Opposition to Colombian trade deal grows among House Democrats

Larson joins House Ways and Means ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) and Reps. Jim McDermott (Wash.), James McGovern (Mass.) and George Miller (Calif.), who will oppose the deal without the language. 

On Monday, Levin said he would actively oppose the Colombia free-trade agreement backed by the Obama administration unless the action plan, which was worked out between the Obama administration and the Colombian government, is included to make it enforceable.

“Republican refusal to include in the implementing bill a reference to the document addressing the core issue which had prevented consideration of the [free-trade agreement] — the action plan on labor rights — and the administration’s acquiescence to that refusal are totally unacceptable,” Levin said. 

The administration is arguing that because the labor action plan doesn’t require a change in U.S. law, there’s no requirement to include implementing language in Colombia.

Yet House Democratic aides and lawmakers argued that there is wide precedent for including language in implementing bills that don’t just change U.S. law to put agreements into effect. 

In the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) implementing, President Clinton included a provision explicitly linking “entry into force” of NAFTA to implementation of the labor and environmental agreements, to help ensure that Mexico and Canada followed through in adopting the side agreements.  

McDermott, ranking member on the Ways and Means subcommittee on Trade, said the trade deal’s implementing language must “clearly state that the president will not allow the agreement to enter into force unless Colombia has met its action plan commitments, which relate directly to Colombia’s FTA labor obligations.” 

“I don’t know how anyone could vote for the Colombia free trade agreement implementing legislation unless it includes a meaningful reference to the action plan related to labor rights,” he said.