U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–396PDF 2010

INTERNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS, U.S. FOREIGN

POLICY AND THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 10, 2010

Serial No. 111–89

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE

BRAD SHERMAN, California, Chairman 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

TED POE, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

DON MACDONALD, Subcommittee Staff Director 

JOHN BRODTKE, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

TOM SHEEHY, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ISIDRO MARISCAL, Subcommittee Staff Associate

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

JERRY HALDEMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Republican Professional Staff Member 

MARIANA MAGUIRE, Staff Associate 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State ....................................... 7

Ms. Sandra Polaski, Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs, U.S. 

Department of Labor ........................................................................................... 15

Mr. William Lucy, Chair, Executive Council Committee on International Affairs, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) ................................................................................................... 36

Bama Athreya, Ph.D., Executive Director, International Labor Rights Forum . 50

Mr. John G. Murphy, Vice President of International Affairs, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 63

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Michael H. Posner: Prepared statement ...................................... 10

Ms. Sandra Polaski: Prepared statement .............................................................. 18

Mr. William Lucy: Prepared statement ................................................................. 39

Bama Athreya, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................... 53

Mr. John G. Murphy: Prepared statement ............................................................ 65

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 88

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 90

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight: Prepared statement .......................................... 91

The Honorable the Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Nonproliferation and Trade: Statement by Susan Reichle, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development ............................................ 93

(1)

INTERNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND THE INTERNATIONAL 

ECONOMY 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM,

NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m. in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I would like to call to order this joint subcommittee hearing of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade chaired by Brad Sherman of California, 

and the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human 

Rights and Oversight chaired by myself. I see Mr. Royce joining us 

and just apologize at the onset here. We had some votes and other 

hearings that delayed us, so thank you for your patience in getting 

started. 

First, I think this is an important subject that we are addressing 

here today, International Workers Rights, U.S. Foreign Policy and 

the International Economy. We have I think two excellent panels 

today that can provide us some very good insight, and we will be 

looking forward to your remarks and also being able to ask you 

questions. First panel, I would like to welcome Sandra Polaski. She 

is the deputy under secretary for international affairs at the Department of Labor. 

Ms. Polaski served during the Clinton and Bush administrations 

as U.S. Secretary of State’s Special Representative for International Labor Affairs where she was responsible for incorporating 

labor and livelihood issues into U.S. foreign policy. Next, I would 

also like to welcome Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for 

the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prior to joining the State Department, Mr. Posner was the executive director 

and then president of Humans Rights First, a non-profit, non-partisan internal human rights organization. 

Welcome to you both, and we will begin with some opening statements, and I will kick this off as we also wait for Chairman Sherman. I want to thank Chairman Sherman for leading this hearing 

today and all the witnesses for donating their time on this critical 

2

issue of international workers rights and U.S. foreign policy and 

the international economy. In the wake of the unprecedented financial and economic crisis, coordinating a speedy recovery and creating sustainable job opportunities has been a matter of the utmost 

concern for Members of Congress since 2007. 

The countless stories of hardworking American citizens struggling during these difficult times are troubling and painful, and 

they deserve our sincere and focused attention. Additionally, the 

millions of jobs lost globally threaten to precipitate a dangerous 

race to the bottom in labor standards in which quality employment 

opportunities have also suffered. The speed to cycle of declining living standards, diminishing purchasing power, increasingly shrinking markets and further economic decline. The administration, 

Congress and many others are doing much to turn this around. 

As part of this process, we have taken many measures to address 

our national economic recovery. We must also look beyond our borders and increase our efforts to coordinate significant policy reforms worldwide that will yield concrete benefits to Americans at 

home by strengthening U.S. trade agreements and trade preferences. Despite these favorable trade relationships, countries still 

have not consistently adhered to agreed upon labor provisions, and 

U.S. agencies have been lax in enforcing them. 

This ultimately undermines the American worker, undermines 

potential for economic growth and undermines the respect for basic 

human rights. From Toyota vehicles to Chinese drywall and children’s toys, I also remain concerned about the lack of product safety and enforcement in our trade relationships. This gives unfair 

market advantage that may end up harming American consumers 

and that is simply unacceptable and unsustainable. 

This April, Secretary Solis will host the first G–20 Employment 

and Labor Ministers’ meeting here in Washington in an effort to 

pool individual experiences and try to coordinate a collective policy 

to restore the global economy. I believe this is a vital step with potential to further enhance America’s leadership on economic recovery efforts. It is my hope that the meeting will give serious focus 

to job creation in line with more robust labor rights, protection and 

transparency. 

This year I launched the bipartisan American Engagement Caucus, and last week hosted a congressional briefing on America’s 

image abroad. I believe it is also important for America to continue 

to be a leader in promoting workers rights, advancing labor standards to foment healthy economies and prosperous societies moving 

forward. It is imperative that we act now to level the playing field 

so that everyone can have access to quality sustainable work opportunities and participate fully in the global economy helping to 

strengthen and expand it. 

This will provide tangible, immediate benefits to our domestic 

economies as well, ensuring strong markets for our exports and giving power back to workers and consumers. As we work to revitalize 

the American economy and create jobs here, we must aggressively 

seek new opportunities for U.S. companies to gain fair access to 

foreign markets. A critical component to that effort is rigorous enforcement of international trade laws and safety standards and to 

help level the playing field for American workers and protect 

3

human rights around the world. Once again, I thank our witnesses, 

and I want to ask Ranking Member Royce to provide an opening 

statement as well. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, and I was part of the bipartisan group that authored 

and pressed and finally passed the Africa Trade Bill. That bill has 

created desperately needed jobs on that continent. I have toured 

apparel factories with other members of this House in a number of 

African countries talking to Africans with new jobs—jobs that are 

paying women to feed, clothe, and educate their children—jobs that 

would not exist without liberalization of trade. 

I am concerned about well-being abroad, but of greater concern 

frankly to me is our economy, our own well-being here, and unfortunately, some use the issue of international labor rights to stymie 

attempts to lower the high barriers many U.S. goods and services 

face overseas. This makes American workers less competitive. Consider the trade agreement with Korea, which the Democrat congressional leadership and a timid administration has deep freezed. KORUS promises to increase trade with South Korea by $10 billion a year. As a witness notes today, 40 percent of the U.S. private 

sector today exports overseas, so KORUS is an American job opportunity that is being lost, a stimulus that is wasting, but it gets 

worse. While we are frozen, others are pouncing. We will hear that 

the United States could lose more than 380,000 jobs and $40 billion 

in export sales if the Korea and Colombian trade deals languish. 

Why would that be? Because the EU and Canada are making 

deals with these countries. National security gets compromised. 

The epicenters of terrorism are Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have 

troops in the field. The Islamist terrorism gains if these economies 

fail, yet the House so weakened a limited Afghanistan/Pakistan 

trade proposal, including the labor provisions that exceed our own 

in this country, that it died in the Senate. So there was no economic boost for this critical region. 

Some working conditions are truly horrible. It wouldn’t bother 

me if Americans never bought another Chinese made toy. Labor 

provisions are important. The Africa Trade Law, which I co-authored, includes them, so do other preference programs and trade 

agreements. In some cases, they need to be wielded better, but in 

2007, a bipartisan agreement paved the way for approving trade 

agreements. That was for Peru, and that was it, and we were 

done—nothing since. Our competitors are laughing. Stopping liberalization isn’t going to help. 

Are Colombian workers better off without the Colombian trade 

deal? I don’t think so. American workers absolutely aren’t better off 

without this deal. As much as some would try to legislate prosperity overseas, there are limits to what we can achieve—political, 

practical and economic limits. To those demanding ever more stringent labor standards, when are they good enough to trade? The 

American workers who depend on exports want to know. Thank 

you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, and next I want to recognize Mr. 

Scott for an opening statement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Chairman Carnahan, and it is a pleasure 

to be here with you and both of our committees in joining in on this 

4

very timely important issue, and I certainly want to welcome all of 

our distinguished panelists. The topic of today’s hearing is of particular importance as the United States and our trade partners 

march forward in economic recovery and growth. The encouragement of economic development and the job growth that development brings are issues that I am keenly interested in, and so I 

thank you once again for providing a forum for these issues. 

Our two subcommittees must approach today’s topic with a recognition of the delicate balance necessary to best promote American 

interests abroad, and I think that those are the two key words as 

we move forward, delicate balance. We have got to promote a trade 

policy that encourages the responsible growth of American business 

at home and abroad, but never at the expense of our national security nor in the face of egregious and appalling human rights violations abroad, that is the balance, nor at the cost of the American 

worker here at home. 

As the global markets recover and rebuild, we are presented with 

the fortuitous opportunity of recognizing the mistakes of the past 

and strengthening America’s status as the prime engine of global 

economic development. We recognize our past leadership in the 

world and global economic development, and we recognize the future and that we must maintain our status as the world’s leader. 

We must encourage a rising tide where economic growth coincides 

with increased living standards and greater democratization. We 

must eliminate technical barriers to trade and tariffs on U.S. 

goods. 

We must protect intellectual property rights as well as the rights 

of labor. Quite frankly, nowhere is there a greater example of this 

delicate balance that we must maintain that in the situation facing 

us in Colombia. There are so many right reasons that we really 

need to strengthen our trade partnerships with Colombia, but there 

is a problem of human rights in Colombia and especially the violation of labor rights and relationships with labor unions where there 

has been over the past several years a very serious pattern of violence and assassination of labor leaders. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back the balance of my 

time, and I hope that we can arrive at a very good discussion of 

how we move forward while at the same time understanding this 

delicate balance that our leadership must envelope. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Scott, and next I want to go to 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me just identify myself with the remarks of my colleague about his 

concerns about Colombia. However, let me add to that that the 

human rights problems of Colombia are minuscule as compared to 

those in Vietnam where we are rushing forward to try to help them 

develop their manufacturing base or in China, China. My gosh, the 

world’s worst human rights abuser, and yet a country whose policies we have permitted to be in place even while we gave them 

most favored nation status. 

Let me note that we are now at home in a horrible situation 

where our people can’t find work, where our people are being put 

out of their jobs, and I trace this right back to many different policies, but one of the most significant policies is that we have had 

5

a one-way free trade policy with the world’s worst human rights 

abuser, and let me note that Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Jesse 

Helms, Dana Rohrabacher, yours truly, Chris Cox, Chris Smith, 

Ben Gillman, Gerry Solomon all are people who fought most favored nation status and said it was going to lead to serious economic consequences for the United States and for working people 

here, and that is exactly what has happened. 

Of course, we were told well, if we just had most favored nation 

status, and we put all our investment there, and we let them use 

our technology that pretty soon there is going to be a liberalization, 

and China will no longer be a dictatorship as it is. I call that the 

hug-a-Nazi-make-a-liberal theory, and it didn’t work. China is just 

as dictatorial today. Actually, it is more dictatorial today than it 

was 25 years ago, and yet we have built up their economy, and 

what we have done is created a Frankenstein monster, and to the 

subject at hand today, how do they treat their labor force? 

