[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6796-H6804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3078) to implement the United States-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Berg), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, we've been waiting for these trade agreements 
for a long time. Every day that goes by without them has been a missed 
opportunity. At a time when our economy is struggling, these trade 
agreements mean more opportunities for Americans. They mean more 
American exports. And, most importantly, they mean more American jobs.
  We've already seen the benefits of trade in North Dakota. Our exports 
have more than doubled over the last 5 years because of our renewed 
commitment to free trade. These trade agreements before us today could 
increase exports by $23 million in North Dakota alone and $13 billion 
nationwide.
  If we're serious about creating jobs, if we're serious about getting 
our economy back on track and allowing the U.S. to stay competitive in 
a fast-moving global market, passing these trade agreements is a 
critical first step. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
them.

                              {time}  1240

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I 
oppose this bill for many reasons. First, Colombia does not yet meet 
the high standards we should be demanding of our trading partners. 
While Colombia has made admirable progress, trade unionists continue to 
be brutally murdered and attacked. This is unacceptable. We can't just 
look the other way and hope things get better.
  Second, this agreement makes permanent the trade preferences that 
have absolutely devastated California's cut flower industry, which 
produces 80 percent of domestically grown flowers. This agreement 
continues millions of dollars in subsidies for Colombia flower growers 
but provides no such support for our domestic growers. California's 
growers have developed a plan to cut costs and compete globally, but 
they can't do it alone. It's only fair that our domestic flower growers 
get a little help from their government, too. This FTA is a huge missed 
opportunity to help this valued domestic industry.
  For these, and so many other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for yielding, and thank you for 
your leadership in this area.
  It has been nearly 5 years since we signed our trade agreement with 
Colombia, and although I'm disappointed that it took this long, I am so 
pleased we will be ratifying this agreement today. Once this trade deal 
has passed, we will finally have what our Trade Subcommittee chairman 
Representative Brady has correctly labeled a ``Sell American'' 
agreement with the third-largest economy in South and Central America.
  Exports of American goods will increase by more than $1 billion, and 
the ITC expects our stagnant GDP will get a boost of at least $2.5 
billion, not to mention Kansas wheat farmers can look forward to an 
even larger share of the Colombian grain market.
  It's been 5 years in the making, but we are finally here. I urge my 
colleagues to come together and support the pro-jobs, pro-growth 
Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank my friend and colleague Mr. 
Levin for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the United States-
Colombia free trade agreement. Some of my colleagues do not believe 
that the issue of human rights and the issue of the rule of law should 
be addressed through our trade policy. Some believe it is not about 
stolen lands, ransacked homes. It is not about human rights activists 
whose families and friends were harassed and disappeared. It is not 
about murdered labor leaders. It is not about a crisis that is only 
comparable to Sudan.
  Trade for the sake of trade. Money for the sake of money. Let someone 
else care. Let someone else do it. Let someone else work on the human 
rights. Let someone else fight for justice. Let someone else worry 
about peace, order, and tranquility. All we need to do is find the 
cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to make a buck.
  My friends, we're mistaken to believe that this is not about us. But 
the crisis in Colombia affects every part of our region. It affects 
millions forced from their homes. It helped to create the drug cartels 
and international gangs. It impacts the cost of crack and cocaine on 
every single street on America.
  We cannot ask someone else to address the violence. We cannot leave 
the question of corruption and impunity to another leader, another 
generation. We must demand these answers now. If we don't, who will? It 
is up to us. We can do better. It is on our watch.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day. We could have taken our time 
and done it right.
  Today, we are abandoning our duty to the people who elected us and to 
millions of Colombians who now know that their cries fell on deaf ears 
and cold hearts. We can do better. We must do better. This Congress and 
this administration must have the courage to stand up and do what is 
right and be on the right side of history. It is a missed opportunity 
for change, for good, if we fail to do what is right.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. First, I thank the chairman for his leadership in support 
of these agreements.
  Let me say I agree with the President. The passage of the Colombia, 
Panama, and South Korea trade agreements will mean 250,000 new jobs at 
a time when our economy needs them most. But these trade agreements, 
Mr. Speaker, aren't just about new jobs. They're about the millions of 
Americans who rely on new markets and new customers. In my district in 
central Illinois alone, Illinois' farmers depend on customers in South 
Korea, in Panama, and in Colombia. And when the United States of 
America does nothing, we lose market share.
  Five years ago, when this agreement was negotiated, Colombians 
purchased 60 percent of their wheat from the United States' farmers. 
Today, that number is 30 percent. It's costing jobs and it's costing 
opportunity here in our country. In manufacturing in my home area, 
Caterpillar, one of the major manufacturers of our country, employs a 
lot of high-wage union jobs, manufacturing jobs. Eight out of 10 of the 
tractors that are built in my district are sent to other customers 
around the world. With only 5 percent of the world's population in this 
country, it takes a pretty defeatist mentality to believe that our 
country would be better off not selling to the other 95 percent of the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will pass a jobs 
bill, a jobs bill that can pass the House, a jobs bill that can pass 
the Senate, and a jobs bill, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the 
United States has already said he will sign into law. And this jobs 
bill, Mr. Speaker, does not require a tax increase. This jobs bill does 
not require us to go into debt. And this jobs bill has bipartisan 
support and is good

[[Page H6797]]

not only for current Americans, but more importantly, it's good for 
future Americans and the future generation of America.
  I urge passage of these three bills.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Trade 
Subcommittee of Ways and Means, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are all proud Members of the United 
States Congress. We consider this the preeminent legislative body in 
the world that sets the standard for how the world should create laws 
and how we should govern our country. We believe in the rule of law. We 
talk about it all the time. We're for the rule of law. Well, that is 
the nub of this argument about why so many of us will vote against the 
Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
  Now, we all know the horrors. And we'll hear them repeated again and 
again. But the fact is that we forced the government of Colombia--
President Obama did--to sit down and write a Labor Action Plan in which 
they said what they would do. We had listened for a couple of years to 
the previous administration, the Uribe administration; promise, 
promise, promise--nothing happened. So this President said, I want it 
in writing. Write down a labor agreement. It set out the precise steps 
that Colombia had to take to address the particular problems faced in 
that country; for example, steps Colombia could take to detect sham 
subcontractors and punish employers for using them to suppress worker 
rights.

