the world. Children must not be subjected to slavery, bondage, 
prostitution, drug trafficking, and extremely hazardous forms of work. 
ILO Convention 182 provides a well crafted binding multilateral 
instrument that addresses the core problems without being so detailed 
that it creates barriers to ratification and implementation. The 
Convention combined with the ILO 1992 International Program for the 
Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) multilateral technical assistance 
program and the 1998 ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and 
Rights at Work provide powerful tools to eliminate the worst forms of 
child labor.
    This concludes my testimony. We would be glad to answer any 
questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.

    I am advised--this writing was as hasty as mine--the 
committee will take up this treaty at its November 3rd business 
meeting. I did not know that until this minute myself.

    Well, Mr. Duke University Student, we are proud to have you 
here and we will glad to hear from you, sir.

    Senator Wellstone. Is Mr. Harrell from the University of 
North Carolina? The good school. He is not from Duke, is he?

    The Chairman. I think he is close to the University of 
Minnesota.

    Senator Wellstone. OK.

    The Chairman. You may proceed.

   STATEMENT OF CASEY HARRELL, MEMBER, DUKE STUDENTS AGAINST 
            SWEATSHOPS, DUKE UNIVERSITY, DURHAM, NC

    Mr. Harrell. Good morning, members of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. On behalf of Duke University Students Against 
Sweatshops, we thank you for inviting us to share our opinions 
regarding Convention 182.

    The reason we have been asked to testify today relates to 
the efforts of our organization on Duke's campus since our 
founding 2 years ago. Our first efforts were concentrated on 
the establishment of a code of conduct, which would apply to 
all university licensees, regulating various labor conditions 
in factories manufacturing goods with the Duke label. We 
celebrated when this code was passed, as it set a new standard 
for universities across the Nation.

    Duke's code that we achieved contains standards that are 
broader-based and more extensive than the ones we are 
discussing today. Our code of conduct does deal with child 
labor, yet it also deals with the issues of health, safety, 
working hours, women's rights, and most importantly, the right 
to collective bargaining. We feel that future legislation 
should necessarily address all of these issues of worker 
rights, rather than focus solely on child labor, which is just 
a small part of the problem.

    Duke's code, though broad in scope, was still inadequate. 
It provided no provisions for enforcement of its regulations. 
We had achieved a seemingly powerful code that was actually 
nothing more than a piece of paper. Because the industry lacked 
transparency, there was no way to enforce what had been passed. 
One element necessary for enforcement of labor legislation is 
unrestricted public access to any desired information regarding 
labor conditions. Disclosure of this information is the first 
step in providing for an effective monitoring system.

    Once it became evident that our code of conduct could not 
adequately enforce the protection of workers' rights, we began 
to push for full public disclosure. The struggle with Duke's 
administration over this issue culminated in a 31-hour sit-in 
of the administration building which ended with a guarantee of 
disclosure by January 1, 2000. Numerous corporations promised 
to challenge this decision by Duke's administration in court, 
and it seemed like disclosure would only come after years of 
litigation.

    However, as Senator Wellstone noted, just last week Nike, 
one of the staunchest opponents of disclosure, released a list 
of factories worldwide that manufacture Duke apparel. This 
demonstrates that corporations will potentially yield to 
consumer pressure and disclose previously guarded information, 
a vital first step towards more transparent monitoring.

    Our goal at Duke is to be able to enforce the codes of 
conduct that have been passed by our university and its 
licensing corporations. However, an area of struggle has been 
with our administration's commitment to the Apparel Industry 
Partnership-Fair Labor Association. This organization, 
partially funded by Congress, has no provisions for disclosure 
and provides for only corporate controlled monitoring. The 
public should not have its tax dollars spent on FLA funding if 
the FLA continues to hide information from the public. At Duke, 
we have been struggling against what we consider an 
illegitimate monitoring plan because under the FLA, like this 
Convention, enforcement mechanisms do not exist. Unfortunately, 
efforts to enforce international labor standards are not being 
made.

