[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.]