I mean, the fact is that people over there who work over there 

have no more rights in terms of their economic rights as they do 

political rights. They live in a society controlled by a dictatorial 

clique, and if you get in their way, you disappear. People have tried 

organize unions, et cetera and try to uplift at least the working 

conditions of their people, find themselves what? With none of the 

freedoms that we say are so important here, so why are we granting that country most favored nation status, or as happened during 

the Clinton administration, permanent most favored nation status, 

and we are trying to push for the whole WTO thing. 

Well, with that said, Mr. Chairman, we need some serious talk 

about our China policy. I believe it is contributing basically to the 

downfall of the standard of living of the American people, and here 

is where again freedom and our commitment to freedom and liberty 

and justice has very serious consequences to the well-being of our 

country, and our people as I say are being put out of work. You 

go to the store, and you can’t buy anything that is not made in 

China, and you realize that the people in China, if somebody sticks 

their head up to complain, it is chopped off. 

We need to make sure that we look at this in a serious way. I 

want to congratulate Brad Sherman, who I know is paying close attention to this issue in his own subcommittee, and I look forward 

to working together with you, Mr. Chairman, and with Chairman 

Sherman, and maybe hopefully having a positive impact on this intolerable situation with Communist China. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, and now I want to 

turn it over to Chairman Sherman for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. In quick response to the gentleman 

from California, you asked why did we provide most favored nation 

status on a permanent basis to China. It is in the interest of Wall 

Street. It is in the interest of Wal-Mart. That is why we did it. 

Good to see Mike Posner again, and I want to apologize to both witnesses for me being late. Our caucus had a suddenly-called meeting 

on an issue very important to me and my district, and I thought 

I had to be there for at least part of it. 

Now turning to the hearing, the United States has a long history 

of supporting and strengthening labor rights. What I find troubling 

is that the U.S., in too many cases, has fallen short of its responsiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\TNT\031010\55396 HFA PsN: SHIRL
6

bility to be a global leader in protecting these fundamental human 

rights. For example, the International Labor Organization has 

adopted eight core conventions enshrining the most fundamental 

labor rights. These embody universally shared beliefs including 

eliminating the worst forms of child labor, granting freedom of association and protecting the right to organize. 

Unfortunately, America is one of only six nations that has ratified two or fewer of these core conventions. The U.S. position is 

particularly confusing given that these conventions were ratified by 

virtually every nation in the world. Currently, Convention 111 

eliminating employment discrimination sits before the Senate 

awaiting ratification. This convention has passed review by the 

Bush administration and representatives from Labor and Business, 

and I would hope the Senate would move forward. 

Of particular trouble to me is our right-to-work laws in roughly 

half of our states. This is an abomination in a country that claims 

to support internationally the right to organize and core labor 

standards. We should take significant steps to improve our own 

labor laws. These right-to-work laws are, in effect, a prohibition on 

effective organizing. They are harmful. They are harmful to the 

states involved. They are also harmful to states like my own, which 

allow labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete 

with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with 

those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them. 

According to the American Enterprise Institute, the reason that 

many key ILO conventions have not been ratified is the fear that 

some U.S. labor laws, particularly the right-to-work laws, would be 

found to violate international labor standards that have been accepted by the civilized world for close to 100 years. 

Now turning to Latin America. When we are looking at countries 

that are seeking trade privileges or seeking foreign aid, we can do 

more to assure reasonable conditions for labor. 

One example is the Dominican Republic and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which went into law in 2005. Then 

President Bush said the agreement would promote democratic governance, human rights and economic liberty for everyone. However, 

in June 2009, the Washington Office on Latin America published 

a report which revealed that labor conditions in CAFTA countries 

have not improved and violations have not diminished regardless 

of promises made by member countries to improve labor rights and 

millions of dollars invested by the United States to meet this objective. 

I am particularly concerned with one example of this lack of 

progress, and that is the murder of trade unionists in Guatemala. 

Unions report the murder of 40 unionists between 2007 and 2009. 

One such case is that of Pedro Zamora. In 2007, Mr. Zamora was 

ambushed and shot 20 times in the midst of contentious negotiations with the company. This man, his family and the workers he 

died representing have yet to receive justice. 

Indeed, the authorities have apprehended and tried only one person linked to the crime. However, that person was acquitted for 

still unknown reasons last year. It is unclear whether the government will appeal that acquittal and whether they will continue to 

7

search for others responsible for the murder or whether it is all a 

white-wash. The situation in Colombia is worse. Over 500 union 

members have been brutally murdered during Mr. Uribe’s presidency, and many more have received death threats against them 

or their family. This violence has a profound chilling effect on the 

ability of workers to exercise their rights. Far too few have been 

arrested and convicted for these crimes. In 2009, the rate of impunity remained well over 90 percent. 

Turning to Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Labor rights violations are not limited to one particular country in the world. They 

are just a handful of trading partners. Looking at Southeast Asia 

and Thailand alone, Human Rights Watch recently reported widespread and severe human rights abuses faced by workers including 

killing, torture in detention, sexual abuse and labor rights abuses 

such as trafficking, forced labor and restrictions on organizing. 

Some of the most glaring examples come from the Middle East. 

For example, the State Department Annual Trafficking and Persons Report found that many immigrants from South Asia who 

moved to Oman to work as domestic servants or low-skilled workers find themselves in conditions indicative of involuntary servitude, such as withholding of passports and other restrictions on 

movement, nonpayment of wages, long hours without rest or food, 

threats, physical and sexual abuse. 

These are conditions that no one finds acceptable. I want to work 

with my colleagues and with the administration in focusing on 

these abuses. The State Department will release its annual country 

reports on human rights. I believe that is tomorrow, and I know 

Mr. Posner’s staff has been working, if not around the clock, at 

least long hours on that report, so I am particularly interested to 

learn whether, and how, our foreign assistance programs, including 

the Millennium Challenge Corporation, are working in the best interests of workers at home and abroad. 

This is an opportunity to see what steps can be taken to improve 

labor rights standards tied to our trade policy, including the standards in the free trade agreements or the Generalized System of 

Preferences which provide preferential, duty-free entry for thousands of products from over 100 beneficiary countries and territories. Given the troubling labor rights abuses that persist around 

the globe, I look forward to the opportunity to hear from the witnesses and would also like their comment on the degree to which 

American laws, particularly right-to-work laws, violate internationally-accepted labor standards. Thank you for the time. I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Chairman Sherman. Now I want to 

turn to our first panel starting with Michael Posner, assistant secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you, Chairman Carnahan, Chairman Sherman, other members of the subcommittees. Thanks for holding this 

hearing and for inviting me to testify. I am going to ask that my 

written comments be submitted to the record. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection. 

8

Mr. POSNER. As Chairman Sherman mentioned, tomorrow we are 

releasing our annual country reports on human rights practices. In 

each of the 194 country chapters, there is sections on workers 

rights providing a detailed look at these issues in the countries you 

have talked about, China and Vietnam and Colombia, Guatemala 

and others. While there are some positive trends we see, there also 

are far too many countries where workers are suffering abuses in 

various of forms of discrimination. 

I list a number in my testimony, but to give an example, in 

Uzbekistan, authorities continue to compel children to harvest cotton for export. In countries like China and Iran and Cuba and 

other places, labor activists continue to risk being fired or 

blacklisted even in prison, and as several of you have mentioned 

in places like Colombia and Guatemala, labor activists continue to 

be targeted for violence and even death. 

Throughout the world, dangerous working conditions remain all 

too common. There was a fire last month in an apparel factory in 

Bangladesh that took the lives of 26 workers, mostly women. The 

global economic downturn has thrown millions of people out of 

work, destroyed savings and forced millions to migrate. The burden 

of this global downturn has fallen most heavily on the world’s most 

vulnerable workers. That is what we are doing here today to describe ways in which we can address their plight. 

Women comprise the majority of victims of forced labor and 

abuse in sweat shops. Domestic workers are particularly vulnerable, and although we have seen some progress on child labor in 

places like Brazil, the worst forms of child labor continue to darken 

the future of tens of millions of children around the world. I want 

to just take the few minutes I have here to talk about a few things 

that we are trying to do in this administration. Our efforts to address these challenges fall into three broad categories. 

The first is labor diplomacy, which I think is a key. Every day 

we work to advance labor rights by talking directly and frankly 

with other governments. We raise our concerns on a broad range 

of issues, and we do so through our diplomats but also through 40 

labor-designated positions in the foreign service. We are focused 

now on reviewing their role and their responsibilities. We are also 

working with the foreign service institute to provide enhanced 

training and guidance. 

We have increased our training options, and we are working very 

closely with the Department of Labor and my terrific colleague 

Sandra Polaski on this. The second thing that we do is to provide 

technical assistance. Beginning in the 1990s under the partnership 

to eliminate sweat shops, we have been spending a growing percentage of our time and money in the Bureau of Democracy, Rights 

and Labor to address these issues through programs where we provide training. We provide legal representation. 

We improve multi-stakeholder engagements, and we work to protect vulnerable workers. We now have about $26 million a year in 

various programs around the world, and again in my testimony, I 

list some of those. In recent years, the trade agenda also has created opportunities. I am sure we are going to get into that in some 

of the questions, but in the CAFTA countries, places like Jordan, 

9

Bangladesh, there are opportunities to push within the context of 

trade agreements for greater protection of rights. 

The third area, a broad area where we are working and continue 

to work and expand our work is in building partnerships and 

broader engagement. We can’t do this alone in the State Department or the Labor Department. It is critical that we involve other 

Federal agencies and that we work with others outside of government. The ILO, for example, is a terrific partner, and we are pushing for strong action with them on the worst abusers of workers 

rights including child labor and forced labor. 

We are working to strengthen American participation in the 

OECD guidelines and multinational enterprises, and we are working with John Ruggie, who is the U.N. Special Representative on 

Human Rights and Transnational Corporations. It is important 

that the government also seek to push notions of corporate social 

responsibility. Let me close by saying that we are committed to 

working with Congress. We are committed to making these priorities for this administration, and we eagerly await your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Posner follows:]

10


55396b-1.eps
11


55396b-2.eps
12


55396b-3.eps
13


55396b-4.eps
14


55396b-5.eps
15

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Posner, and next I want to go 

to Deputy Under Secretary Polaski. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SANDRA POLASKI, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF LABOR 

Ms. POLASKI. Good afternoon, Mr. Carnahan and Mr. Scott. On 

behalf of the Department of Labor and Secretary Hilda Solis, I 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the role of labor issues 

in the Obama administration’s global agenda. I have also submitted more extensive written comments, and I ask that they be 

submitted to the record. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection. 

Ms. POLASKI. Thank you, and I am also pleased to share this 

panel with Assistant Secretary Posner. As he said, we work closely 

together, and I think his vision for the State Department and mine 

for the Labor Department in the international labor realm strongly 

compliment each other. Secretary Solis’ vision is that we work to 

provide ‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone.’’ When she launched this slogan 

and this mission for the Department of Labor, one can think very 

quickly about its impact in terms of the domestic U.S. economy, but 

this is also a very important part of our agenda internationally as 

well as domestically. 