                              {time}  1250

  We went down to very specific things. Why was that? Well, many of us 
who have been here awhile were here when we passed NAFTA. And we 
thought we had read it and understood what it meant, but we didn't 
understand a lot of what happened because we agreed that we wouldn't 
put the labor into the agreement; we would write a side letter. And we 
wouldn't put the environment into the agreement; we would put it in a 
side letter. Maquiladoras would be taken care of; the Rio Grande would 
be cleaned up.
  Nothing happened because it wasn't in the agreement. It did not have 
the force of law of the United States Congress behind it.
  So when we came to this, we didn't seal the deal. We said to the 
President, we want that in there. The President talked to the 
Republicans, and back and forth it went. And the Republicans were 
absolutely implacably opposed to putting in any mention of the 
Colombian Action Plan. Now, if somebody says they're going to do 
something, you take them at face value--sure they're going to do it. 
Then write it down here; just let's put it right in there so there's 
never any confusion about what it was you said you were going to do. 
But the Republicans insisted that this be as wide open as the NAFTA 
agreement, that it not have built into it the one thing that makes this 
so difficult for us to deal with.
  If we believe in workers' rights and if we believe in human rights in 
this place--and we talk about it all the time. We talk about it for 
every country in the world. But when we write a trade agreement for 
Colombia, we're unwilling to write in the demands for the Colombian 
workers. That's what's wrong with this, and that's why most of us will 
vote against it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).
  Mr. QUAYLE. I want to thank the chair for his excellent leadership in 
this because it's taken 5 years too long, but finally the House will 
have the opportunity to vote on the three pending free trade 
agreements.
  We have to understand that America competes in the global economy; 
and if we ignore this, we ignore it at our own peril. And while these 
free trade agreements have been languishing on the President's desk for 
5 years, we have actually lost market share to the EU, to Canada. And 
those are the things that are going to keep our country from growing 
again.
  Now, if you look at just the Colombia free trade agreement, since we 
have actually drafted that agreement, $3.85 billion in unnecessary 
tariffs have been put on American products. When we actually have these 
free trade agreements in place, we're going to actually add to our 
economy and add to the jobs here in the United States.
  In my home district, we have a very robust high-tech sector, and it's 
very heavily on trade. Last year, we had $10 billion of trade going out 
in exports, and a lot of them have been going to countries that we 
actually have free trade agreements for. And 35,000 jobs are directly 
related to that.
  So I think that this is a jobs bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
all three free trade agreements, and I urge their passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains on each side, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
23 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 25 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just long overdue. This creates jobs. There is 
an issue that comes to the floor that has bipartisan support rarely 
these days. The Obama administration estimates this will create 250,000 
new jobs. We agree. With respect to Colombia in particular, they have 
free access to our markets, but we don't have free access to theirs. 
This gives us a level and equal playing field.
  Colombia is our strongest ally in the region. Colombia has done so 
much to help stop the proliferation of drugs coming into this country. 
They've helped us at the U.N. More importantly, they want to buy our 
products. Where I come from, Mr. Speaker, we make things and we grow 
things. Twenty percent of all the manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin 
require exports; $16.7 billion of our agricultural products in 
Wisconsin in 2009 were in exports, creating 200,000 jobs in Wisconsin 
alone. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers, they're not in 
this country; they're in other countries. If you're standing still in 
trade, you're falling behind.
  All our trading competitors are going around the world getting better 
agreements and better deals for their exporters, freezing us out. It's 
high time we pass these agreements to break down these barriers so that 
we can make and grow things in America and sell them overseas so we can 
create jobs. And that's exactly what these three agreements, especially 
Colombia, do; and I urge its passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a very active 
member of our committee from the great State of Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  We need a new, 21st-century trade policy that encourages more trade 
without encouraging a race to the bottom in conditions for our workers 
and in the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.
  Trade agreements should not be measured solely with regard to how 
many tons of goods move across a border, but they must consider the 
impact on how our workers are treated, how our environment is treated. 
And that's the very kind of trade policy that President Obama has said 
repeatedly he is committed to. Trade Adjustment Assistance is just not 
a substitute for a new trade policy that recognizes that too often 
American jobs have been a leading American export.
  All three of these Bush-Cheney trade agreements are deficient. But 
this one in particular shows just how far those who think that the only 
thing that matters in trade policy is the volume of goods from one 
country to another, to the exclusion of everything else, how that 
narrow view insists today that we must have totally free trade with the 
trade union murder capital of the world. Yes, supporters of this free 
trade agreement have forgotten it's not free, it's not free to those 
who attempt to represent workers in Colombia.
  Last year, 49 trade union members were murdered in Colombia. And this 
year, it's already up to 20. Human Rights Watch has just reported that 
there is virtually no progress in securing murder convictions. They got 
six

[[Page H6798]]

