Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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. LEVIN. How much time remains on each side, please?

Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Nevada, a member of our committee, Ms. Berkley.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains, please, on both sides?

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. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Maxine Waters.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I think not. I'm going to sum up myself.

Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my 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. 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 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new parent who is bringing a picture of his new son with him to the podium, Mr. Polis of Colorado.

Mr. LEVIN. I will close on our side.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. First, let me speak as someone who opposed, actively, the NAFTA agreement and led the effort in this House in opposition to CAFTA. This is, in terms of worker rights, the opposite of NAFTA and CAFTA. What this does is to embody the basic international worker rights enforceable in the trade agreement. Peru was the breakthrough, and Panama continues along that pioneering path. Secondly, on Panama, why are we here? Panama acted to change its labor laws before we voted, as was true for Peru. We pointed out the deficiencies in their laws and I discussed them with the previous administration in Panama. But neither it nor the Bush administration was willing to make sure action occurred. Now those changes have been made as to companies less than 2 years. Those changes have been made in terms of the economic processing zones, and they have prohibited bypassing unions by direct negotiations with non-unionized workers--unfortunately, not true in Colombia. Look, on the tax haven, they signed the TIEA. We asked them to do that, and that's precisely what they have done. In terms of investment, this bill strengthens the present status quo in terms of investment protections for the United States communities. So, in a word, we have a bill before us that meets the requirements that we set out when we said to the Bush administration, we will not take up Panama until changes have been made. Those changes have now indeed been made in terms of worker rights, in terms of strengthening investment, in terms of ending Panama as a tax haven. Those changes having been made, I urge support of this FTA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), ranking member on Trade. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)