To provide prosperity and jobs here at home, we need a sound 

and balanced global economy, one in which workers everywhere are 

able to share in the benefits of economic growth. If workers in developing countries don’t earn sustainable wages, if they don’t earn 

enough to buy the goods that they produce, they won’t earn enough 

to buy the goods that we produce, and we will see a repeat of the 

imbalances in the global economy that were partially the cause for 

the current economic crisis. 

The crisis has also made it more urgent that we attend to labor 

rights internationally because I think as Chairman Carnahan indicated in his opening remarks, when there is large unemployment, 

the bargaining power of labor goes down, and workers become more 

vulnerable to the most extreme forms of exploitation, including 

some of those that Mike Posner just spoke about including servitude and trafficking. Today, I would like to talk very briefly in 

my oral remarks about what the Department of Labor is doing in 

order to try to raise these living standards and working conditions 

globally. 

We work through three main channels: First of all through trade 

agreements and trade preference programs; second through technical assistance—projects on the ground in developing countries; 

and third through policy dialogue with foreign governments. First, 

the trade framework, something which has been referred to by all 

of the members who spoke. Our trade preference programs benefit 

approximately 140 developing countries, and our free trade agreements with labor provisions cover 16 trading partner countries. All 

of these agreements and trade preference programs include protections for labor rights. 

Protecting these labor rights in our trading partners is a reflection of our values as a society, and it also promotes our own economic prosperity in the ways I have already mentioned. By raising 

16

living standards, we hope to build the middle classes of our trading 

partner countries and trade recipient countries and allow them to 

buy the things that they produce, that we produce and that other 

countries produce. 

To ensure that our trading partners meet the labor obligations 

in these preference programs, including AGOA that Ranking Member Rohrabacher mentioned and the other preference programs, 

ILAB has increased is monitoring and analysis of what is happening on the ground in these countries that enjoy the preference 

programs and trade agreements, and we are doing this in part by 

adding significant additional staff this year with additional funds 

that Congress so kindly provided for us in the Fiscal Year 2010 

budget. 

In fact, we expect to increase our staff by about 15 percent this 

year, and we are increasing the intensity and the level of analysis 

of our monitoring and reporting on these conditions. We are also 

increasing the level of our engagement with foreign governments. 

As Mike mentioned, the State Department is in dialogue with foreign governments every day on these issues of human rights and 

labor rights, and we are as well. We follow up on our analysis by 

talking to governments, pointing out what the problems are, what 

is wrong and offering them assistance to deal with these problems 

and to improve the conditions for their workers. 

Second, we also work to bolster worker rights through innovative 

technical assistance programs on the ground. We particularly look 

for opportunities to find foreign governments who demonstrate the 

political will to improve their own workers’ living conditions and 

rights at work. One example of the kind of technical assistance 

that we are providing is a very innovative program called Better 

Work, which is a factory monitoring program that we originally 

launched during the Clinton administration starting in Cambodia. 

It is a factory-monitoring program where the ILO goes into the 

factories in the export processing zones, monitors the conditions 

and reports what they find completely transparently on the internet for all to see, so consumers know the conditions, workers know 

the conditions, the international buyers know the conditions, and 

all governments know them. This has the effect of aligning the incentives facing the buyers, the sellers, the consumers and the 

workers along with the governments because we provide information that otherwise would not be available. 

We launched this program 10 years ago in Cambodia. It has 

proven to be a dramatic success. Studies have shown that it is the 

most significant factor in alleviating poverty in that low-income 

country, and we are now launching Better Work programs in other 

countries as well. Ranking Member Rohrabacher will be interested 

to know that Lesotho has asked us for such a program, and we indeed used funds from our last year’s budget to launch that program. 

We have now hired an executive director for the program, and 

we expect the monitoring to be up and running in months, and the 

government of Lesotho and the industry feels that this will be a 

needed advantage to keep the industry healthy and to allow it to 

grow and to create jobs in that African country. We have also 

launched such a program in Haiti, and despite the earthquake, we 

17

are hoping that program can nevertheless proceed and again attract investors and jobs to Haiti where they are so desperately 

needed. 

We are currently exploring the possibility of launching a program 

like this in Central America, and I know that Chairman Sherman 

was particularly interested in what has happened under the 

CAFTA–DR, and we feel that more robust approaches, such as this 

example, will be needed in order to improve the outcomes for workers under that trade agreement. 

We are also working to devise innovative programs to address 

child labor. Congress has been very generous in appropriating 

money for DOL to address international child labor issues for the 

last 15 years, and we are ready to launch a new generation of child 

labor projects that try to address the root causes of child labor, including the poverty of their families, and we hope to be able to 

launch the first of these programs very shortly in El Salvador 

again addressing the concerns that have been raised by members 

of this committee. 

The third channel through which ILAB works is policy dialogue 

with other countries. Our goal here is to improve labor rights 

through bilateral engagement and also through multilateral and 

global engagement. An excellent example of this kind of policy dialogue is the meeting that you referred to, Chairman Carnahan, the 

meeting of G–20 Labor and Employment Ministers, which Secretary Hilda Solis will host here in Washington April 20 and 21 of 

this year. 

When President Obama met with the leaders of the G–20 countries in Pittsburgh last September at their summit meeting, he 

suggested that it was important for the heads of state of the G–

20 to increase their focus on jobs because this is the most serious 

challenge facing many of our countries, and he offered to them that 

Secretary Solis would host their Labor and Employment Ministers 

to examine what has happened in our labor markets, the policies 

that we have implemented, to look at the results that we have had 

from those policies, share experiences and then try to improve global policy so that we can indeed have this raising of living standards 

and incomes around the world. 

On the basis of that meeting, we will make a set of recommendations to the heads of state when they meet in June in Canada. Let 

me conclude by just noting that I am certain that the administration and the members of this committee all clearly recognize the 

need for more jobs and for good jobs here in the United States, and 

I think from the international perspective that you all expressed in 

your opening remarks, I don’t need to say once again that we will 

not be able to guarantee those good jobs here at home unless we 

can raise conditions for workers around the world, so I thank you 

again for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Polaski follows:]

18


55396c-1.eps
19


55396c-2.eps
20


55396c-3.eps
21


55396c-4.eps
22


55396c-5.eps
23

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you very much, and we want to start with 

questions with Chairman Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. These hearings are very important, 

but when it rains, it pours. I represent Northridge. They are having hearings right now on natural disaster insurance, so I will 

leave the room for a bit. I will be fully briefed on what you say. 

I will be back in touch by phone, and I thank Chairman Carnahan 

for letting me go first with my questions here. 

Mr. Posner, let us say a particular country simply had a law prohibiting labor organizing. Would that fact alone cause some negative comment in the Human Rights reports? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. In the course of preparing the Human Rights 

reports, we look at a range of the fundamental rights that you have 

identified that the ILO has identified, and countries like China and 

Vietnam that prohibit people from organizing. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. What about for the Millennium Challenge Account? If a country just prohibited labor organizing, would 

that count against it in its total effort to qualify for the Millennium 

Challenge Account? 

Mr. POSNER. I think the Millennium Challenge Account looks at 

a range of indicators or factors of which political civil rights broadly are one. I don’t think they have a particular standard that looks 

precisely at labor, but it is in broader context, yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So it would almost be up to a State Department 

decision whether the right to organize is a human right. Do you 

have a position on that? I know that Millennium Challenge Account requires respect for human rights. Does that include the 

right to organize? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. I think there is now in fact, and I have had 

some discussions with people at the Millennium Challenge Account, there is I think a review of the various indicators that they 

are using, and one of the things we are discussing is broadening 

the human rights indicators beyond the democracy indicators from 

I think Freedom House that they use, but that is very much part 

of our discussion. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Democracy and slavery can co-exist. We proved 

that in this country unfortunately 150 years ago, and a country 

that has slavery and democracy should not qualify. Returning 

though to your standards of the human rights reports, let us say 

a country didn’t officially ban all labor unions, but had some ruse 

or some provision in effect to accomplish the same thing. Would 

you then adversely comment on that law in the human rights reports? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, and we do routinely look at both legal prohibitions but also practical impediments to people being allowed to organize and to represent their interests as workers. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know you can’t do it, but I want you to issue a 

human rights report chapter on the 20 some states that have rightto-work laws. By the standards you have told these subcommittees 

here today, the United States should be adversely commented upon 

in any human rights report issued by any country that follows the 

same standards as the United States State Department. There are 

two Generalized System of Preferences petitions pending. One is 

against Sri Lanka. I believe that has been pending for 2 years. 

24

The unions only want a hearing on their case, and for the U.S. 

Government to engage with the Government of Sri Lanka to adopt 

a work plan to enact needed legal reforms and to address persistent problems in enforcement. As far as I know, no agency has 

challenged the facts or merits of that Sri Lankan petition. Why, 

nearly 2 years later, can the United States not decide to accept the 

petition and develop a plan with the Government of Sri Lanka to 

address the issues in that petition, and I will address that to 

whichever witness. I believe it is more of a State Department question. 

Ms. POLASKI. Chairman Sherman, you are right. That petition 

has been outstanding for a while. It is a live petition. It has not 

been dismissed, which means that it has the potential to be utilized 

to produce improvements. We in the new administration have 

stepped up our efforts to look at that situation and to engage, and 

I am afraid I don’t have any real progress to report to you now, 

but I can assure that we are in a discussion in the interagency 

process about the need to address the allegations that are in that 

petition. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Will it take another 2 years or another 2 months? 

Ms. POLASKI. I hope it will not be 2 years. I hope it will be closer 

to 2 months. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe my time has expired. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to recognize Ranking Member Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Let me ask this question. The World 

Bank has estimated that developed world agricultural subsidies 

cost poor economies about $60 billion a year. These subsidies seriously harm the livelihood of workers abroad. What is the administration’s position on U.S. agricultural subsidies, specifically their 

impact on workers in the developing world? 

Ms. POLASKI. Ranking Member, I don’t fully understand the 

question. Would you mind repeating it, please? 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, we have agricultural subsidies in the United States to the tune of $60 billion a year. 

Ms. POLASKI. Subsidies? 

Mr. ROYCE. Subsidies, yes. Taxpayer subsidies, and that clearly 

affects the well-being of farmers that are competing in the rest of 

the world with a situation where rather than rely on markets, we 

have produced a taxpayer subsidy here in the U.S. It is one of the 

reasons we have difficulty liberalizing trade with other countries 

around the world because of these subsidies that we run here. I am 

asking for the position of the administration or their thoughts on 

reducing these subsidies in exchange for reducing other impediments so that we can liberalize trade around the world. It would 

be beneficial to populations, especially in Africa where so many 

people rely on this as a livelihood. 