    For example, the World Trade Organization has extensive 
protections for intellectual property rights, but it has yet to 
allocate time to address even the most heinous of labor abuses, 
much less ways to enforce any standards already in place. This 
exhibits a lack of true commitment to addressing labor abuses 
worldwide on the part of WTO participants, something that a 
convention addressing a topic as narrow as the worst forms of 
child labor simply cannot salvage.

    This November my peers from Duke plan on joining thousands 
of activists in Seattle to demand that the WTO establish 
credible labor and environmental standards and create strong 
enforcement procedures.

    Students also object to a bill now in circulation called 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act that proposes to 
regulate trade with Africa and extend manufacturing rights of 
U.S. corporations without any written guarantees of labor 
standards. Fortunately, there is an alternative. The Hope for 
Africa bill proposed by Senator Feingold of Wisconsin and 
Congressman Jackson of Illinois which does set up a framework 
of labor standards.

    The success or failure of these bills will gauge your 
intent as policy makers on making the world a safer place for 
all laborers. It will take a broad and open base of 
international labor standards, vigilantly enforced, to 
accomplish this goal, not just limited and telescoped 
conventions that address specific and fairly unenforceable 
labor issues.

    In conclusion, we do call on you to ratify Convention 182 
because child labor is a serious problem, but to seriously 
enforce the principles outlined in this Convention, labor 
standards and enforcement mechanisms must be a part of U.S. 
trade policy.

    Thank you.

    The Chairman. An excellent statement, young man. I am proud 
you are from North Carolina, at least temporarily. Where are 
you from?

    Mr. Harrell. I am from Atlanta, Georgia actually.

    The Chairman. Well, most Duke students are not from North 
Carolina because they cannot afford it.

    But anyway I am glad to have you here.

    My friend from Minnesota commented it was very close to the 
University of North Carolina. I am going down there tomorrow to 
dedicate a new law school building. Then we have NC State in a 
triangle. We have got a Research Triangle Park where some of 
the biggest corporations in the world are situated, and we are 
proud of that. It has done wonders for North Carolina's 
development.

    I tell you what I am going to have to do. Do you see all 
those lights on the clock up there? They say if I do not get 
there pretty quickly, they are going to cut off the vote and I 
will be absent. So, if you will forgive me, I am going to 
recess the committee till Senator Biden gets back, and he will 
begin the questioning. Then I will return as quickly as I can. 
But I thank all four of you for coming, and I will see you in a 
few minutes.

    We stand in recess.

    [Recess.]

    The Chairman. The committee will come to order again, 
finally. I apologize. It took a little longer.

    Mr. Sweeney had to leave. I am going to begin with Mr. 
Niles.

    Senator Biden. I think it is you and me, boss.

    The Chairman. Well, that is fine.

    I have to walk with a crutch and I get out of breath. There 
is nothing wrong except I had two knees replaced, and that will 
slow you down every time.

    Mr. Niles, you stated in your testimony that you support 
the Convention since it leaves to each ILO member to determine 
how best to address peripheral issues without multilateral 
oversight or rulemaking. And I agree with you on that.

    However, just for the record, I would like to hear from you 
as to what steps should companies take to self-police their own 
companies, particularly those in the developing world where 
standards are much lower than in the United States and other 
industrialized countries. Was I close enough to the mike?

    Mr. Niles. Yes. I heard the question. Yes, sir.

    Mr. Chairman, we think, our organization thinks, our 
members believe that U.S. multinational corporations investing 
in the developing countries, establishing factories or joint 
ventures in those countries should be the bearers of the high 
standards of respect for labor rights that you find in this 
country. There should not be for United States business one 
standard in this country and another standard elsewhere.

    I believe that studies by the International Labor 
Organization and by the OECD have found, although there 
obviously are exceptions--and I would certainly recognize 
that--that companies from the developed countries investing in 
developing countries have generally brought higher standards 
with them in observance of labor rights, environmental 
standards, and have set a good example in those countries for 
indigenous industries. I think that is the important role that 
United States business can play around the world and is playing 
around the world.