out of 195 union member murders that were actually convicted. In nine 
of 10 cases, the Colombians haven't even identified a suspect in these 
murders. You can talk of an action plan, and that's fine; but it's just 
like talk of a new trade policy. It's just talk and nothing else.
  This amendment denies any enforcement provision on the Action Plan 
that would make it actionable. LULAC, the League of United Latin 
American Citizens, opposes this agreement, quite rightly calling for a 
new American trade policy that promotes living wages and sustainable 
jobs, encourages human rights, labor standards, and a healthy 
environment--not only here, but among each of our trading partners.
  Instead, today's agreement emplaces the principle that violence 
against the very people who make the goods being traded will be 
disregarded, will be overlooked if only we can increase the trade 
volume of what they make.
  Reject this misguided agreement.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that obviously the murder of any citizen in any country is 
something to be avoided. But let's just set the record straight that 
the homicide rate since 2002 against union members has declined 85 
percent in Colombia. I think this is an example that the efforts of the 
Colombian Government are succeeding. And the homicide rate for the 
general population has declined by 44 percent, and kidnappings as well 
have declined.
  The ILO has also removed Colombia from their Labor Watch List. They 
did that in 2010, recognizing their collective bargaining rules, 
recognizing the measures they've adopted to combat violence against 
trade union members. And so we have a very different picture being 
painted by the reality there.
  I would also point out that three main labor confederations have 
called the Labor Action Plan the most significant social achievement in 
Colombia in 50 years.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to thank Chairman Camp not only for that 
great explanation that he just gave, but for bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Look, I keep hearing a lot about the horrors of Colombia. A couple of 
facts:
  Because of the Andean trade pact preferential act, Colombian goods 
that come to the United States already basically come almost tariff-
free. This would even it out so our products, created by American labor 
here, can go to Colombia with the same preferential treatment, fact 
number one.
  And fact number two, the chairman just talked about this. I keep 
hearing about this Colombia, which is really, frankly, a caricature, an 
offensive caricature of what Colombia really is, as if we can just 
throw those things out there pretending that it doesn't mean anything. 
Colombia is a democratic ally, Mr. Speaker. They have taken incredible 
steps to move forward to lower violence, to lower crime, to lower 
narcotrafficking. They're even now training police forces across the 
world, including Mexico, in their fight against narcoterrorism.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it's an offensive caricature of 
Colombia, a democratic ally, a place that is fighting for democracy and 
for freedom and for due process and the rule of law. We should 
recognize it, commend them, thank them for being such an ally, for 
being a democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, isn't it ironic that a lot of the people that want to do 
business with Castro's Cuba, where labor unions aren't even permitted, 
complain about Colombia because they are a democracy, because they're 
an ally, because they're doing the right thing. Let's pass this 
commonsense thing.
  Let's also thank the President for finally doing what he said he was 
going to do a long time ago when he said that it was time to pass this.
  It's better late than never, Mr. President, but thank you for finally 
sending it.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our 
distinguished leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his great leadership on protecting American workers while promoting the 
global economy which we are proudly a part of.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as we consider the Colombia free trade 
agreement, to make the following statement:
  Much has been said about this agreement creating 6,000 jobs in the 
United States--6,000 jobs. Now, we want to fight for every single job 
for the American people. But it is ironic or strange to hear a big fuss 
about we have to do this because it's going to create 6,000 jobs, when 
the leadership of this body is totally ignoring the fact that we are 
losing 1 million jobs--1 million jobs--because of the China currency 
bill.
  When it was discussed that these bills would be brought to the floor, 
many of us said we shouldn't even be considering these bills: 6,000 for 
Colombia, perhaps 70,000 for Korea, maybe 1,000 for Panama, 77,000 
jobs. That's significant if, in fact, those numbers really bear out. 
But let's assume they do for a moment.
  We're making a big deal out of 77,000 jobs, which are a big deal. But 
how much bigger a deal is it to say we're ignoring the fact that we are 
losing over 1 million jobs per year because of the China manipulation 
of their currency?
  The distinguished Speaker has said, if we push this bill, we will 
start a trade war with China. My, have I heard that song before. Many 
of us have been fighting for a better relationship with China in terms 
of our trade relationship, and for at least two decades we've been 
fighting for opening of our markets to China to stop the piracy of our 
intellectual property. The list goes on.
  But this manipulation of currency, okay, the Speaker says we're going 
to start a trade war. Twenty years ago, when we started this debate, 
following Tiananmen Square, our trade deficit with China was $5 billion 
a year. We tried to use our leverage with most favored nation status to 
get the Chinese to open their markets, stop pirating our intellectual 
property, et cetera, and everybody said, if you do that, you will start 
a trade war. Just let the natural course of events take place.
  Well, we didn't start a trade war. But do you know what China's 
surplus with the United States is today, what our deficit is with 
China? $5 billion a year two decades, 20 years ago when we fought this 
fight and lost. It's now $5 billion per week, over--more than $5 
billion a week. Over a quarter of $1 trillion in surplus does the 
Chinese Government enjoy in their relationship with the United States.
  So you're telling me that if we say, ``We want you to act fairly in 
terms of your currency,'' that they're going to give up a quarter of $1 
trillion in surplus, much bigger exports to the United States, but in 
surplus.
  This manipulation of currency is the subsidy of the Chinese 
Government for their products. By subsidizing their exports, they make 
it uncompetitive for us, not only in the U.S.-China bilateral trade 
relationship, but also in the global marketplace where we have to 
compete. Our exports have to compete with China's exports, and they 
have subsidized their exports on the manipulation of about 25 percent 
of their currency, 25 percent manipulation.
  This is just not fair; a million U.S. jobs. So when our colleagues 
make a fuss about 6,000, every one of them is precious to us, yes, but 
why are we missing in action when it comes to a million jobs if 6,000 
jobs are so important? And I agree, they are.
  Last night in the Senate, they passed this legislation. They passed 
legislation to take action if China continues to manipulate their 
currency. We shouldn't even be talking about any trade bills until we 
do the same. They're not voting on Colombia, Korea, and Panama before 
they voted on China. They did that. They staked their claim for the 
American workers.
  The Speaker says we're going to start a trade war. The Chinese 
Government started a war with America's manufacturing sector a long 
time ago. They've undervalued their currency, as I've said. They've 
violated intellectual property rights. They've subsidized target 
industry. They've dumped their products into our country. This is a

[[Page H6799]]

one-way street to the disadvantage of American workers.
  Look, many of us, when we grew up, we dug a hole in the sand at the 
beach and we said we were going to reach China if we were digging far 
enough, if we dug far enough. It's a country that we want to have a 
brilliant relationship with culturally, economically, politically, in 
every possible way, economically, too.
  But when are we going to call a halt to something that is so obvious? 
We're talking about not an 800-pound gorilla, an 8-ton gorilla that is 
lying on the floor of this House that we want to ignore so we can talk 
about 6,000 jobs and 70,000 jobs, which are important. I don't want to 
minimize that. But why are you minimizing a million jobs at least that 
would be affected?
  It's funny to me because when we were having the fight on most 
favored nation status for China, we were winning every vote; we just 
couldn't override the Presidential vetoes. And so they had to change 
the name. You've heard the expression, PNTR. Do you know what that 
means? It went from most favored nation, which they said that sounds--
we can't win that argument, to permanent normal trade relations.
  You know what that means? Surrender all your leverage in the trade 
relationship. Surrender because this is a permanent normal trade 
relationship. So when specific things come up like the manipulation of 
currency--and, by the way, other Asian economies peg their currency to 
China's currency; so we're getting an onslaught of this. It's really, 
really important for us to say: Whom are we here for? Whom are we 
representing?