Mr. POSNER. Congressman Royce, these are issues that I am sure 

representatives of the Department of Agriculture deal with all the 

time. I am glad to take the question and then have them respond. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, let me put it this way. This is a worker issue 

because West African cotton workers are getting hammered by our 

cotton subsidies, which cost American taxpayers very dearly to the 

tune of $60 billion for all subsidies. Meanwhile, the President’s 

trade plan reports on all the aid that we are providing to West AfVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\TNT\031010\55396 HFA PsN: SHIRL
25

rica’s agricultural sector, which also costs our taxpayers dearly, so 

we fund efforts to build capacity with one hand, and we decimate 

Mali’s and Niger’s competitiveness with the other. I hope this is an 

issue that can be seriously looked at. I would hope that you would 

think that through in terms of what kind of sense that would 

make. 

Under the GSP Program, Colombia enjoys duty-free access to the 

U.S. market for the vast majority of its goods. That access continues regardless of the status of the pending Colombia trade 

agreement, and that agreement primarily lowers Colombian barriers to U.S. goods and services, so by not approving this agreement, we are maintaining a very unbalanced commercial relationship with Colombia, essentially giving it a free ride. 

How does this serve President Obama’s goals of doubling U.S. exports? Let me ask how many U.S. sales do you estimate are being 

lost because of high Colombian trade barriers, which would be reduced if this were to pass, and why isn’t the administration aggressively backing the Colombian FTA? 

Ms. POLASKI. If you don’t mind, Ranking Member, I would like 

to go back a moment to your previous question, which for some reason it took me a moment to understand about the agricultural subsidies. I did want to point out that in President Obama’s proposed 

budget for Fiscal Year 2010 he did suggest a number of serious 

modifications to the subsidies programs that I think went some distance to addressing the concerns that you have expressed. However, they were not enacted in the final analysis, and I do not know 

if they are in the new budget, but my guess is that there would 

be such measures in the budget proposal for this year. 

Mr. ROYCE. I would hope to see more leadership by the administration on this issue, and also on the issue of Colombia, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports violence 

against trade unionists has declined dramatically since President 

Uribe took office. That was in 2002. We are 8 years past that. In 

2008, the Washington Post noted that the number of murdered 

trade union members, now that is members, not leaders, was less 

than .2 percent of the 17,000 murdered Colombians, and it concluded this hardly suggests a campaign on anti-union terrorism in 

Colombia. Do you agree with that conclusion? 

Ms. POLASKI. We have been relieved I think is the right word to 

see that there has been a decline in the rate of murders against 

trade unionists in Colombia, and that decline has persisted over a 

number of years. Unfortunately, there was a slight increase over 

the last few years, although not to the levels that we had seen earlier. What we are doing there is a couple of things. We are working 

together with USTR together with the State Department and other 

agencies to try to develop a list of the measures that we think 

would effectively address the existing problems including the violence that does exist. 

It is down, but it is certainly not eliminated. Specifically, the impunity, the problem that most of those murders that have occurred 

over the years have not been resolved, the vast majority have not 

been resolved, and we feel that to have any deterrent effect, you 

have to address the murders that have happened in the past and 

the problems with labor law. We are working actually to produce 

26

a set of very concrete benchmarks that the Colombian Government 

can implement in order to progress to the point that this legislation 

would be acceptable to Congress. 

Mr. ROYCE. And the impact, the barrier are on U.S. goods going 

into Colombia by failure to pass this legislation because Colombia 

goods come into our market. 

Ms. POLASKI. Understood. Understood, and I would go to Mr. 

Scott’s comment that there is a delicate balance between the economic opportunity and the basic human rights and labor rights 

that we have to keep in mind as part of the overall picture. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, your untenable position that Uribe is standing 

in the way of labor rights, which I don’t believe, the Post doesn’t 

believe, I don’t think you really believe it, as opposed to discussing 

a government like China’s is to me phenomenal, but I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POSNER. Can I just add a word on it? I think what Sandra 

Polaski said is that we are very mindful of the fact and share your 

assessment that the level of violence against trade unionists has 

gone down. It is still at a very high and unacceptable level. That 

doesn’t mean that it is the sole responsibility of President Uribe. 

It is a condition in the country. It is a violent place. There is still 

between 25 and 40 labor leaders killed every year. 

Those levels are highly unacceptable for any society, and they 

are threats. There is a range of other issues beyond the murders 

that we are determined to look at. That is a piece of the puzzle. 

It does not determine entirely how we set a trade policy with Colombia, but it is an important piece. That is all. 

Mr. ROYCE. No, no. I am just looking at Vietnam versus this and 

the absolute antithesis, and frankly, a lot of those labor unions’ 

labor leaders are people that I would agree with. My grandfather 

was a labor union organizer. I am just saying the fact that Vietnam 

gets one standard given the appalling, unbelievable conditions and 

repressions that goes on in that country, and you have an elected 

democrat here, Uribe, where because of what happened 10 years 

ago, you can’t get past figuring out how to address that, it just 

seems rather odd to me. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I want to recognize Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me pick 

up on what my good friend, Congressman Royce, has opened here 

and the situation with Colombia and see if we can’t get a little 

more light on this. I went down to Colombia myself with then Secretary Rice about 2 years ago and visited with Uribe, the entire administration. The sad fact of the matter is that what we have here 

is not just a casual situation regarding labor leaders. 

It is a targeted effort, and it is manifested within an arena of a 

lot of violence. There is drug trafficking. There is the FARC down 

there. Here is the issue. The issue is that to what extent is the government involved in this, and there have been some indication that 

that is true. When I was down there, I put that question directly 

to President Uribe and the administration. There have been eyewitness accounts where the soldiers themselves have shot and 

killed trade unionists. 

It has been in the news there, and since 1988, there have been 

2,756 labor trade unionists killed. That doesn’t count others that 

27

have been wounded and all of the other things that are happening. 

Secondly, it is not just that, but it is when the culprits get caught. 

There is no trial. There is impunity. The question is how can we 

have a trade policy as we want to, I want to? To what degree do 

we bring down our standards if we engage in a trade pack with a 

country with this kind of record? 

The question becomes what can the United States do, what can 

we do, to help workers in Colombia who are fighting for their 

rights? What more can we do to get the government itself to take 

a more active, aggressive role in bringing fair justice to these trade 

unionists because if you have impunity, and they are allowed to get 

away with it, and there is some complicity within the government 

itself, those are things that we can correct, so the question is what 

are we doing to correct and give the actual help down to Colombia 

that we need. 

Mr. POSNER. It is a good question, Congressman. I am glad you 

are continuing this line. There is I think an opportunity. As you 

know, President Uribe is not going to seek a third term, and we 

are in a transition, which is going to provide on a range of issues 

an opportunity to renew and open up discussions on human rights 

and a range of other issues. One of the challenges, which you have 

identified so well, is that it is not just that there is a high level 

of violence, but there has been a history of impunity, and it is weak 

judicial system by Colombia, who I have met with, have acknowledges as much. 

We can and should be doing more to strengthen it. We can and 

should be doing more to work with labor leaders and organizations 

concerned about these issues in Colombia. We are doing some of 

that. I think we could do more. I think there really are opportunities here to break the cycle of violence, but it is longstanding. It 

has been at a very high level, and it is something that is going to 

require more than a few months of effort, but we are determined 

to do it. 

We are interested. We are committed to it, and I think you are 

right to keep pressing us. This is an area where there is a serious 

issue, one that needs to be addressed and one where we can and 

should be doing more. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, and just want to emphasize for the record so we 

really know how serious this is, that of those more than 2,700 

killings, more than 95 percent of them have had no convictions. 

That is astounding that over this period of time out of all of those 

killings, 95 percent of them, in other words less than 5 percent of 

them have been resolved. Ninety-five percent of the killers have 

gone free, and so I think that is the fundamental question we have 

got to ask. 

I wanted to ask this other question. In June 2009, the Washington office on Latin America published a report that revealed 

that the labor conditions in the DR CAFTA countries have not improved and violations have not diminished regardless of promises 

made by member countries to improve labor rights and the millions 

of dollars invested by the United States to meet that objective, and 

moreover they found that the labor situation in Central America 

was deteriorating further due to the global economic crisis. 

28

My question is would you recommend that the United States 

support efforts to strengthen labor rights and combat impunity in 

the DR CAFTA countries by negotiating the agreement and increasing the weight of penalties for labor violations? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. If the witnesses would yield, I am going to ask 

you to answer that as briefly as you can because we do need to get 

on to some of the other members. 

Ms. POLASKI. Yes. I would just say, Congressman, that you are 

absolutely right that we can do more in CAFTA–DR. Of course, the 

crisis has hit those countries and the workers in those countries as 

it has hit us and a number of other countries, and so a part of that 

is addressing the overall economic recovery, but we think that 

there is much more we can do in the region, and I mention specifically that we are looking at launching the type of factory monitoring program that was so successful in Cambodia, and we have 

had a good reception in at least one Central American country, 

which would put a spotlight on conditions in the factories there. 

We think that it could be very successful. We have had other 

countries come forward and ask for very innovative child labor programs, so we think that if we look separately at each of those countries, and where is the political will and what are the opportunities, we can probably make some very, very good progress in some 

countries, and if we can’t make progress, then of course we have 

to think about utilizing the various enforcement mechanisms that 

we have in that agreement. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and if 

we are focusing on Colombia, let me just note the statistics we 

have been talking about here are from 1988. Frankly, I don’t know 

what is relevant from something 22 years ago when the country 

was in the middle of a revolution. I mean, there was a lot of people 

being killed there absent of the labor union movement, but is it my 

understanding from the witnesses today that yes, Colombia has 

had problems, and they still have problems, but the trend line is 

something that is positive, is that correct? 

Ms. POLASKI. Congressman, I think that the number of murders 

is down. I would agree with my colleague, Mike Posner, that 40 

murders a year of trade unionists is 40 too many, so even though 

the trend line is down, it still is extremely high. It is still the most 

dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist, and the 

progress on impunity, the progress on prosecuting the perpetrators 

of those crimes has not really improved, so that is one point. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, but let me just note that when you are 

talking about Colombia, when you have the revolutionary and violent revolutionary situation that they had, quite often that spills 

over into other areas of social life where you have people who are 

organizing unions who now you have got armed groups of people 

who are for hire there, and quite often there is ‘‘us versus them’’ 

mindset that creates this, and again it should not be tolerated. I 

am not tolerating. I am just suggesting that if we are going to take 

a look at countries of concern, I think Colombia is improving its situation. 

I see no improvement in Vietnam. I see no improvement in 

China. Let me ask about China. I remember when I was younger 

29

I spent the summer of 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was quite a 

volatile situation then as well, but I remember that the trade 

unions were upset because they could not form a union because 

they were told well, we have one big union in communist countries. 