    Certainly in this area, in the area of child labor, I think 
the record of U.S. business, by and large, is a good one. It 
could, of course, be better, and I am sure our members are 
working to that.

    The Chairman. Now, during the testimony of my friend from 
Duke University--and I thought he was great--he indicated that 
Nike has agreed to disclose its factories worldwide. Now, do 
you believe this kind of voluntary disclosure will become 
routine?

    Mr. Niles. I think it is likely to. It is a good example to 
set. Each company has to make its own decisions on these 
issues, but as my fellow panelist from Duke pointed out, the 
companies have to be cognizant of reactions in this country. 
They have their corporate reputations at stake, and they are, 
of course, susceptible to consumer boycotts and pressures in 
this country. So, I believe that not just U.S. companies, but 
international companies in general that are active in the 
developing world are showing greater and greater sensitivities 
to these kinds of issues.

    I think, Mr. Chairman, this point about how one company 
reacted demonstrates the power of sunlight, the power of 
information. It is one of the ways in which the International 
Labor Organization, which as has been pointed out, cannot 
impose sanctions, can put pressure on countries and, indeed, on 
companies to live up to the standards established by the ILO 
through publicity. It has quite an impact, and we are seeing it 
every day.

    Thank you, sir.

    The Chairman. What are you going to do, Mr. Niles, if you 
find out that one of your member companies is found to be 
hiring children to perform activities that contravene the 
requirements of the Convention? What would you do?

    Mr. Niles. Well, we would certainly bring that to the 
attention of the company and discuss it with them. Again, we 
have no authority ourselves as an organization, but--

    The Chairman. But there is that light coming in that you 
are talking about.

    Mr. Niles. Well, that is right. Sunlight, publicity. 
Companies are increasingly concerned, we believe, about their 
corporate reputations. Corporate social responsibility is a 
reality today in this country and around the world and I think 
it is a good thing. It is a spreading concept. Companies are, 
for very good bottom line reasons, doing the right thing 
increasingly.

    The Chairman. I think it always helps.

    Senator Biden.

    Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Let me thank Mr. Harrell for his interest and his passion. 
I have a young son who is not quite so young anymore, and when 
he got out of undergraduate school, Mr. Chairman, he came in 
and informed his mom and I he was going to go run a homeless 
shelter in Portland, Oregon for a year, actually an emergency 
service operation. And he walked out of the room, and my wife 
looked at me and said, what is wrong with him? He has so many 
opportunities. And I said, well, if you cannot be an idealist 
when you are 21, then the world is in real trouble.

    Her comment, which you will appreciate, Mr. Chairman--and 
you know my wife Jill well. She is a very quiet person. She 
tapped me on the shoulder, which she never does. She says, you 
know what is wrong with him? And I said, no. She said, he has 
listened to too many of your speeches.

    I am glad you listen to somebody and I am glad you have 
decided that passion, matched with principle, can make a 
difference, and you are making a difference.

    I do not have any questions for you because I basically 
agree with you.

    My questions are for Mr. Niles not because I disagree, but 
because I have respect for him as an Ambassador. It is good to 
see you back before this committee. He has taken on some very 
tough assignments for this country, and I hope his diplomatic 
skills are able to be put to work with the organization he 
represents and organizations with which he serves.

    I have one basic question, Mr. Ambassador, and that is 
this. I know you well enough to know you do your homework. So, 
you know I have supported all the trade agreements, that I am 
what my friends in labor in a perplexed way would refer to as a 
free-trader and they are not happy with my view in support of 
NAFTA and my view in support of expanding world trade. I think 
the President's initiatives and the previous President's 
initiatives have been correct. I think that is where the future 
lies for our country.

    But I have been somewhat perplexed by the business 
community. Again, you know I receive strong support from the 
business community in my State. In my State, we not only know 
the Fortune 500, we know the Fortune 5, the Fortune 10, the 
Fortune 20 and the Fortune 30, and the Business Roundtable, and 
so on.