                              {time}  1310

  We have a Make It In America agenda to grow and to strengthen our 
industrial and manufacturing base in our country. Exports are essential 
to our success economically. Small businesses are essential to the 
success of our economy. Small businesses want to export as well. But 
why are we saying to small business people, to our industrial workers 
and to our manufacturing base, you are now going to go into an arena 
which we have subscribed to that makes you engage in an unfair 
relationship because we will not speak out against this manipulation of 
currency?
  Sixty-one Republicans are cosponsors of the bill. It has bipartisan 
support. The Senate has passed the bill overwhelmingly with bipartisan 
support. They took it up first as a premise planting a flag, staking a 
claim for the American worker before they went on to consider other 
trade agreements. Why can't we do that in the House? I think we should 
call a halt to voting on any of these things until we say to the 
American worker, we're on your side. We're on your side when it comes 
to these trade agreements.
  We recognize that trade is very important to us. President Kennedy is 
part of the legacy of all of us here talking about America as important 
in the world economy and free trade. Fair trade, I like to think, is 
part of that. But after 20 years of violations of our intellectual 
property, subsidizing their projects--the list goes on and on--we just 
sit by and say we're going to start a trade war if we do something 
about the war on America's manufacturers that the Chinese already have 
done.
  Remember, 20 years ago, they made the same claims, $5 billion a year. 
How did that work out for us? Today, $5 billion a week at least. So the 
Chinese are going to walk away from a quarter of a trillion dollars in 
profits? I don't think so. Let's stop riding that tiger. Let's do the 
right thing for our workers. Let's not even consider any of these trade 
agreements.
  Since we're talking about Colombia, I want to say the following. I 
really wanted very much to be able to vote for this legislation. I was 
very hopeful when the two governments, Colombia and the U.S., 
negotiated the U.S.-Colombian action plan related to labor rights. They 
addressed labor concerns to start the process of ending the abuses. But 
that didn't happen. The administration was advocating for this, but the 
leadership in the Congress said, no, and leadership in this House said 
no, we're not going to put language in the bill, the language that the 
two governments negotiated to address the labor concerns. If it's not 
in the bill, it doesn't exist. If we're going to implement this action 
plan, it has to be part of the legislation, or else we're just saying 
it's an incidental, it's something on the side. That's not fair to the 
workers in Colombia or to the workers in the United States.
  So when the commitment made by our government and Colombia to each 
other was not included in the bill, I lost my faith in the legislation. 
I hope that today we can get a vote on China's manipulation of 
currency, get a Colombia free-trade agreement that can work for 
Colombian workers and U.S. workers, and get a trade policy that 
recognizes that it's a competitive world. We intend to be number one, 
we intend to be innovative, and we intend to educate our workforce so 
that our entrepreneurial spirit can prevail. It could be a very 
exciting time--something new and something fresh, instead of reverting 
to the same old same old ways.
  So I urge my colleagues to urge the leadership of this House to take 
up the China currency bill before we consider any other trade bills.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the lead chief Democrat 
cosponsor of the bill we're considering today, the Colombia trade 
promotion agreement, Mr. Farr of California.
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this agreement. Look, Colombia is a very 
important country to us. It has a lot of problems, but it has 
incredible potential. Colombia is a big country. It's the 20th-largest 
trade partner with the United States. It's our best ally in Latin 
America. It was the oldest democracy in Latin America, the first 
country to accept Peace Corps. It allowed an Air Force base to be built 
in Colombia. Other countries haven't allowed that. They fought 
alongside of us and are now fighting alongside of us in Afghanistan. 
They help us with Mexico drug cartels by teaching the Mexican national 
police and military how to handle those cartels.
  It's the first country to adopt a labor action plan. And let me speak 
to that. That labor action plan was adopted this year on April 11. 
You're going to hear a lot of complaints--well, it hasn't moved fast. 
It's only been in effect 6 months. It's already been able to organize 
the grocers into unions and other big industries into unions. It's the 
strongest labor plan ever adopted in the history of the United States 
trade agreements. And that's not my opinion; that's the opinion of the 
Secretary of Labor of this country. It's the opinion of the 
Congressional Research Office.
  And, frankly, a lot of people say, oh, this is another NAFTA. No. No. 
No. It's not NAFTA. NAFTA didn't have the ILO declaration on 
fundamental principles and rights at work and the follow-up provisions. 
This is the Peru free trade agreement which we passed. It has that 
right here under article 17, and this is the Colombian free trade 
agreement. They are exactly the same. The principles are the same. 
Number 2 reads, effective recognition of the right to collective 
bargaining--effective recognition. That means that anything that stops 
that can be brought under this agreement, an action against the 
country.
  So, look, you'll hear arguments today that it will create a loss of 
jobs. There's going to be a loss of jobs if we don't do this. Do you 
know that we have made a free trade agreement with every single country 
in Latin America except Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador? Every one of 
them, none of them with these labor protections. These will be the 
strongest. But if we don't lift those trade barriers, all the products 
that we send to Colombia have a tariff on them. All those other 
countries, they don't. All of the European countries that are entering 
into a free trade agreement with Colombia don't have it. Canada doesn't 
have it. So guess what? We're going to lose the jobs of people who make 
things here and send them there because it's going to be too expensive 
to buy them in Colombia. So we don't want to lose those jobs. We want 
to grow those jobs. And there's a great market in Colombia to do that.
  They say union workers are not protected, and they're not allowed to 
organize. That's not true. In fact, the only country that counts the 
crimes against

[[Page H6800]]

labor unions is Colombia. It's the only country that has set up a 
ministry just to handle those crimes. And some say, oh, they haven't 
prosecuted enough. Some of those crimes were committed in the 1960s, 
1970s, and 1980s, it's old, old hard evidence. It's hard to figure out 
who did it. But they have people assigned to it, they have 
investigators, they have judges, and they have prosecutors. They've 
worked those out with the Colombian labor unions as to what crimes do 
you want us to go after first? They're working with the unions. A lot 
of unions are in support of this free trade agreement because of the 
labor standards that we've required them to adopt.
  So I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions in this 
Colombian free trade agreement are the strongest labor provisions in 
any U.S. free trade agreement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. FARR. If we're going to encourage progress--we're investing a lot 
of money in Colombia, we have Peace Corps volunteers in Colombia--if 
we're going to encourage growth of U.S. industries and markets in South 
America, and if we're going to really deal with the culture of poverty, 
then we have to encourage a strong future for both countries. And the 
only way to do that is to assure the adoption of this agreement.
  Most agricultural groups across the state of California are strongly 
supportive of all three FTAs.
  They understand that the FTAs will generate new export opportunities 
in their sector.
  However, the California cut flower industry grows over 80% of the 
domestically grown flowers, supporting over 10,000 jobs and 
contributing $10 billion to the California economy.
  They have real concerns about the pending Colombia FTA.
  Our cut flower farmers are the group most adversely impacted by free 
trade with Colombia.
  And I have been working hard to mitigate the impact of the FTA on 
their industry.
  To their great credit, our California flower farmers do not oppose 
the FTA.
  Together, they have developed a transportation and logistics center.
  This will cut shipping costs by 22-34 percent, according to a new 
study by USC.
  This would help level the playing field and restore competitiveness 
with Colombian farmers, who have received hundreds of millions of 
dollars in assistance from their government and ours over the past 20 
years.
  As reference I will point out that from 2002-2010, Colombian exports 
to the U.S. increased 89%.
  In the same time span, the number of acres dedicated to cut flower 
production in the U.S. declined by 22%.
  The Obama administration knows that I am a strong supporter of the 
Colombia FTA, and I am proud to be leading the charge in the House to 
pass it.
  However, I have also made it very clear that I will continue to fight 
for funding for the new transportation center that is vital to 
California cut flower farmers.
  I am optimistic that this vital U.S. industry that provides 20% of 
flowers sold to U.S. consumers will soon get the federal assistance 
that it needs to thrive over the long term.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Colombia trade bill.
  Trade agreements must be balanced, facilitating reciprocal two-way 
trade between nations. It's absolutely necessary that we also take into 
consideration small, family-owned, domestic industries that are 
sensitive to cheap foreign imports. Unfortunately, the Colombia trade 
bill falls flat in accomplishing these goals.