This is the workers’ union, and all it was was a front for the communist party, which of course suppressed anybody who was making 

any demands at the workplace. Is that the situation in China as 

well that nobody is permitted to have a union except the big communist party-controlled union? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. This is not a trivial detail in the way the Chinese Government operates. Central party control of all institutions, 

including labor, there is a central union, which is really a part of 

the party government apparatus, and no unions are allowed to 

form. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Well, that happened in Cuba, too. We 

know that when Castro took over, forgetting all these kids who are 

wearing these Che Guevara shirts don’t understand the Che 

Guevara personally took trade union leaders out and shot them, 

murdered them by the hundreds, trade union leaders because they 

were starting their communist party All Workers Union. What is 

significant today however is the fact that our people here are being 

put out of work because we permitted a respectable trade status 

with a country that does not permit unions other than the one that 

is controlled by the government. 

Let me just note that I do disagree with my good friend, Brad, 

on right-to-work laws. There is a jump here. I happen to believe 

that people have a right to join a union, and I think that they don’t 

have that right in places like China. Well, it is one thing to say 

that. It is another thing to say well, everyone has to join the union. 

I don’t believe that you should be able to force people to join the 

union. 

I think in our country that the fact that you have been able to 

force people to join unions rather than depend on people joining up 

and being solid and having solidarity together voluntarily has led 

to corruption within our own union system where some union 

bosses have known that people have to join anyway, and that does 

not work to the benefit of a very effective union system in our own 

country, so I just wanted to make sure I got that on the record because I certainly don’t believe that right-to-work laws are a violation of anyone’s right who wants to join a union voluntarily. 

I might add I joined a union voluntarily. I was a member of the 

Communication Workers of America, and I helped unionize my 

shop when I was working as a young journalist, and my boss got 

what he deserved, et cetera, but the fact is that I had a right to 

do that, and I made sure that as we did that, that everybody in 

that shop knew well, don’t worry. I mean, officially you have to 

join, but that is not what this is all about, and by the way, everybody in my shop joined that union. It was a perfect voluntary situation, so as we move forward, I hope in this discussion, Mr. Chairman, that we realize the implications are over there, and the implications are here. 

Yes, we are concerned about the human rights in China, in Vietnam, Colombia and other countries. We are also concerned in countries that violate human rights of their working people whether or 

30

not that means that our people here end up out of work, and the 

wages here get bid down because we are permitting a free trade 

status with countries that are fundamentally not free. I would suggest free trade between free people is a good thing, a win-win. 

One-way free trade or free trade with a dictatorship undermines 

the well-being of our own people except it does enrich our corporate 

elite, who end up giving themselves big bonuses for short-term 

profit as their own companies go under because they have invested 

their money over in China where eventually it becomes the property of the Chinese. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Now I would like 

to recognize Congresswoman Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and the 

ranking member for an instructive and important hearing, and I 

ask the witnesses to accept my apologies. We are on the floor debating the resolution regarding Afghanistan. I would like to track 

the line of reasoning of my colleague from Georgia and also say to 

my distinguished colleague from California we don’t have an atmosphere in America where people are forced to join a union. 

It may be that in the energy of organizing, it is a vigorous campaign, but in the current 21st century and 20th century, union organizing has been open and transparent and up for acceptance or 

rejection, but more importantly, I don’t know the last time when 

a governmental entity killed a union leader because of their organizing here in the United States. There is certainly history in any 

movement where loss of life occurs, and I think what we are talking about today is a completely different set of circumstances which 

has to do with the oppressive, appointed and directed killing of individuals who are seeking worker and human rights. 

I associate those two forces together, human rights and worker 

rights, and I would like to try to probe what is the sense of the administration’s position. I have seen the President put a whole new 

face on American foreign policy, and I, for one, am celebrating. I 

think it has been invigorating. I think it has been positive, and I 

think we get things done, so my question is does the administration view workers’ rights as consistent and equal to human rights? 

In that instance where we are conflicted, where we are in conflicts such as the continuing conflict now waning in Iraq, the rising 

conflict in Afghanistan that many of us are asking for an assessment and reconsideration, but my colleague spoke eloquently about 

Colombia and the right to justice for those who lost their lives, my 

question is that if we send our troops in harms way, shouldn’t one 

of the elements of the purpose of us being there, certainly not to 

dominate by an exact, if I will, copy of America’s Government and 

policies and Constitution, we can do that, but the basic simplicity 

of worker rights and human rights, so would you give an assessment of what you think human rights and worker rights are in 

Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Would you also assess what you think human rights and worker 

rights are in the Mid East, in particular places like Oman where 

they are just symbolic of those who come to work in domestic positions and lose their passports and are held in involuntary servitude, and the other point that I would make if you would comment on because we in Congress need to be your friend, what is 

31

the legislative fix that we need in order for worker rights and 

human rights to be in the forefront of any conflict that we engage 

in? 

We are putting American treasure on the ground. We are losing 

American treasure, and we leave these countries in the same condition that we found them, abusing human rights and abusing worker rights, and might I add to that as to whether or not you have 

seen any progress in China, who we worked with since the PNTR 

was passed under the Clinton administration? The concept of that 

was to open opportunities so there could be some role-modeling so 

that China could see how things flowed in the Western world, not 

to take them out of completely out of their governmental structure, 

but look at the issues of religious freedom, worker rights and 

human rights. 

Mr. POSNER. At least three different subject that are connected, 

and let me try to take them one at a time. In December, Secretary 

Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown where she outlined the intersection and the indivisibility of human rights, democracy and development, and when we talk about these concepts, and when she 

talks about these concepts, and the President does, we have a 

broad notion of democracy and human rights, which includes the 

right of civil society to function, rule of law, the right of trade 

unions to operate, free press, transparency and the lack of corruption, the right to vote. 

There is a broad spectrum of things that are brought under that 

concept, which I think certainly includes notions of the rights of 

workers, and so I think we have a good framework and a good 

foundation to work on these issues within that context. When you 

talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, I think realistically the reports 

will show that conditions for workers are poor, but we are in war 

situations. We are in I think in moment in Iraq with an election 

just having occurred where we need to be and should be spending 

more time trying to nail down some of the commitments the government has made and make them real. 

We are going to be in the next months, as we withdraw our own 

presence there, trying to build up these democratic institutions, 

and I think if our efforts there are to be validated over time and 

history, one of the things we need to be holding ourselves accountable to is that we live our values and that we try to impart standards like the rights of workers there, so that will be I think an important piece of what we need to be doing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may? Those areas will always be conflicted, and if we don’t make the point forcefully or firmly that 

shedding our blood equals to certain values such as human rights 

and workers rights, we will still leave them in the same condition 

that we found them in. 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, I very much agree. You mentioned the Gulf 

states, Oman and others. The problem you identify is particularly 

severe that of domestic workers, a lot of them brought in from 

other countries and living in and working in situations that are 

just totally deplorable and unacceptable. It is part of what we are 

trying to do. It is part of a broader human rights effort. There is 

an office in the States Department looking just at trafficking that 

32

is very focused on these issues, but these are places, and these are 

issues we need to put a lot of attention. They are critical problems. 

The last bit on China, there are some interesting developments, 

but it is still a very restrictive environment. What I said before is 

the principal piece, the government tightly controls the ability of 

workers to organize. It doesn’t allow people to organize freely outside of the state-run, party-run central union. There are a range 

of other problems, health and safety, forced labor, re-education 

through labor camps, lots and lots of problems with people working 

long hours, usually young women. It is a very serious set of issues, 

and I think we owe it to ourselves and again as part of a broader 

human rights policy to make these issues front and center. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I just yield to you just for 

one moment, and I will be very quick? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Proceed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This looks like a framework for legislation. We 

have all spoken eloquently over the years. We are members of 

human rights caucuses, and when I hear this, and I know there is 

a report coming out, it just looks like it is begging for some sort 

of emphasis in our trade negotiations. The city of Houston has become a repository for human trafficking. We have task forces and 

local authorities looking at people coming in from South and Central America. 

I would just say that if we can work together with the administration, it is heart in the right place and maybe need some extra 

resources or regulatory scheme, we have a problem on the condition of workers and the condition of human rights around the world 

as evidenced by the testimony of the Secretary, so I yield back and 

hope we can work together on some framework that is a little 

stronger that what apparently we have presently now. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I do as well, and I thank the gentlewoman, and 

I want to recognize gentlewoman from California, Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think this is a 

very relevant hearing. I would like to thank the witnesses, as well 

make a comment and then raise a question. At a rubber plantation 

in Harbel, Liberia, U.S. corporation Firestone National Rubber 

Company has had a long history of poor working conditions, child 

labor abuses and requiring workers to meet exceptionally high 

daily production quotas. After years of neglecting workers’ concerns, Firestone in the year 2008 made a positive step forward by 

addressing these issues and signed a new collective bargaining 

agreement. 

The agreement included a number of improvements including 

lowering production quotas, higher wages, greater safety productions. However, the agreement has not been fully implemented, 

and employees report still being told to produce at the old quota 

levels. As a result, because a single individual cannot produce at 

such unrealistic levels, workers are forced to bring wives and children to work to help them meet the demand. Children are once 

again forced to work against their will, so what has the United 

States done to try to end child labor practices or otherwise improve 

working conditions on this plantation? Both of you, could you give 

us a response? 

33

Ms. POLASKI. I can just say, Congresswoman, I am not aware of 

that particular situation, but I can promise you that we will look 

into it, and we will see what possible ways we may intervene in 

order to try to improve that situation. We have done a lot of work 

on child labor issues in West Africa generally, but perhaps not as 

much in Liberia, and so we will look into that, and we will get back 

to your office with our results. 

Ms. WATSON. All right. In this particular issue with Firestone, 

you might not have the details on that. Mr. Posner, would you? 

Okay. Well, what do you suggest that we should do to end other 

instances of unfair child labor practices or to improve the working 

conditions where U.S. companies are not addressing this issue. Do 

you have any ideas what we can do in that regard? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. Just a couple of things. I think one of the most 

interesting and to me innovative and exciting opportunities we 

have is work we are doing with the Government of Brazil and the 

International Labor Organization on this issue of child labor. The 

Government of Brazil has begun to work with some of its neighboring countries, and is now looking also to work with some of the 

Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa. We are helping to fund 

that. 

We are working in a tripartite arrangement with the International Labor Organization, which is really expert in this area, 

but it is the kind of innovative approach that I think really has the 

potential to bear results. With regard to companies in particular, 

I think this administration, and I am particularly interested in trying to push harder for companies to accept their individual and collective responsibility. 

The government can do so much. The ILO can do more, but we 

need also to have partners in the corporate community who take 

their responsibilities seriously. Some of the issues in West Africa, 

for example, involve cocoa production and cocoa farming in the 

candy industry. We have got all kinds of issues with apparel and 

toys and low-wage labor-intensive industries throughout the world, 

in Asia, Latin America. There need to be greater efforts by more 

companies to take these things seriously, and I think we in the 

government need to be pushing for that so that they take their responsibility in this new global economy. 

Ms. WATSON. When I came into the committee, I think you were 

discussing Colombia, and that issue has come to our attention on 

the floor of the House. We have hesitated in dealing with Colombia 

because we feel they have not complied with the wishes for change 

in their child labor laws, so this tends to be a concern not only in 

Central America but in some of the poorer countries in Africa, so 

I would like to see us take a position to discourage companies from 

doing business where they violate the child labor laws or don’t have 

any laws concerning children or even women. 