    One of the things that perplexes me is that the cooperation 
that you and Mr. Sweeney--your organization and Mr. Sweeney's 
organization is the strongest element of the support that I 
receive in my State--sit on the ILO. You have a seat and you 
have come to a consensus jointly, along with others, on what to 
do to deal with child labor. And that is obviously the most 
egregious of the labor practices that organized labor in this 
country talks about in other countries. And you all have 
agreement on that, and I respect that and I realize the 
sincerity of it, and I realize that the American business 
community that are--an ``oxymoron''--multinationals, as well as 
are not multinationals, have the same sense of revulsion that 
organized labor has.

    One of the things that perplexes me, though, is this. As I 
said, I think our future, the future of our Nation, the future 
of Mr. Harrell's generation, in breaking down trade barriers 
around the world and trade agreements that are liberal in their 
objective and that are multinational in nature. As Willy Sutton 
said when they asked him, why do you rob banks, he allegedly 
said, because that is where the money is. Why do I think this 
is true? Because that is where the customers are. It is over 
there. It is not just here. And it is best for the developing 
world as well that this occur.

    But here is my question, as the yellow light goes on. I was 
perplexed last time around in trade negotiations and 
legislation that the business community basically said we 
should strip even the language we had paying at least lip 
service to the need for environmental and labor standards that 
are similar to ours in trade agreements. I think they should be 
part of the discussion. I think they are a legitimate issue to 
be raised in bilateral and multilateral negotiations with other 
countries. I am perplexed why the business community appears to 
be not only against, but seems to have moved back from a 
position they had had 5 years ago, that they are at least on 
the table. Can you talk to me about that a little bit?

    I will end by saying I am afraid that if the business 
community does not become more active in initiating support for 
environmental and labor standards in trade agreements, that you 
all are going to find a reaction where the Pat Buchanan view of 
the world becomes one that is not only embraced by American 
labor but is embraced by non-organized labor and we are going 
to be on the short end of the stick in my view. I think this 
country is ready to have a reaction that is counterproductive, 
but borne out of a sense that you all have, quite frankly, an 
appearance of being heartless about these other issues.

    Could you talk to me about that a second?

    Mr. Niles. Well, Senator, you have put your finger on one 
of the toughest issues that this country, not the business 
community, faces as we move toward Seattle, toward the WTO 
ministerial, and beyond in what we hope will be the next 
multilateral trade round. And you have also I think scoped out 
rather well the advantages which will accrue to the United 
States through an enhanced participation in an increasingly 
free world trade system.

    Senator Biden. It creates American jobs.

    Mr. Niles. It creates American jobs and also raises the 
level of economic development in the developing countries and 
makes it possible for those countries to raise their labor 
standards and their standards of respect for environmental 
concerns.

    I think you have to ask why are the problems that we are 
talking about here, respect for ILO, core labor standards, 
environmental standards, basically resolving down to a north/
south, developed/less developed disagreement, which is what we 
are going to see in Seattle, which we saw in Singapore and we 
will see in Seattle. Basically it is a question, in my view, of 
economic development, not that economic development solves all 
the problems of labor rights and all the problems of 
environmental protection, but it is countries, such as ours and 
the western Europeans, the Japanese, Canadians, which have 
achieved certain levels of economic development that have the 
capability to engage in environmental control programs and are 
able to respect core labor standards, this, of course, combined 
with flourishing democratic political systems.

    So, basically what we should want to do--we in the United 
States, whether from labor, business or non-governmental 
organizations--is we should want to encourage a process which 
brings greater economic development to the developing countries 
and encourages democratic political systems in those countries 
so that we can see enhanced respect for labor rights and 
environmental standards.

    Now, the position of the business community on these 
issues, the proposals to link labor and trade or trade and 
environment in WTO, has been that the WTO is not the 
organization qualified to deal with these issues. And I think 
that has been demonstrated over the lifetime of the WTO, which 
is not very long, and the GATT before it.