                              {time}  1320

  For more than 20 years, Colombia has benefited from the duty-free 
access to the U.S. market under the Andean Trade Preference Act. At the 
same time, some Colombian industries have received big government 
subsidies from the Colombian Government, and oftentimes our own U.S. 
foreign aid dollars benefit them. These policies have slowly eroded one 
of California's most unique and innovative industries.
  California is home to the vast majority of domestic cut-flower 
growers in the United States of America. They account for more than 
10,000 jobs across our State and represent hundreds of millions of 
dollars in economic activity every year. Because of these failed trade 
policies, Colombia now has a stranglehold on 75 percent of the U.S. 
cut-flower market, creating a marketplace dominated by cheap foreign 
flowers, produced with cheap, unregulated labor. This puts our small 
family-owned businesses at an extreme disadvantage.
  You can't tell me that it's cheaper to import flowers from Colombia 
than it is to grow them in our own backyard. I drive through northern 
California on a very regular basis and see collapsed, dilapidated, and 
unused greenhouses littering the small towns and rural communities of 
California. It's clear this industry has taken a major hit over the 
last few decades due to this flawed trade policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. As we see more and more flower farms and 
greenhouses closing all over California, this reminds us of the last 
time we did business with Colombia. This agreement is anti-family 
business and it's anti-American jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
Colombia trade bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I want to thank Chairman Camp and Chairman 
Brady for their leadership in moving the three pending free trade 
agreements that are long overdue for our consideration.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of all 
three pending trade agreements. Passing the Colombian agreement would 
not only create jobs in the U.S. but would signal our dedication to a 
faithful and strategic ally.
  During my service in the U.S. Army, I ran Army flight operations with 
the Multinational Force and Observers-Sinai while serving jointly with 
the Colombian military. That was over 25 years ago. In watching the 
changes that have taken place, Colombian troops are still serving in 
peacekeeping roles, and they're serving internationally now in 
counterinsurgency and counternarcotic roles around the globe.
  In 20 years Colombia has gone through an incredible economic, social, 
and democratic transformation. They are a robust democracy with strong 
ties to the United States in a region that includes increasingly anti-
American governments, especially Venezuela. Let's strengthen these ties 
and eliminate any concern about America's reliability as a partner by 
ratifying the Colombian trade agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Colombia free trade 
agreement for the job creation potential it brings to our struggling 
economy and especially to improve our national security in the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Nevada, 
a member of our committee, Ms. Berkley.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise today to talk about what should be Congress' top priority--
jobs, jobs, jobs. The economic downturn has hit my State of Nevada 
particularly hard, and families are still struggling with record 
unemployment.
  Instead, today, we are debating the job-killing Colombia free trade 
agreement that will result in more good-paying American jobs being 
shipped overseas. In fact, this trade agreement, taken together with 
the Panama and the Korean trade agreements, will cost our Nation over 
200,000 more jobs.
  How much more job loss can Nevadans be expected to absorb before we 
stand up and say enough is enough?
  Congress needs to get our priorities straight. Job creation needs to 
be our top priority. We must create a level playing field for the 
American worker. Last night, the Senate took a step in that direction 
by voting to stand up to the Chinese Government, whose unfair currency 
manipulation has cost our Nation over 3 million jobs in the last 
decade, including over 14,000 jobs in the State of Nevada alone. The 
House should be following suit. Instead of focusing on a trade 
agreement that will

[[Page H6801]]

send more Nevada jobs to foreign countries at a time when we can least 
afford it, we should reject these job-killing trade agreements and pass 
the China currency manipulation bill.
  Let's get on with the job of Congress, which is to create jobs for 
the American people, for the American worker.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I do understand the concern that my very good 
friends have expressed on the Democratic side about the threat of 
violence in Colombia and the loss of jobs in America. What I don't 
understand is how voting against this trade agreement helps on either 
front. A ``no'' vote does nothing to create more jobs in America or, in 
fact, to reduce the level of violence in Colombia.
  The fact is that the rate of violence in Colombia has been cut in 
half. The murder of trade union members is down by 80 percent. College 
enrollment is up by 50 percent. 90 percent of children are in school 
now. Poverty is down by 25 percent. Why? In large part because of the 
$8 billion in Plan Colombia we provided.
  Now the Colombian Government wants to show its appreciation for our 
investment in Colombia's future by letting us share in their new 
prosperity. It's difficult to do that, though, when Colombia has 
average tariff barriers of 9 percent, with agriculture at 17 percent. 
The U.S. has virtually no tariff barriers, so this is a one-way street 
going in our direction, this trade agreement.
  The share of U.S. imports, though, to Colombia, as a total amount of 
their imports, has dropped from 21 percent to 9 percent; and that's 
because of the trade agreements Colombia has been able to sign with 
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and others; and they're about to further eat 
into American jobs by signing a trade agreement with the European 
Union. We in America made the investment to help Colombia become less 
violent, more democratic and more prosperous; and now we want to 
disengage rather than reap the benefits of producing jobs, products and 
services in America for export to Colombia.
  It seems to me my very good friends on the Democratic side should 
support our President, who is doing everything he can to create jobs 
here. He understands when other countries, don't have tariff barriers 
that we have to overcome we can produce and sell more products and 
services to those countries and generate more jobs in this country. 
That's what we ought to be about. It seems to me a ``yes'' vote on all 
three trade agreements is the right thing to do.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains, please, on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
14\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of 
our committee, Mr. Kind from the great State of Wisconsin.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the gentleman from 
Michigan's allotment of time.
  I rise in strong support of the three trade agreements before us 
today: the Colombia agreement, Panama, as well as South Korea. Let me 
explain why.
  For too long, I feel the United States has been standing on the 
sidelines while other countries have been moving on without us in 
opening up market share and establishing bilateral/multilateral 
agreements with them.
  In the specific case of Colombia, because of our inability to be able 
to come together and pass a trade agreement, in the last year alone 
we've lost close to 50 percent market share with agricultural products 
that we would normally be exporting in the Colombian market. Being from 
the State of Wisconsin, obviously the agriculture sector is immensely 
important; and the longer we delay in passing these measures, the more 
we're going to be precluded from the market.
  Also Mr. Speaker, I rise and share the concern of so many of my 
colleagues today in regard to labor rights in Colombia, but I think the 
Colombia of today is not the Colombia of 10 years ago or even of 5 
years ago.