I would hope that as you look these issues that we will set up 

some standards, and maybe the program you just described, Mr. 

Posner, we could use that as a standard for Colombia and some of 

the others. Thank you so very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I wanted to ask a couple of quick 

questions. Then, I am going to yield for an additional question to 

34

Mr. Sherman. Then, we are going to move on to our second panel. 

Let me ask you both quickly. We have seen stories and heard over 

and over again about problems with vehicles from overseas, harmful drywall, toys, baby formula, you name it, lack of product safety 

provisions and enforcement in our trade provisions, certainly its 

impact on American consumers but also in terms of leveling the 

playing field for American businesses and workers. To what extent 

is the administration incorporating these product safety considerations with our trading relationships? Let me start with Ms. 

Polaski. 

Ms. POLASKI. Thank you. The administration is very concerned 

obviously about the quality of the products that we import, the 

products that we produce domestically and that we import in terms 

of their product safety and the potential effect on consumers, and 

we have had, as you mentioned, a number of very frightening experiences including with imports. We have not yet incorporated product safety requirements into our trade agreements. 

That is the threshold, a new frontier, if you will, that one could 

consider, Members of Congress, members of the administration 

could consider going forward. I do know that the Food and Drug 

Administration is paying a lot of attention to the products that are 

coming and looking for ways for them to try to, if you will, use the 

borders as an extra line of defense against harmful products not 

penetrating the country and getting to our consumers, but in terms 

of it being a condition of our trade agreements, that does not exist 

at this time, Congressman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And, Mr. Posner? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. The only thing I would add is that I think it 

is often the case that countries that have weak regulatory protective systems for workers are also countries that are falling behind 

in terms of product safety and these other issues you are describing. It is part of a package. Our ultimate goal, our long-term goal 

is to encourage the creation and help create strong democratic institutions in countries that domestically deal with these issues in 

a fair way. Labor rights, workers rights, product safety, they go together. It is part of infrastructure of government. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I just want to close my questioning by saying I 

think this is a relatively new area. It is something I think that has 

gotten consumers’ attention, and it should be part of our overall 

strategy really focusing on that product safety. Again, I think it is 

smart for how we approach our trade agreements. I think it can 

make a big difference for our workers and our businesses here at 

home in leveling that playing field and addressing some of these 

problems we have seen in terms of this race to the bottom in standards across the board whether it be labor, environment or safety 

standards. Thank you, and I am going turn next to Chairman Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. One question. The United States has 

ratified two of the ILO conventions, Convention 105 on the prohibition of forced labor and Convention 182 on the prohibition of the 

worst forms of child labor, and that is only two out of eight fundamental, or core, ILO conventions. The ones we have not ratified 

concern such issues as freedom of association, collective bargaining 

and prohibitions on forced labor discrimination in employment. 

35

The U.S. is among the company of China and Iran in having 

failed to ratify Convention 87 on freedom of association. Do you 

think that such a record affects the credibility of our nation with 

regard to advocating for respect for international labor standards 

and human rights, and is there any reason why the U.S. Government should not move forward to ratify Conventions 100 and 111 

with regard to equal pay and nondiscrimination in employment? 

Mr. Posner? 

Mr. POSNER. Let me start with the good news. The administration has identified as a priority the ratification of Convention 111. 

It is before the Senate. We are going to be working with the Senate 

on the President’s committee on the ILO as a tripartite Federal advisory committee from State, Labor and Commerce. It is on their 

agenda. There is going to be more activity on this going forward, 

so this is the place to start. 

I think as you know in general, there is a long history of the 

United States being very reluctant to ratify a whole range of treaties on a whole range of subjects. We take the view that we ought 

to be in full compliance before we consider ratifying. Lots of other 

governments say let us ratify the treaty and then bring ourselves 

up to the standard. That is almost a theological difference, but it 

is also tied with a whole range of other things. I don’t view these 

in isolation. I think they are part of a broader pattern, and it is 

something that over time hopefully one at a time beginning with 

Convention 111 we can begin to chip away at. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would say those countries that ratify and then 

bring themselves into compliance at least have brought themselves 

into compliance, and our theological approach of not bringing ourselves into compliance and then not ratifying is embarrassing at 

least to me. 

Mr. POSNER. If I could just add one thing. It is I think important 

also to say that the spirit and intent of a lot of the ILO Conventions we are very much supportive of. We are supportive of the ILO 

as an institution, and the fundamental rights that are identified in 

that declaration are things that we very much embrace as a society, and we embrace them by and large domestically and certainly 

in our international dealings as well. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I get to have just the last word and say we only 

embrace the right to organize in half of our states, and I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thanks, gentlemen, and I thank the panel. We 

will excuse you and turn now to our second panel. I want to welcome our next panel through a brief introduction, then turn to your 

testimony followed by questions, and we expect we may have some 

votes somewhere not long after 5:00, so we will try to move this 

along and appreciate you being here and for your patience today. 

First I want to welcome Mr. William Lucy. He is chair of the 

AFL–CIO, Executive Council Committee on International Affairs. 

Mr. Lucy is the international secretary and treasurer of AFSCME 

and founder and president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. Also, we have with us Dr. Bama Athreya, executive director 

of the International Labor Rights Forum. Dr. Athreya has worked 

on labor rights issues for two decades focusing on Latin America 

and Asia. 

36

Finally, we have Mr. John Murphy, vice president of International Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Murphy 

previously served as executive vice president of the Association of 

American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America. Welcome all 

of you, and we will start this panel with Mr. Lucy. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM LUCY, CHAIR, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN 

FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL 

ORGANIZATIONS (AFL–CIO) 

Mr. LUCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Carnahan——

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Lucy, be sure you check your mic there. I am 

not sure we have it on yet. 

Mr. LUCY. Thank you. I want to thank you for this opportunity 

to testify today on behalf of the 11.5 million members, working 

men and women of the AFL–CIO. The subject of this hearing promoting international worker rights is one of which many of us have 

spent half a lifetime working on. This hearing could not be 

timelier. We remain mired in the middle of a global economic crisis, 

the worst in over 80 years. The human toll of rising unemployment, 

poverty and inequality is truly staggering. 

The ILO has reported that worldwide unemployment increased 

by roughly 34 million workers in the year 2009 and that an estimated 100 million women and men fell into absolute poverty that 

same year. Many of those fortunate enough to be employed are vulnerable, facing reduced hours, wages and benefits and a highly uncertain future. Even before the recession however, workers worldwide and especially as Secretary Posner pointed out migrant workers were in serious trouble. 

The inability of workers to organize and bargain collectively due 

to labor flexiblization fierce and often illegal employer opposition 

and the lack of effective enforcement by governments has led to 

perilously union density in many parts of the world as existing 

unions were broken or busted and new unions were unable to form. 

The results have been the absence of workplace democracy accompanied by poor working conditions and wages insufficient to support a decent livelihood. 

Massive unemployment creation now needs to be a macro-economic policy priority at the national and global level. Millions of 

people around the world simply need jobs. The AFL–CIO has recommendations for re-balancing the global economy and creating 

millions of new jobs in the short and long term. I will not address 

those here, but however we know integral to a balanced economic 

recovery is the creation of not just any jobs but quality jobs. This 

will not be possible in the absence of full respect for fundamental 

labor rights. 

It is on this issue that I will direct the balance of my comments. 

We urge Congress and the Obama administration to consider recommended reforms in the following three areas, which we view as 

vital to effectively promoting international worker rights. The details of these recommendations are set forth in our written testimony, which is before the committee. First, we need to make certain that the U.S. agencies charged with promoting international 

37

labor rights have the mandate, resources and personnel necessary 

to carry out their respective missions. 

This includes substantial funding increases in the International 

Labor Affairs Bureau, or ILAB, the Department of States’ Bureau 

of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the National Endowment 

for Democracy and Labor Programming at USAID. These core 

agencies have responsibility for the promotion of international 

workers rights through research, reporting, in-country programs 

and the enforcement of the labor provisions of preference programs, 

trade agreement and other instruments. 

A strong commitment to labor diplomacy should include placing 

more foreign service officers trained and committed to labor affairs 

in our embassies around the world. These labor offices promote 

workers rights and serve as an important contact point for working 

people across the globe. Foreign assistance funding must also be directed at programs that build sustainable worker-led institutions 

and strengthen the capacity of these organizations to defend fundamental democratic and worker rights. 

Second, the administration has at its disposal a number of trade 

and investment tools that can be employed to create the political 

space for legal reforms and for workers to exercise their fundamental labor rights without fear of reprisal. It is important that we 

strengthen these tools to better promote international labor standards abroad. We urge the Congress to work this year to pass trade 

preference reform, which must include stronger labor eligibility criteria and establish a regular, transparent process for the acceptance and review of complaints. 

It is also essential that the model bilateral investment treaty be 

strengthened substantially beyond the weak non-derogation language that currently exists. Additionally, any new free trade agreements must make progress beyond the May 10, 2007, agreement. 

While May 10 marked a substantial step forward, there remains 

some room for improvement. Enforcement of labor provisions of 

trade agreements is also critical. 

Right now, the Mexican Government is engaged in a formal assault on independent democratic unions and core labor rights exemplified by the recent attacks on the Miners and Electrical Workers Unions. The U.S. must act now to hold the Mexican Government accountable. We also remain steadfastly opposed to the pending trade agreement with Colombia until we see substantial 

progress with regard to violence against trade union leaders and 

high levels of impunity for those crimes as well as comprehensive 

labor law reform and a sustained demonstration of the will to enforce those laws. 

The discussion just a while ago sort of left out the fact that these 

are targeted activities, and we think that the country should be 

called to task by the discussions between ourselves and then with 

regard to the agreement. Third, the Obama administration needs 

to work globally to create and enforce fair rules for the global economy, to foster sustainable growth and broadly shared increases in 

the living standards and purchasing power of working people 

around the world. 

This will require constructive engagements with a number of 

international institutions. In April 2010, G–20 labor ministers will 

38

meet in Washington, DC, to lay out a roadmap for addressing the 

job crisis globally. This is a critically important meeting that deserves serious attention by U.S. policymakers. Internationally, 

trade unions are calling on the G–20 to address external account, 

financial and social imbalances with particular emphasis on adopting strong social protection measures. 

Unions are also calling for a regular and meaningful consultations as the G–20 continues its work on adopting and promoting 

policy responses to the jobs crisis. We also urge the inclusion of the 

ILO as an essential institution in formulating and coordinating 

global policy responses. Finally, but not least, the U.S. must give 

serious consideration to the ratification of core ILO conventions. To 

date, as was pointed out earlier, the U.S. has only ratified two of 

the eight that are considered core conventions. 