    The question is what is the most effective forum to deal 
with the issue that we are talking about, be it labor, for 
example. And my feeling frankly, having participated now in two 
meetings of the ILO governing body and one ILO conference, is 
that the ILO offers a great deal of promise, if we are prepared 
to use it, in finding ways to bring greater respect for core 
labor standards to the developing countries. We have a vehicle, 
Senator, which was the declaration adopted by the ILO in the 
summer of 1998, but which my predecessor at the U.S. Council, 
Ambassador Abraham Katz, who happens to be with us today, was--
I would not say largely responsible, but significantly 
responsible. This declaration provides us with a basis on which 
we can work with the developing countries through the ILO to 
raise core labor standards. And the business community is 
committed to do that.

    Let me just say this also, as we think of this in terms of 
the relationship between north and south. My impression, based 
on talks with developing country representatives, is that they 
are not at this point prepared to accept a linkage between 
trade and labor which would involve the potential of applying 
sanctions for non-observance of core labor standards. The 
question is are we in the developed world, the United States/
Western Europe, prepared to forego the benefits of a new 
multilateral trade round because we are unable to bring the 
developing countries on board this particular approach.

    Senator Biden. Well, let me respond quickly, if I may, Mr. 
Chairman. I am not at all sure they are in the bargaining 
position to be able to do that, number one.

    Number two, I think that Presidents, this one and the next 
one, be it a Republican or Democrat, should have the authority 
to pursue that and not be prohibited by legislation we pass 
from even being able to raise that.

    And number three, I would respectfully suggest that the 
business community's attitude is arguably that WTO--let us, as 
we lawyers do, argue in the alternative. Let us assume I 
acknowledge that the WTO is not the forum. Well, and bilateral 
relationships or multilateral relationships that are not within 
the WTO like NAFTA, is that a forum? Is that a forum that you 
would be able to do that? I would argue it is.

    At any rate, I am not going to belabor the point, but I 
would like to invite you, if you are willing. I would like to 
spend some time with you. Again, I am one of the guys, as you 
know from my voting record, who has voted the position that is 
for expanding trade. I have made all those votes, whether you 
call them easy or tough, those votes.

    But I am getting exasperated. It seems to be it is becoming 
a matter of religion here, to steal a phrase from a different 
context here, that you cannot talk about these issues when you 
are negotiating. You cannot even talk about them. And that is 
something that I have great problems with and it is maybe 
enough to begin to change my view about what I am willing to 
do. I would love to talk with you about it if you are willing 
to talk with me.

    Mr. Niles. I certainly am.

    Senator Biden. I thank you for allowing me the extra time.

    Mr. Niles. Mr. Chairman, could I respond?

    The Chairman. Sure, sure.

    Mr. Niles. I hate to burden the committee, but if I could 
just respond for a second on the position of the developing 
countries on these issues.

    Obviously, if the developing countries were as keen on 
having a new trade round as we are, they would not be in a 
position to say no to proposals, which our administration will 
very likely put forward, with some support from Europe, for a 
linkage of, in some way, establishing, for example, a working 
group on trade and labor, a very anodyne, very reasonable 
proposal. Let us discuss the subject.

    But the attitude of many of the developing countries, at 
least as I understand it--and I could be wrong. We will find 
out in Seattle--is, hey, this trade round was not our idea. It 
was your idea. Leon Britton, who was the former commissioner, 
was the first person to propose the millennium round. We 
supported it. And the developing countries are going to say to 
us, you were the guys who wanted a trade round. We, developing 
countries, do not feel that we got the benefits that we were 
supposed to get out of the Uruguay Round which calls for 
special and differential treatment of the developing countries. 
So, they feel like they got the short end of the stick back 
then. We proposed a new trade round and we are trying to put 
additional requirements on them in order to have that trade 
round.

    Now, this is a very complicated issue and I look forward to 
discussing it with you further.

    The Chairman. Very good.

    Mr. Niles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. I want to ask you one question, but I want to 
get to my North Carolina guy who is from Atlanta.

    You were in Greece? Was that your last post?

    Mr. Niles. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, yes.

    The Chairman. Have you ever had any trouble with the Greeks 
and the Turks?