                              {time}  1330

  And much to the credit of the ranking member on Ways and Means, Mr. 
Levin, who worked tirelessly to make sure that we had a Labor Action 
Plan to work with Colombia to improve labor rights and protections, he 
thinks it should be a part of the body of the agreement. I think it's 
being implemented as we speak now, and it's not necessary, but the 
Santos administration realizes it's in their best interest to do more 
to enhance labor rights and protections in Colombia. I think a large 
part of the credit deserves to be given to the gentleman seated next to 
me here today, Mr. Levin.
  We're just 4 percent of the world's population. Of course we've got 
to have a proactive trade agenda. The question is whether we're going 
to be a member of a rules-based trading system or not, because we are 
going to be trading with these countries one way or the other. These 
trade agreements now have core international labor and environmental 
standards in the bulk of the agreement, fully enforceable with every 
other provision.
  That is an attempt to elevate standards upwards rather than seeing 
this race to the bottom that so many of my colleagues are concerned 
about. That's the question I think that's before us today involving 
Colombia, Panama, and the larger market, South Korea, is whether we're 
going to move forward on trade agreements that have been much improved 
with the current administration, having inherited from the last, or 
whether we will continue to move forward without any rules with those 
countries. They already have virtual unlimited access to our market but 
we face restrictions to theirs. These trade agreements will fix that.
  I would urge my colleagues to support all three trade agreements.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this free 
trade agreement on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers.
  All three free trade agreements under consideration today are 
essential for our Nation's agricultural industry. Out of every $100 in 
agricultural sales, more than $25 comes from exports. So market access 
is critical to the success of our farmers and ranchers.
  Colombia is particularly important to our producers because without a 
free trade agreement in place, we have begun to lose market access. 
Tariffs on American goods have made them more expensive and Colombians 
are choosing to buy other countries' products instead. Lost market 
access means lost income, lost jobs, and we cannot afford that.
  Right now Colombia imposes duties on all American agricultural 
products. They range from 5 percent to 20 percent. Yet we still sell 
more than $830 million in agricultural products there. That's because 
America's farmers and ranchers produce high-quality crops and 
livestock, and those goods are in demand.
  Under this agreement Colombia will eliminate tariffs on 70 percent of 
our exports. We can be sure that when American agricultural products 
are no longer subject to tariffs and become more cost competitive, 
we'll see substantial benefits. In fact, the Farm Bureau estimates 
we'll see 370 million more dollars in farm exports to Colombia 
annually.
  While our farmers and ranchers will benefit from increased market 
access, they will not be alone. Farm exports create jobs throughout the 
economy in processing, packaging, transportation, just to name a few 
industries. A vote to pass the Colombia free trade agreement is a vote 
for job growth in all these sectors. It's a vote to create income and 
opportunity for our farmers and ranchers.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this free trade agreement 
and help keep America's agricultural industry competitive.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, 
Maxine Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank my friend from Michigan, Congressman Sander 
Levin, for the time.
  I rise to oppose this so-called free trade agreement. I find it 
deeply disturbing that the United States Congress is even considering a 
free trade

[[Page H6802]]

agreement with a country that holds the world's record for 
assassinations of trade unionists and would cause a loss of 55,000 jobs 
in the United States.
  The Congressional Black Caucus has been working hard to create jobs. 
We've held job fares in five cities in the country. We have been 
working hard to create jobs because the unemployment rate in this 
country is unacceptable: 9.1 throughout the country, 11.3 for Latinos, 
16 percent for African Americans. We need jobs, not an unfair trade 
agenda.
  Additionally, according to Colombia's National Labor School, 51 trade 
labor unionists were assassinated in 2010. That's more than the rest of 
the world combined. In addition, 21 unionists survived attempts on 
their lives, 338 unionists received death threats, 35 were forcibly 
displaced, 34 were arbitrarily detained, and 7 just disappeared in 
2010. Another 23 unionists have been assassinated so far this year, and 
a total of 2,908 union members have been murdered in Colombia since 
1986. And the Colombian Attorney General's Office has not obtained any 
convictions for these murders for the past 4 years.
  The people of Colombia don't need a free trade agreement; they need a 
government that respects the rights of all of its citizens.
  Let's vote down this trade agenda and tell the Government of Colombia 
that there can be no free trade without human rights and human dignity.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. I thank the chairman for his work and I thank the ranking 
member.
  Let me start off by thanking Mr. Levin also, because indeed I know 
he's been back and forth to Colombia, and he's made this a better trade 
bill with the action plan. And it was your hard work and dedication, 
Mr. Levin, and I thank you for doing that.
  Yesterday, I had a chance to talk briefly on the floor in regard to 
the economics of it, and I'm hearing a lot of people talk about the 
past of Colombia, but not some of the things that are taking place on 
the ground right now. I have heard a lot of individuals talk about how 
it may be devastating in reference specifically to the African 
Colombian community.
  But let me bring some facts to the issue, because I think oftentimes 
when I looked and talked to President Santos and the civil rights 
struggle right here in America, I see some similarities that we've got 
to think about because there's some positive things, a lot of positive 
things that happen on the floor.
  For example, for the first time we have the Victims and Land 
Restitution Law in Colombia that was passed by the Government of 
Colombia. We have at the Presidential program on Afro-Colombians. We 
have the development projects. We have the mining and prior 
consultation law. We have addressing discrimination law that has been 
passed. We have the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program that has been 
passed by the Colombian legislature. We have the Afro-Colombian 
leadership and scholarship program. We have the Martin Luther King 
scholarship program. We have the Equal Employment Opportunity 
initiative. All of this is done by the Santos government. We have the 
Pathways to Prosperity Women Entrepreneurs Mentoring Network. We have 
400 scholarships for Afro-Colombian police. We have the emergency 
humanitarian assistance programs. These are just some of the programs 
that are happening on the ground right now that are benefiting African 
Colombians.
  When you talk about the leadership there, because I'm getting letters 
back and forth, this is a diverse leadership in Colombia. This is a 
diverse leadership here in America.
  And just as the goal is to make sure that we enact certain things 
into laws so that we can make changes to make it better for people for 
tomorrow, that is what President Santos has been doing. That's what has 
happened, and that's what is happening.
  Some say Santos is not going to carry it out. When Lyndon Baines 
Johnson became President, some said he wouldn't do anything.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MEEKS. But he did. He came with some of the most landmark 
legislation with reference to civil rights and voting rights in the 
history of this country, the same thing that I see happening right now 
on the ground with President Santos. Landmark, for the first time ever, 
legislation addressing the rights of African Colombians; and because of 
the work of Mr. Levin, also landmark rights addressing the rights of 
all in labor.
  I think that it's a positive thing and we should pass this Colombia 
free trade agreement because we are moving in the right direction. 
We're not there yet, but we're moving in the right direction.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to this debate, 
and I know that my good friend Mr. Levin and my friend Mr. Camp have 
worked to try to craft an agreement that they feel is in the best 
interest of this country. But this debate cannot pass without pointing 
out some facts that concern those of us who are opposed to this.
  According to Global Trade Watch, Colombia is the world capital for 
violence against workers, with more unionists killed every year than in 
the rest of the world combined. Unionist murders have been growing from 
37 in 2007 after the deal was signed to 51 in 2010, even though 
Colombia has been under maximum security. Only 6 percent of the nearly 
2,680 unionist murders that have occurred have been prosecuted to date.
  The deal doesn't require Colombia to end the unionist murders or 
bring past perpetrators to justice to obtain special trade privileges. 
Colombian unions oppose the deal and agree with U.S. unions that a 
recent action plan will not fix this horrific situation.
  Colombia has the highest number of displaced people in the world, 
outpacing even Sudan because of forced displacement and land grabs, 
often with Colombian military involvement.
  Now, I know there has been an attempt to try to address these, but I 
think that we have to get the Government of Colombia to answer these 
things first before we pass a trade agreement, and I don't believe that 
they have sufficiently done that. In particular, they haven't brought 
to justice those who are responsible for the murder of all of these 
unionists.
  I think, as a country which supports the right of people, freedom of 
association, the right of free speech, if we do not stand for them in 
these trade agreements, then we can expect the same kind of conduct to 
occur. This is a concern I have, notwithstanding what I know are the 
honest, good-faith efforts of my colleagues who support this, even 
though I don't. I urge the bill's defeat.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
  Mr. YODER. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
  As my colleagues have listened to this debate today, and as we listen 
to our constituents at home, our constituents are asking us to focus on 
one thing--jobs. We've talked about a lot of issues today. We've talked 
about unions. We talked about all sorts of issues; but at the end of 
the day, the American people are asking us to focus on jobs.
  These trade agreements allow American companies to export more 
products to Colombia. They level the playing field, and they create 
jobs back here at home in America. Colombia is the third largest U.S. 
export market in Latin America; and for farmers and companies in places 
like Kansas, exports have grown over 667 percent in the last 13 years, 
even with the one-sided tariffs that Colombia is currently imposing. If 
we level the playing field, allow companies in Kansas and across the 
country equal access to Colombian markets, exports will go up, as will 
the jobs those exports create.
  Mr. Speaker, every day we don't pass these agreements we are falling 
behind, and our companies and our workers are at a disadvantage. If our 
top priority is jobs, then it's time to open up these markets, put our 
businesses on a level playing field, and create jobs at home as opposed 
to exporting them overseas.