By doing so, the U.S. will posses a far greater authority on the 

world stage, particularly on matters of labor and trade. An important first step would be the ratification of Convention 111 of 1958, 

a discrimination employment and occupation convention, and Convention 100 of 1951, the equal remuneration convention. As a nation, workers have struggled long and hard to combat discrimination in all of its forms, including discrimination in hiring, employment and conditions of work. 

This is a step that is long overdue. We must join the great majority of nations in expressing our unqualified condemnation of such 

practices and committing ourselves to ensure that no U.S. worker 

suffers discrimination in any form on the job. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucy follows:]

39


55396d-1.eps
40


55396d-2.eps
41


55396d-3.eps
42


55396d-4.eps
43


55396d-5.eps
44


55396d-6.eps
45


55396d-7.eps
46


55396d-8.eps
47


55396d-9.eps
48


55396d-10.eps
49


55396d-11.eps
50

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Lucy, and now I want to turn 

to Dr. Athreya. 

STATEMENT OF BAMA ATHREYA, PH.D., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FORUM 

Ms. ATHREYA. Thank you very much, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Sherman, and members of the committee for the opportunity to present 

our testimony today. I would like with your permission to summarize the written statement and to submit the full written statement 

for the record. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection, proceed. 

Ms. ATHREYA. Okay. I would like to start then this testimony by 

acknowledging and calling attention to the 21 garment factory 

workers in Bangladesh who perished tragically in a factory fire just 

2 weeks ago. They were locked in, unable to escape from the factory when it caught on fire. That factory was producing garments 

for export to the U.S. and world markets, and this was the second 

time that factory had caught fire within 6 months. 

I note that Bangladesh received $74 million in U.S. foreign direct 

assistance just last year and received nearly $1 billion in foreign 

direct assistance since 2001. It raises fundamental questions for us 

as do other cases we describe as to whether U.S. trade and development policies as currently implemented really serve the development goals for which they were designed. What I would like to do 

in this testimony is touch on two programs. 

One is a trade preference program, the Generalized System of 

Preferences. The other is a development program, the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation and ask in both cases whether the congressional intent in the legislative language that designed these programs is really being fulfilled by the agencies that are tasked with 

their implementation. I think as you will see from our cases, very 

often that intent is not fulfilled. 

In the case of GSP and trade preferences, Congress was fairly 

clear in stating that it envisioned these programs to promote trade 

as an effective way of promoting broad-based, sustainable and equitable economic development. We understand that language to mean 

that it is providing decent jobs for people around the world, and 

that is the intent of the program. That does not however seem to 

be in practice the way the programs have played out in countries 

like Bangladesh. 

We do believe, and again it is just a fundamental statement on 

development and the need for trade and development to be linked 

that growth of our markets, U.S. markets, must now be fueled by 

rising incomes in the developing world, the enormous numbers of 

workers in China, India, Mexico, Brazil and sub-Saharan Africa. In 

these workers can obtain decent wages and have some disposable 

income, this will increase global demand and create jobs for workers everywhere, including in the United States. 

Where in rare instances we have seen clear linkage between 

labor rights and trade preference programs, trade access, such as 

in Cambodia, we have in fact seen the prospect of workers reaching 

a livable wage. I find it very interesting that in all my reading of 

literature on export-lead development as an instrument of proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\TNT\031010\55396 HFA PsN: SHIRL
51

moting better livelihoods and truly fostering development in different countries, Cambodia is so often cited as a case. 

Economists cite the fact that Cambodian workers now make $70 

to $90 a month in the garment sector, but usually fail to note the 

existence in that country of a program that precisely tries to link 

carefully the need to increase labor rights protections with trade 

access. More often in the Generalized Systems of Preferences programs was amended in 1984 to include labor standards, but those 

labor provisions and their application has been very poor and 

wrought with political considerations. 

That was in 1984 as I said. As early as 1990, over 20 human 

rights organizations and labor unions had submitted labor rights 

petitions to USTR under that trade preference program showing in 

case after the case that the worker provisions were not being 

upheld and that the U.S. agencies tasked with their implementation were failing to act. In 1990, those groups collectively sued the 

U.S. Government for the systematic failure to enforce the mandatory, congressionally mandated language of worker rights in the 

GSP. 

The organization sought a preliminary injunction requiring the 

GSP committee to conduct an immediate review at that time of Malaysia alleging that the then U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills, 

was continuing to extend Malaysia’s trade benefits even after finding clearly that Malaysia was in fact violating worker rights. As 

similar case moving now into the 1990s, and one which I had occasion to witness firsthand was filed by Human Rights Watch and 

the International Labor Rights Forum against Indonesia again for 

violations of freedom of association. 

I happened to be a State Department officer at the time working 

in U.S. Embassy Jakarta, and I witnessed firsthand the careful calculation of our Government in deciding how to weigh the labor 

rights considerations vis-a`-vis overall economic considerations in 

Indonesia. To cut a long story short, there was no dispute that Indonesia was in serious violation of worker rights and particularly 

the right to organize. However, the Indonesia petition was suspended in 1994 despite that year the arrest and detention of a 

major labor leader, Muchtar Pakpahan, in Indonesia on the eve of 

a visit by President Clinton to Indonesia as part of the APEC, Asia 

Pacific Economic Cooperation, meetings. 

Fast forward now to this decade, and I have to say we at ILRF 

have not seen any significant change in the extent to which worker 

rights criteria are the deciding factor in these cases. Most recently, 

we have a pending petition against the country of Uzbekistan, and 

I personally have visited Uzbekistan, traveled to the cotton fields 

during the cotton harvest season and seen fields full of schoolchildren, 12- and 13-year-olds being pulled from their classrooms 

with their teachers and compelled, forced to harvest cotton. 

Again, there has been no dispute and indeed not even any response from the Government of Uzbekistan to deny the worker 

rights claims in this petition. Why then 3 years later is this petition still pending. I would like to actually cite from a recent letter 

from several members of the House Ways and Means Committee,

‘‘Despite the fact that the Government of Uzbekistan has never 

responded to the allegations in the ILRF petition, and that inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\TNT\031010\55396 HFA PsN: SHIRL
52

formation indicating the persistence of labor exploitation was 

filed in 2008 and 2009, the USTR has yet to issue a decision 

on this petition. 

‘‘The merits of the petition are clear, well documented and 

have never been challenged by the Government of Uzbekistan 

or any other respondent. The failure of the USTR to act on the 

merits of this petition by revoking Uzbekistan’s trade privileges raises troubling questions about the integrity and effectiveness of the review process.’’

Let me move now to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Now, 

spotty is this history I have described on GSP has been, it actually 

has been better than the work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation again to enforce congressionally mandated language on 

worker rights. 

When Congress in 2004 created the Millennium Challenge Corporation, it required any country that wanted to qualify for those 

taxpayer funded development funds to demonstrate commitment to 

12 core criteria, and one of the criteria Congress identified is 

whether a country is promoting economic freedom, and it particularly states, the language states, and I am quoting, ‘‘including a 

demonstrated commitment to economic policies that respect worker 

rights, including the right to form labor unions.’’

Mr. CARNAHAN. Doctor, if you could yield 1 second? I am going 

to ask you just to wrap up because we are close on time. 

Ms. ATHREYA. Sure. So as our written testimony details, the 

MCC does not effectively evaluate whether of its grantees or any 

of the countries declared eligible for this assistance are in fact violating worker rights. To cite just two cases briefly, the Philippines, 

which is still the subject of a GSP review for endemic impunity for 

violence against trade unionists and Colombia, a country which has 

already been identified in comments by this committee as a place 

where there is long-standing impunity for violence against trade 

unionists, were both declared MCC eligible in 2008 and 2009. 

The fact that such countries can be declared eligible even in the 

face of clear and persistent violations of worker rights is an indication that this language is simply not being implemented by the 

MCC. To summarize and conclude, we believe that reforms are 

needed to both the GSP and the MCC. We detail specific recommendations for those reforms in our written testimony, and I 

thank this committee for its time and attention to this very much 

needed topic. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Athreya follows:]

53


55396e-1.eps
54


55396e-2.eps
55


55396e-3.eps
56


55396e-4.eps
57


55396e-5.eps
58


55396e-6.eps
59


55396e-7.eps
60


55396e-8.eps
61


55396e-9.eps
62


55396e-10.eps
63

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Doctor, and next I am going to turn 

to Mr. John Murphy with the U.S. Chamber. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN G. MURPHY, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. MURPHY. Chairman Carnahan, Chairman Sherman, Ranking 

Member Royce, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the important topics here today. No 

priority facing our nation is more important than putting Americans back to work. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is unemployed. When President Obama delivered his State of the Union 

address in January, the U.S. Chamber hailed his call for a national 

goal to double exports within 5 years. Doing so will create at least 

a million new jobs the President said. 

Today’s discussion of international economic policy and workers 

rights should be viewed in part through the prism of this practical 

and achievable goal. Already, more than 50 million American workers are employed by companies that benefit from exports according 

to the Department of the Treasury. One in five manufacturing jobs 

depends on exports and one in every three acres on American 

farms is planted for export markets. 

Whether businesses are large or small, studies show that firms 

that export tend to grow faster, hire more and pay better wages 

than those that don’t. At the same time, the IMF forecasts that 87 

percent of world growth over the next 5 years will take place outside the United States. In short, we cannot reach our full potential 

for generating jobs without selling more goods and services in these 

global markets. The historical record suggests we can reach President Obama’s goal of doubling U.S. exports within 5 years, but it 

won’t be easy. 

Standing in our way is a complex array of foreign barriers to 

American exports. According to the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Enabling Trade Report, U.S. exporters face some of the 

highest tariffs and non-tariff barriers in the world. Last year, 

America ranked a disastrous 114th out of 121 economies in terms 

of tariffs faced by our exports overseas. In other words, American 

exporters faced tariffs that are higher than nearly all our trade 

competitors. 

The only way the U.S. Government has ever enticed a foreign 

government to open its market to American goods and services is 

by negotiating agreements for their elimination on a reciprocal 

basis as in a free trade agreement. Fundamentally, these agreements are about making trade fair. The U.S. market is largely 

open, but other countries continue to slap tariffs on U.S. exports 

that are often 10 times higher. 

Now, the business community does not suggest that we abandon 

our values including respect for the rights of workers when we negotiate trade accords, but we don’t have to. USFTAs have evolved 

over the years to address labor concerns in increasingly sophisticated way. This reached a new stage when congressional leaders on 

May 10, 2007, reached a bipartisan accord on a new approach to 

labor and environmental issues in trade agreements. 

This accord led to changes in the text of pending trade accords 

with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. It paved the way 

64

for congressional approval of the US Peru FTA in late 2007 with 

very broad bipartisan support. Under the agreement, the United 

States and Peru agreed to uphold the internationally accepted 

labor rights articulated in the 1998 ILO declaration on fundamental principals and rights of work. These obligations are subject 

to the same dispute settlement and enforcement provisions as the 

agreements’ purely commercial provisions. 