    Mr. Niles. Yes. I was there for the Imea Crisis in January 
of 1996 where there could have been an armed encounter. 
Fortunately, there was not due to the United States 
intervention.

    The Chairman. Both of these countries are friends of the 
United States. It is an awful tough situation.

    Mr. Niles. Well, it is. They are our closest allies in 
southeastern Europe. They are our only allies. Well, Israel of 
course nearby. But our only NATO allies in the region. But they 
have a difficult relationship with each other. But we, over the 
years I think, going back----

    The Chairman. Was pretty good.

    Mr. Niles [continuing]. Played a pretty important role 
there. I think it is a good example of how United States 
diplomacy can make a difference, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Fine.

    Mr. Harrell, your unit at Duke joined something of a 
national group. Is that correct? Or did you establish this 
organization?

    Mr. Harrell. Let me first start off to say that although 
many of the values of the national movement are the same as our 
students' chapter, I by no means was speaking for a national 
movement today.

    The Chairman. I understand that. But I was just interested 
in how it got started. You know, they are more idealistic today 
than we were when I came along, because we were trying to stay 
in school and pay for it, you know. Go ahead.

    Senator Biden. They are having the same problem today, Mr. 
Chairman. Paying for it, I mean.

    Mr. Harrell. The movement was started--I do not know of a 
particular date. It was started a few years ago in terms of 
rising student awareness.

    The Chairman. Is this at Duke you are talking about?

    Mr. Harrell. At Duke and at other universities across the 
Nation. Contacts were then made. Solidarity groups were 
established, and from that, a network was arranged.

    The Chairman. So, the activity just spread. It came into 
being at essentially the same time. Is that what you are 
saying?

    Mr. Harrell. At multiple universities, yes.

    The Chairman. Now, is Diane Cohane helping you out, the 
President of Duke? Is she helpful to your organization? Have 
you talked with her?

    Mr. Harrell. We have met with President Cohane on numerous 
occasions. I would like to commend her in many of her efforts 
to work with our student groups, especially when you begin to 
compare her efforts with some other university presidents or 
chancellors, though I will not name any in the great State of 
North Carolina. She has been, first of all, open with 
establishing times to meet with us, as well as to genuinely 
listen to our concerns.

    The Chairman. The group at the university at Chapel Hill? 
You do not know?

    Mr. Harrell. I refuse----

    The Chairman. There is a sharp conspiracy----

    Senator Biden. I did not think anybody at Duke talked to 
anybody at UNC. I do not know, at least during basketball 
season.

    The Chairman. I did not say they did.

    But seriously, are there other groups in North Carolina 
like this group?

    Mr. Harrell. There certainly are, sir.

    The Chairman. Where?

    Mr. Harrell. There are groups that are related in very 
similar veins. There is one at the University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill, Students for Economic Justice. We have done 
joint actions together. We did an action together last month 
actually at a Wal Mart facility in Chapel Hill.

    The Chairman. Well, let me say to Senator Biden, we have an 
unusual situation in the Research Triangle. We have Duke 
University, we have the University of North Carolina, and NC 
State University. And in the middle of all that is the triangle 
started under Luther Hodges' term as Governor, and the idea by 
Archie Davis, whom you do not know. He is deceased now, but one 
of the brightest guys we ever had in our State.

    But anyway, today we have great women heads of each one of 
those.

    Senator Biden. Those universities.

    The Chairman. Yes, all three of them are headed by a very 
competent woman, and I think it is a delightful situation. I 
wanted competent women to be moved into responsibilities. I do 
not want anybody moving in just because she is a woman or 
because he is a man or whatever.

    We have Molly Brogue who is head of the Greater University 
of North Carolina with about 18 branches throughout the State. 
Then we have a lady who is chancellor at NC State University.

    Now, you started off your effort, as I understand it, 
because you looked at the label of some athletic equipment and 
other things. Logos I will call them. And you looked into the 
kind of labor that went into the production of these in foreign 
countries. Is that pretty----

    Mr. Harrell. I would temper that with the labor is not 
always in foreign countries. There are many companies that 
provide Duke apparel that operate in the United States, many of 
which are in the State of North Carolina.