[[Page H6803]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Does the gentleman from Michigan have any additional 
speakers?
  Mr. LEVIN. I think not. I'm going to sum up myself.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to cast my vote in 
support of the Colombia free trade agreement, even though it has taken 
almost 5 years to get a vote on it. I thank Chairman Camp, Chairman 
Dreier, and Chairman Brady for their leadership on this cause.
  The Colombia free trade agreement is important for several reasons. 
First, it will create jobs here in the United States. The International 
Trade Commission has estimated this will increase U.S. exports to 
Colombia by over $1 billion. It will grow our Nation's economy by over 
$2 billion and create thousands of new jobs here at home.
  In the case of the 23rd District of Texas, the Colombia free trade 
agreement is of particular importance as I have a great deal of 
agriculture in my district and more than half of current U.S. 
agricultural exports to Colombia will become duty free immediately and 
almost all remaining tariffs gone after 15 years. This agreement is 
also important as it demonstrates our commitment to a steadfast ally in 
Latin America against oppressive regimes like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
  Fundamentally, this agreement is about the economic freedom of the 
American people to be able to have a wide array of choices and to pay 
less for those choices because of the power of trade and competition.
  Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all three free trade 
agreements that will be on the floor today.
  In an era where we have a near-constant supply of Federal bailouts 
and stimulus packages and Federal spending, it is refreshing that 
Congress is doing today what it should be doing, and that is creating 
an environment in a bipartisan way under which businesses can create 
jobs and the economy can flourish. It's the appropriate role of 
Congress to take these kinds of steps, to simply create an environment 
and then step out of the way and let businesses create these jobs.
  Arizona alone had more than $15 billion worth of merchandise exports 
in 2010. More than half was exported to countries with which we have 
free trade agreements. These three free trade agreements today will 
only expand the opportunities for that to increase. These arrangements 
will allow the private sector to create thousands of new jobs and 
strengthen the economy in the long term.
  Again, that is the appropriate role for government, to create an 
environment where the private sector can create jobs. That's what free 
trade agreements do. That's why I'm pleased to support these agreements 
today.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I have no further 
requests for time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me be clear what's at stake here on the Colombia FTA. I feel so 
deeply about it. Free trade agreements set the terms of competition 
between nations. It's more than about the mathematical flow of goods. 
The conditions for workers in the country we trade with are fundamental 
to that competition. Workers in Colombia have long been without their 
basic worker rights. More than any other democracy in the globe, there 
have been extreme levels of violence against workers and their leaders. 
There's been a universal, really, a universal lack of justice for 
murders of union activists. And there have been extensive flaws in 
Colombia's labor law and its practices.
  These conditions and the insistence of Democrats that they be 
effectively and fully enforced are what held up consideration of the 
Colombia free trade agreement. What has been long overdue was work on 
these conditions, and there wasn't by the Bush or the Uribe 
administrations. Yes, it has taken 5 years because most of those years 
were taken up by inaction by the Bush administration, and by the 
administration previous to Mr. Santos.

