[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15702-15703]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 15703]]

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.

                          ____________________