[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 155 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6593-S6594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have said on a number of occasions that
trade is an incredibly important part of our economy, especially in my
home State of Iowa. For this reason, I am a longtime supporter of
policies designed to open foreign markets to our Nation's exports
through new trade agreements. I have fought to break down the barriers
that many other countries have erected to block our exports, and I have
sought to reduce the practices by which many of them seek to compete
unfairly in world markets.
However, trade is more than just the shipment of goods and services
across borders. Trade policy and the impacts of trade also have wide
ranging consequences for workers and the environment inside the trading
countries. Properly designed, our trade policy can expand opportunities
and promote the welfare of workers in both the United States and
abroad. Ill-designed trade policy can have the opposite effect as well.
For this reason, I have to express my strong opposition to the free
trade agreement with Colombia. Simply put, Colombia is one of the most
dangerous countries in the world to be a trade unionist. According to
Colombia's National Labor School, ENS, in the last 25 years, over 2,800
Colombian trade unionists have been killed. According to the AFL-CIO,
23 trade unionists have been assassinated this year alone in Colombia,
including 16 since the conclusion of the labor action plan, which I
will speak more about later. The ENS also reports that over the last 10
years, Colombian trade unionists have faced almost 4,000 death threats.
While some improvements have been made in recent years, the Colombian
government has not sought to hold those responsible for these brutal
crimes. According to the International Labor Organization's, ILO, High-
level Tripartite Mission to Colombia, ``the majority of trade unionist
killings have not yet been investigated nor have the perpetrators,
including the intellectual authors of these crimes, been brought to
justice.'' ENS data indicates that since 1986, only 6 percent of the
cases brought to trial have resulted in any convictions.
The current Colombian government led by President Santos has made
some progress. I believe that the Colombian action plan related to
labor rights that the Obama administration negotiated with the Santos
administration is a step in the right direction. If the changes that
the Santos administration have begun making are continued, and the
labor action plan is fully implemented and enforced, Colombia will have
made significant progress to addressing many of my concerns.
But given all that I have described earlier, it would be
irresponsible of us to rush into a free trade agreement before we see
the results of this endeavor. Unfortunately, while the labor action
plan requires the Colombian government to issue new laws, regulations,
and reports, there is no mechanism to ensure that these policies will
be effective at improving the living and working conditions of
Colombians. The only follow-up mechanism included in the labor action
plan is a series of meetings to take place in 2012 and 2013. After
2013, those meetings may cease to occur.
Even more, should Colombia not meet its obligations under the labor
action plan or take future action that is contrary to the labor action
plan, only some portions may be subject to the binding dispute
settlement procedures in the text of the agreement. The limited
enforceability of the action plan further cautions against moving
forward too hastily, as we will not have enough leverage to ensure that
fundamental labor rights are respected once the agreement is
implemented. As my colleagues may remember, the side agreement to the
North American Free Trade Agreement is ultimately meaningless and
unenforceable.
One of the goals of our trade policy must be to further the
internationally recognized right of workers to organize. Supporting the
rights of workers
[[Page S6594]]
to organize freely, bargain collectively, and live safely is not just
good for workers abroad, but it helps workers in the United States as
well.
The United States simply cannot compete in a global race to the
bottom when it comes to labor standards. Our workers are some of the
most highly skilled and productive workers in the world. But they
simply cannot compete against countries that make things more cheaply
because they don't respect the rights of their workers, have safe
workplaces, or pay their workers a living wage. Unfortunately, this
agreement will not help us further that goal.
I would like to raise a second significant concern I have about the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As many of my colleagues know, I have
been working on reducing abusive and exploitative child labor around
the world for nearly two decades. I first introduced a bill on this
issue in 1992. According to the best estimates by the International
Labor Organization, ILO, there are 215 million child laborers between
the ages of 5 and 17 who are engaged in today's global economy.
Of these 215 million child laborers, 115 million are engaged in
hazardous work. These 115 million powerless children are working in
mines, in fishing operations and on coffee plantations. It is appalling
that this is still occurring in the 21st century. These children are
robbed of their childhoods. Many are denied an education and any hope
for a brighter future. They will grow up illiterate and exploited,
creating a wellspring of future social conflict and strife.
We have made some progress over the years by funding programs for the
remediation of child laborers through our contribution to the ILO's
International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor, IPEC. In
2000, I successfully amended the Trade and Development Act with a
provision directing that no trade benefits under the Generalized System
of Preferences, GSP, be granted to any country that does not live up to
its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. I required
that the President submit a yearly report to Congress on the steps
being taken by each GSP beneficiary country to carry out its
commitments to end abusive and exploitative child labor.
I want to explain clearly to my colleagues what I mean when I refer
to abusive and exploitative child labor. It is not children who work
part-time after school or on weekends. There is nothing wrong with
that. That is not the issue. What I am referring to is the definition
set out by ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. This
is not just a Western, or a developed-world, standard. It is a global
standard that has been ratified by 174 countries. It has been ratified
by Colombia. The United States was the third country in the world to
ratify this convention.
Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's Findings on the Worst Forms
of Child Labor that was released this month, states up front that
Colombia, ``has not provided adequate resources to the National
Strategy to Eradicate the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Children continue
to work in agriculture, including forced coca cultivation, and in
mining.'' The report further finds that children are forced to work in
domestic service, are sexually exploited, transport illegal drugs, and
even are used by armed militants as child soldiers.
In addition to these shocking practices, eight Colombian products
appear in the 2011 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced
Labor, also released by DOL this month. These products include coffee,
sugarcane, and gold.
Unfortunately, the implementing legislation now before the Senate for
free trade with Colombia actually would take us, and the world, a step
backward when it comes to protecting children. That is right. This free
trade agreement with Colombia, which replaces GSP provisions in
governing trade between our two countries, will take us backward with
respect to abusive and exploitative child labor.
Under GSP, the President now must report to Congress annually
regarding Colombia's child labor practices, and if Colombia is not
meeting the obligations that it undertook as a signatory to the ILO
Convention, if Colombia is not acting to eliminate the worst forms of
child labor, then trade sanctions are available to us to require
enforcement of internationally recognized standards. That is so that
our companies, and our workers, are not subjected to the unfair
competition that abusive labor practices allow. Under this new
implementing legislation for free trade with Colombia, on the other
hand, if it is enacted, neither of those things I just mentioned will
be true.
Our trade negotiators should not be weakening protections that we in
Congress put in place to ensure that free trade can be consistent with
respect for international child labor standards. Supporting abusive and
exploitative child labor abroad does not help create jobs in America.
Just the opposite, it hurts that effort. Our workers and our local
businesses should not be competing with the worst forms of child labor
abroad.
As a result, I strongly believe that we need to put the break on this
flawed trade agreement. It is time for us to begin passing fair trade
agreements that promote good quality jobs both here and abroad and work
to end the worst forms of child labor. This agreement does not meet
that test.
____________________