    The Chairman. What has your effort at Duke had on your 
fellow students--how do they accept you? Do they welcome you? 
Do they help you? Or do they just ignore or what?

    Mr. Harrell. Students at our university are pulled in many 
directions in terms of their commitments, in terms of their 
activities. I think our presence on campus has done nothing but 
help raise the level of awareness among our student body on 
issues of labor and issues in general of social justice. 
Students now realize that there is a forum available to discuss 
issues that they may have had opinions on or questions about 
but not known where to go. I can only say that our presence on 
campus has been a beneficial occurrence whether or not all 
students agree with our actions or our morals.

    The Chairman. I thank you, sir.

    Now, if you thought you were going to get by home free, 
Mrs. Remington, you are not. I have got a question for you. 
During your testimony that you gave to Congress--I think it was 
back in 1996--you described the World Bank funded projects in 
India. Do you remember that?

    Ms. Remington. Yes, I do.

    The Chairman. Now, you talked about children being employed 
to construct roads----

    Ms. Remington. Yes, it is true.

    The Chairman. [continuing]. And develop steel and mine 
coal.

    Ms. Remington. Yes.

    The Chairman. And you indicated then, according to my staff 
folks--and I am quoting you--that not only do World Bank 
financed projects contribute to the growth of child labor, but 
often the industries which rely on child labor are given as 
examples of success in the World Bank's discussion paper. Do 
you remember saying that?

    Ms. Remington. Yes.

    The Chairman. Well, has the situation changed with the 
World Bank?

    Ms. Remington. I do not know that much. I do not think they 
still have any policy in their funding.

    The Chairman. But you have not noted any efforts by the 
World Bank to eliminate child labor, have you?

    Ms. Remington. I am sorry, sir.

    The Chairman. You do not know of any effort made by the 
World Bank to eliminate child labor.

    Ms. Remington. Well, there are efforts, but do they reach 
children? I am not sure. The issue I was raising is that when 
you have child labor on such a scale there in India, each time 
you are involved in a large scale project, you are going to 
stimulate and encourage child labor even if you are not aware 
of it. So, you have a moral duty, when you are an international 
organization, exactly like you were talking with multinational 
corporations, to ensure that whatever funding you are doing 
does not encourage child labor. The World Bank met. There was 
some meeting, but again I am a very small person. The persons I 
am in contact with who work on a grassroots level have not seen 
too many changes.

    The good change--it is now in the news. It is becoming a 
global issue, but it has not reached the children yet.

    The Chairman. I tell you that testimony you made in 1996 I 
am here by instructing our folks--we have got the best staff, 
Democrat and Republican--on the Foreign Relations Committee I 
have ever seen. But I want our folks to make a strong effort to 
find out if there has been any change or improvement in that 
World Bank situation.

    Ms. Remington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Mr. Ambassador?

    Mr. Niles. Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak to the specific 
program in India, but I believe that Mr. Wolfensohn at the 
World Bank has made a major effort to take labor standards into 
consideration in the implementation of country programs. I 
think he deserves a lot of credit for this. If you watched the 
meetings of the bank and fund which took place here in 
Washington at the end of September, the emphasis on alleviation 
of poverty and dealing with some of the problems that we have 
been discussing here today was really quite extraordinary, 
particularly if you compare back just as recently, say, as 
1996. So, I cannot speak to the specifics of programs in India 
or anywhere else, but I think the spirit of the President of 
the IBRD is to do something really important in this area. And 
he needs support in this.

    The Chairman. I may want to consult you further about this 
a little bit and get some further information.

    Senator Biden, do you have further questions?

    Senator Biden. I have no further questions. I thank the 
panel, though.

    The Chairman. Well, I do too. It has been a great morning 
and 46 minutes into the afternoon, but I am sorry about the 
vote that delayed us, but these things happen. But thank you 
for coming. Thank you for your testimony.

    Ms. Remington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. And have a good day.

    We stand in recess.

    [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                  
