[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1838-E1839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DAVID E. PRICE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 11, 2011

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express 
my support for the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia, which, 
of the three agreements we are considering today, is the one with which 
I have been most personally involved.
  My support for this agreement did not come lightly. As the 
representative of the Research

[[Page E1839]]

Triangle region, I have witnessed the transformative impact of trade on 
our state's economy, and I have supported free trade agreements that 
help create a truly level playing field for American workers through 
the inclusion of robust labor and environmental standards. When 
agreements have failed to meet this test, I have opposed them, as I did 
the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  I am keenly aware of the unique challenges that Colombia has faced 
throughout its history and the relationship between these challenges 
and international trade. The country has only recently emerged from a 
long period of civil conflict and political instability, one of the 
darkest features of which has been a campaign of intimidation, 
violence, and murder against Colombian labor leaders. At best, the 
Colombian government failed in the past to adequately respond to this 
campaign, and at worst officials turned a blind eye to, or were even 
complicit in, the violence.
  This left me with a fundamental decision to make when the Bush 
Administration proposed a free trade agreement with Colombia: I could 
reflexively oppose the agreement from the outset, notwithstanding the 
potential benefits it could bring to both of our countries. Or, using 
the relationships I have built through my work in Colombia, I could 
help shape the agreement, using it as a source of leverage to achieve 
meaningful progress on issues such as labor violence. I chose the 
latter.
  From the beginning, I have been very clear about what it would take 
for me to support the agreement in the end. Any agreement that failed 
to strengthen Colombia's labor and environmental standards or to ensure 
meaningful progress toward addressing labor violence would be 
unacceptable. And, in the current economic environment, I wanted 
assurance that no agreement would be approved without an extension of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance for displaced workers.
  In two subsequent visits to Colombia, and in regular consultations 
with the Obama Administration, I have carried this message to the 
highest levels. During a visit in 2007, in addition to meeting with 
President Uribe, members of the Colombian parliament, and Colombian 
labor leaders, I requested a briefing by the special Attorney General 
unit that was created to prosecute labor violence cases. I was not 
impressed with what I heard, and I made this clear to the Colombian 
government.
  When I returned in 2009 and received a similar briefing, the progress 
made over the past two years was significant and encouraging. Since 
then, and particularly since President Santos came to office, the 
Colombian government has made further strides in prosecuting incidents 
of labor violence, legislating improved labor protections, adopting 
judicial reforms, and enforcing its new labor law. Colombia has 
welcomed an ILO office to Bogota to monitor labor violations and 
appointed a Ministry of Labor to guide the executive on pressing labor 
issues and reforms.
  Has Colombia done enough to solve this problem? No. One incident of 
labor-related violence is too many. I believe it is critical for us to 
continue to hold the country's leaders accountable for prosecuting 
labor violence and protecting labor rights. I was among the group of 
Democratic Members of Congress urging the Obama Administration to go 
beyond the text of the free trade agreement on the issue of labor 
rights.
  The result was the Labor Action Plan negotiated between the Obama and 
Santos administrations, which represents an unprecedented mechanism to 
hold a trading partner accountable to a set of concrete commitments on 
labor rights. The Obama Administration has made its commitment clear to 
ensure compliance with this Action Plan for as long as it takes, a 
commitment I confirmed with Ambassador Ron Kirk as recently as this 
morning.
  I remain concerned about the potential impact of this agreement on 
Colombia's subsistence farmers, particularly among Afro-Colombians and 
other indigenous communities. The land reform law recently approved by 
the Colombian Congress is a step forward, and the agreement before us 
today (unlike NAFTA) allows Colombia to protect its most sensitive 
agricultural commodities for up to 19 years. But we must do more to 
mitigate any displacement caused when reduced trade barriers are 
combined with subsidized imports, leaving local farmers unable to 
compete. This means addressing the significant threat to small farmers 
in Colombia and around the world posed by the distortive agricultural 
subsidies some of our own farmers receive.
  On balance, however, I believe the labor and environmental 
protections in the agreement, along with the Labor Action Plan and the 
extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance, largely meet the demands I 
made when I decided to participate in the negotiations surrounding this 
agreement. The Colombian government has made undeniable progress and 
continues to move in the right direction. By any metric, labor violence 
in Colombia is down. Colombia's land and agricultural reforms are 
working, albeit slowly. Progress on these fronts is much more likely 
with an agreement than it would be without.
  We also have to consider the best way to encourage further reforms 
and further progress. Is it by walking away from an agreement at a time 
when Colombia is expanding trade with China, Canada, the EU, and other 
partners? Or is it by using a free trade agreement with the United 
States as a catalyst, as leverage, for further reforms to address the 
underlying causes of the country's conflict: poverty, inequality, and a 
lack of economic opportunity.
  The best way forward is to support a robust and vibrant Colombian 
economy. A higher standard of living in Colombia results in greater 
social stability and a lower crime rate. It is important that we remain 
a powerful and progressive force in the development of its democracy 
and economy, and I believe the best way to do that is to approve the 
Colombia FTA. For me, to oppose this agreement now, after encouraging--
even demanding--that the Colombian government enact reforms, would 
amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game.

                          ____________________