                              {time}  1350

  Earlier this year, an Action Plan on Labor Rights was negotiated 
between the new American and Colombian administrations, and it included 
some commitments and deadlines at long last for Colombia to address 
issues of worker rights, violence, and impunity. Very regretfully, some 
key obligations have not been met in a meaningful way. Let me give you 
one example about a condition that I saw firsthand in visits to 
Colombia. Their employers have a history of using sham cooperatives and 
other contract relationships to camouflage true employment 
relationships and thereby to rob workers of their rights. The ILO has 
long identified this type of practice as among the most serious 
problems facing Colombian workers. In Colombia, only workers who are 
directly employed can form a union and collectively bargain. Colombia 
committed to stop such abuses in the action plan. It passed far-
reaching legislation and proposed effective regulations. But, 
unfortunately, it then backed away.
  Through loopholes in the law it has allowed employers in Colombia, 
including a major beverage company and palm oil producers, to begin 
converting cooperatives to other contract forms to continue denying 
workers their basic rights. So we privately, we Democrats in the House, 
pushed the Colombians for months to try to stem this problematic shift. 
But even a clarification it issued on the eve of the markup last week--
after public pressure had been brought to bear--fell short. So this 
problem highlights precisely why it was vital to link the action plan 
to the FTA we're voting on today. But very regrettably, the Republicans 
blocked any reference at all to the Labor Action Plan in the 
implementation bill, and unfortunately, the administration acquiesced 
in that position.
  I just want to emphasize: Explicitly linking the action plan to entry 
into force of the Colombia FTA was necessary as a vital step to ensure 
effective, meaningful implementation of the action plan. Without such a 
linkage, we have no leverage to ensure that Colombia lives up to the 
commitments it has made. I also want to emphasize it provides no 
context and meaning for the enforcement of the FTA worker rights 
standard in the future.
  The language in the FTA is the basic international worker rights 
language. It is general in its provision. It has to be given meaning. 
The Action Plan would help to give it meaning if in the future action 
is needed to be taken under the dispute settlement system. And so when 
there's no linkage between the implementation bill and the Action Plan, 
it takes away the context for future action.
  Other obligations under the action plan have not been meaningfully 
met.
  Despite minimal requirements set in the action plan, Colombian 
employers continue to use direct negotiations with workers, referred to 
as ``collective pacts,'' to thwart workers from organizing. And I saw 
firsthand the use of those collective pacts when I was in Colombia on 
one of my three visits.
  Another pervasive problem was highlighted earlier this month by Human 
Rights Watch: Little progress in investigating and prosecuting murders 
of people trying to exercise their rights--even those cases designated 
as priorities. Colombia authorities obtained just 6 convictions of 195 
union murders that occurred in the 4-plus years leading up to May, 
2011. It's told that the ILO left Colombia off its priority list. 
That's because employers vetoed Colombia being on the list.
  Notwithstanding clear commitments under the Action Plan to improve 
the situation through reforms and investigatory policies and methods, 
Colombia did not take the first step to do this--namely, the 
publication of an analysis of closed union murder cases--until the eve 
of the markup, even though the action plan called for its completion. 
Even with this, it is clear that additional leverage is necessary. 
Interviews by Human Rights Watch with Colombian prosecutors reveal that 
there's been no clear direction to implement the new policies and 
methods as committed to under the Action Plan.
  I wish I could stand here today and say that Colombia had fully 
implemented the commitments under the

[[Page H6804]]

Action Plan to date, and very significantly, vitally, that the 
legislation incorporated the Action Plan and conditioned the FTA's 
entry into force on its effective implementation. I cannot in good 
conscience do so. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that well before the Labor Action Plan 
was signed by President Obama and President Santos, Colombia had raised 
their labor standards and aided union members in the exercise of their 
rights well before the action plan ever occurred. Colombia now has 
implemented all eight of the ILO core conventions--six more than the 
United States. The statute of limitations for murder was raised in 2009 
from 20 to 30 years. The minimum prison sentence was raised from 13 to 
25 years and the maximum was raised from 25 to 40. The authority to 
declare the legality of strikes is now in the purview of the judiciary, 
not the executive branch, which depoliticizes these decisions and shows 
the transition and progress that Colombia has made in this area. 
Employers no longer have a unilateral right to force a strike to 
arbitration. The constitution reforms in 2004 shortened by 75 percent 
the time it takes to prosecute a homicide case. As I mentioned earlier, 
the murder rate in Colombia against union members has declined by 85 
percent since 2002.
  As my Democrat colleagues in support of the Colombian Trade Agreement 
have said, the Labor Action Plan is the most stringent Labor Action 
Plan anywhere in the world that has ever occurred.
  With regard to the cooperative issue, the U.S. Trade Representative 
testified in the Ways and Means Committee when we worked up this 
legislation that that loophole has been addressed and has been closed 
by the Colombian government. This is something the administration has 
agreed has occurred as well, not just myself.
  Let me just address this issue of the Labor Action Plan being placed 
inside the trade agreement. I would just say that to condition entry 
into force of the trade agreement with compliance with the Labor Action 
Plan is completely inappropriate, and that's why there was bipartisan 
opposition to doing that. I certainly welcome the gentleman's statement 
that I was able to get the administration to acquiesce to not having 
the Labor Action Plan put into the agreement. Frankly, there was 
bipartisan agreement, with the administration agreeing as well on that 
point.
  Let me just say there is a labor chapter in the agreement itself that 
addresses the labor issues that appropriately fall within the scope of 
the agreement. The Labor Action Plan goes well beyond that scope. Let 
me say why. The purpose of the implementing bill, the purpose of the 
bill before the House today, is to make changes to the United States 
laws that are necessary to implement the agreement. The Labor Action 
Plan doesn't require any changes to U.S. law. So therefore it should 
not and is not in the bill. Apart from being inappropriate, it's really 
unnecessary to condition entry into force on a labor action agreement 
that the Colombians have agreed to.

                              {time}  1400

  They have demonstrated their commitment to fulfilling the terms of 
the Labor Action Plan. They have satisfied, and on time, every single 
action item that has come due thus far. And our administration has 
certified that they have satisfied those conditions. There's only a few 
conditions that remain, which are due at the end of the year, and a few 
due in 2012, which we fully expect they will completely agree to.
  And let me just say that it is high time we took up this agreement. 
Last year Colombian exporters paid virtually no tariffs when they 
shipped goods to the United States, but our exporters paid a tariff on 
an average of 11 percent trying to enter into their market. This 
agreement removes that imbalance by eliminating the Colombian duties. 
This need is urgent. Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in 
unnecessary duties since this agreement was signed and has been pending 
over the years.
  We know from experience these agreements will yield the benefits that 
we say they will. Between 2000 and 2010, total U.S. exports increased 
by just over 60 percent, but our exports to countries in which we have 
trade agreements increased by over 90 percent. Our exports to Peru, for 
example, have more than doubled since the passage of the U.S.-Peru 
trade agreement, and those are very important statistics in these tough 
economic times.
  So this is a major economic opportunity. Delay has been costly. There 
are major economies whose workers and exporters compete directly with 
ours. They have moved aggressively to sign and implement trade 
agreements with Colombia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil. Those undermine 
our competitive edge for our Nation and our workers and our families.
  So we've been falling behind. We've been losing export market share 
that took years to build, frankly. For example, just the U.S. share of 
Colombia's corn, wheat, and soybean imports fell from 71 percent in 
2008 to 27 percent in 2010 after Argentina's exporters gained 
preferential access.
  Obviously, we have seen, also, a decline in our exports of wheat 
since Canada signed its trade agreement with Colombia, 2 years after. 
They entered and enforced their agreement with Colombia, which was 
signed 2 years after ours. So we owe it to U.S. workers. We owe it to 
our exporters to approve this agreement now and to press the President 
for prompt implementation.
  I would urge strong support for this agreement, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 425, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 3078 will be postponed.

                          ____________________