Now, while it is not appropriate for unilateral preference programs or for bilateral investment treaties, the May 10 trade deal 

represents an elegant compromise for addressing labor considerations and FTAs, and it has attracted bipartisan support on that 

basis. The 1998 ILO declaration is a convenience reference point 

because it represents a consensus that has been embraced by governments, organized labor and employers alike. By contrast, the 

United States as has been noted here today is a party to only two 

of the eight ILO core conventions. 

Many Members of Congress and representatives of the business 

community would view including those ILO core conventions in future FTAs as an effort to rewrite U.S. labor law through a trade 

agreement. The business community is dismayed that the May 10 

trade agreement has failed to advance a bipartisan trade agenda. 

Just weeks after they applauded the agreement for realizing longsought goals relating to labor rights, the Democratic leadership of 

the House of Representatives announced that they would oppose 

the ‘‘flawed’’ trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia, 

and last May they did the same with Panama. 

The Obama administration has indicated repeatedly that it hopes 

to secure congressional approval of the three pending agreements, 

but we are still waiting for action. The cost of this delay may be 

high. The U.S. Chamber recently issued a study which found that 

the United States could suffer a loss of more than 380,000 jobs if 

it fails to implement its pending trade agreements with Colombia 

and Korea while the European Union and Canada move ahead 

with their own agreements with the two countries. Those agreements are expected to be in force within a year. 

The WTO reports that there are more than 100 FTAs currently 

under negotiation among our trading partners. The United States 

is participating in just one of these. If we are to reach President 

Obama’s goal of doubling exports, the administration and Congress 

need to shift the U.S. trade agenda from defense to offense. On 

trade, if we stand still, we fall behind. We urge Congress and the 

Obama administration to seek a more pragmatic trade policy that 

opens foreign markets, boosts exports and creates jobs. 

In doing so, we need not abandon our values, a bipartisan approach for addressing labor principals in trade agreements was 

achieved on May, 10, 2007, and it should be seized with both 

hands. Only by doing so can we take advantage of the opportunities trade presents for job creation. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]

65


55396f-1.eps
66


55396f-2.eps
67


55396f-3.eps
68


55396f-4.eps
69


55396f-5.eps
70


55396f-6.eps
71


55396f-7.eps
72


55396f-8.eps
73


55396f-9.eps
74


55396f-10.eps
75


55396f-11.eps
76

Mr. SHERMAN [presiding]. Thank you. The definition of insanity 

is to keep doing the same thing that failed and expect it to succeed. 

We signed all these free trade agreements, and you say markets 

are open to us. Maybe tariffs are reduced, but tariffs are only what 

is published. You mention non-tariff barriers. You weren’t here for 

the hearing we had this morning where we saw the non-tariff barriers. The United States is a country with the rule of law, so if we 

want to prevent American consumers and business from buying 

foreign products, we pass a published law. When countries get us 

to sign treaties that repeal those laws, they have access to our markets. 

Say you are in China. You are thinking of importing American 

products. You get a call from a commandant who says Mr. Wong, 

you don’t want to import those American products. We know you 

are well educated, hate to think you need re-education. That is not 

a provable violation of any free trade agreement because you can’t 

know about it, so you continue on behalf of the Chamber to argue 

for agreements where the enforcement against the United States is 

absolute since the only thing that matters in the United States is 

law, and the enforcement in China and so many other countries is 

illusory since we get them to change their written laws, and they 

are not countries that follow written laws. 

You tell us that we are going to get more jobs by opening markets, and your only suggestion for opening markets is to sign the 

same free trade agreements that have opened our markets and not 

opened theirs. Then, you tell us that it would be a shame to, by 

treaty, change our labor laws when the Chamber has again and 

again demanded that we use treaties to change our environmental 

laws, our banking laws and our consumer protection laws. Apparently, the only laws we shouldn’t change are those that benefit 

Wall Street and Wal-Mart. 

Now, the Chamber took a phenomenally different view when it 

came to H.R. 1318. That bill called for duty-free treatment for 

goods coming from parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the reason the Chamber opposed that is because it entitled the Department of Labor to contract with others for firm-level inspections. In 

other words, you are for open markets and even labor standards as 

long as there is no enforcement of the labor standards with firmlevel inspections, and in your statements on the bill you said that 

‘‘business representatives,’’ also known as sweatshop operators, 

‘‘found the provisions unworkable,’’ which is to say effective. 

On what basis did the Chamber make the decision to oppose 

H.R. 1318, and will you oppose any agreement that provides for effective firm-level inspections with regard to consumer, labor and 

environmental standards? 

Mr. MURPHY. The Chamber strongly believes that creating new 

trade opportunities in Afghanistan and in northwestern Pakistan is 

part of the solution for what ails that part of the world. However, 

we think that the bills that have been under discussion are flawed 

in different ways. As you mentioned, H.R. 1318 would create an enterprise-specific audit process that many in the business community that have worked in that part of the world regard as unworkable. 

77

There was an initial version of the bill that counted on ILO inspectors to do that, but when the ILO informed them that yes, this 

is one of the most dangerous and lawless parts of the world, and 

they didn’t want to do it, the proposal was amended to move to this 

enterprise-specific audit process involving possibly NGOs. I think 

the business——

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are opposed to firm-level inspections carried out by people with the courage to do it in a difficult part of 

the world because you are only in favor of lower tariffs when there 

aren’t firm-level inspections? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think that we need to recognize that there isn’t 

a one-size-fits-all solution here. The program in Cambodia and in 

Haiti, these have potential because most of the apparel manufacturing facilities are located in a very geographically compact area. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Sir, these NGOs have the courage to do the inspections. Why are you against the inspections? 

Mr. MURPHY. We strongly question the ability that they would 

have to carry out inspections. We actually opposed the bill on other 

grounds as well. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Wait, wait. Wait a minute. Okay. You are opposed 

to the inspections because it might be difficult to do the inspections. Why would you do that? Either you get in the inspections or 

you get what you say you want, which is a bill with no inspections. 

You don’t even want the possibility that somebody could do the inspections, and your theory is well, maybe they can’t, so let us make 

sure they don’t. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, we are not in support of legislation 

that we believe will not do what it is intended to do, namely to create real-world trade opportunities. The legislation as drafted excludes all of the products in which Pakistan and Afghanistan have 

a particular competitive advantage. It limits the benefits to 

very——

Mr. SHERMAN. Sir, your stated opposition is because you oppose 

the inspections. You have not said that you will support the bill if 

the number of products covered by the bill is expanded. Support for 

labor standards only when they are definitely not enforced is an interesting approach, and my time has expired. I recognize Mr. 

Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. I remember the argument over the way that bill was 

crafted, and frankly, Mr. Murphy, if I recall, the legislation by protectionist interest was to make certain that we did not have the 

types of cotton pants that are manufactured in Pakistan coming 

into the United States. That is the debate I remember here, and 

that is the opposition to it I remember, but basically these individuals who produce these products are in a war zone. You are talking 

about the northwest frontier. 

I go out there every year to Pakistan, and I am familiar with just 

how difficult it is to get around in that area, but the question is, 

or to me it was, whether or not we were going to offer some kind 

of employment and allow those goods to come into the U.S. market 

or whether we are going to block it, and the blocking I saw from 

the provision as it originally was advanced, which was to allow 

these cotton trousers and other things that are actually made in 

Pakistan to come into our market, they effectively removed that 

78

from the bill, so at that point, no. There isn’t a lot of support for 

the legislation. 

Let me ask a couple of other questions, and one of them goes to, 

Mr. Murphy, you testified that the U.S. is running a trade surplus 

in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services will all 

17 countries with which we have an FTA, so are these FTA agreements necessarily bad for American workers? 

Mr. MURPHY. Congressman Royce, I think you have touched 

upon one of the greatest secrets in U.S. trade policy that in fact 

U.S. free trade agreements have this remarkable record for boosting U.S. exports. As you say, in manufactured goods, in services, 

in agricultural products, when we look at our 17 FTA partners as 

a group, we are running a significant surplus with them. The one 

exception with those 17 countries is in oil and gas where we import 

large amounts of oil, particularly from Canada. That is not a result 

of trade policy though. That is a result of geology. 

I would further add that with regard to our bilateral investment treaties, those 40 countries we also have approximately a $10 billion trade surplus with them. It stands to reason though in a world 

where on average foreign barriers are high and ours are low, when 

we enter into a trade agreement and brush those barriers aside, 

imperfectly as it may be, American workers are able to get their 

goods in there and compete and win, and that is why we have seen 

these remarkable results. 

Just one last point, the FTA partners that we have, those 17 

countries represent just 7 percent of world GDP outside the U.S., 

but they buy 40 percent of our exports. FTAs make big markets 

even out of small economies. 

Mr. ROYCE. You also testified that U.S. companies face among 

the highest tariffs of the world. That disadvantage is only worsening as the U.S. sits on the sidelines while other nations negotiate 

trade agreements, so just how bad is it for U.S. businesses, and I 

would ask if you could discuss specific examples of U.S. companies 

losing sales? 

Mr. MURPHY. Absolutely. It is a serious problem. In fact, about 

1 hour ago, the Canada Colombia Free Trade Agreement was introduced in the House of Commons in Ottawa. If that agreement goes 

into effect, if their recently concluded just a week ago EU Colombia 

Free Trade Agreement goes into effect, if the EU Korea FTA agreement goes into effect, we are going to see our European and Canadian competitors with something like a 10 percentage point cost advantage. 

Companies like Caterpillar, which Colombia for them is the 10th 

largest export market in the world, and the signal that sends is 

that they are going to be at a disadvantage, but it isn’t just large 

companies. It is also small companies. The Chamber on behalf of 

our hundreds of thousands of small business members, we profile 

small companies that have benefitted from exports through a series 

of what we call Faces of Trade publications. This is a collection of 

profiles of companies that have benefitted from exporting to Colombia. 

I look at companies like Quality Float Works of Illinois, where 

the CEO tells us that they are absolutely losing out in markets like 

Colombia and Brazil to foreign competitors due to tariff differences. 

79

Mr. ROYCE. And lastly, the bipartisan labor agreement of May 

2007 was worked into the trade agreements with Peru and Panama 

and Colombia, South Korea, and this action proved the way for approval, this is what advanced the approval of the Peru trade agreement, and it was expect that the others would be approved too, yet 

they are stalled. Could you tell me quickly what happened? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, we are still trying to figure that out, and it 

is particularly frustrating with regard to Colombia, and I welcome 

an opportunity to comment on that briefly here today. Many of the 

statistics we have been hearing today I believe approximately 10 

years out of date. Last year, the homicide rate in the United States 

was nearly three times higher than the homicide rate among Colombian trade unionists. A resident of the District of Columbia, 

where I live, is seven——

Mr. SHERMAN. Excuse me. The gentleman’s time has expired. Let 

me also correct the record. You can reach the conclusions that Mr. 

Murphy reaches only if you feel that our MFN agreement with 

China is not a trade agreement, only if you ignore increases in imports that go along with increases in exports. You have to really 

bend it to get where you are going. In any case, it is now time to 

recognize the vice chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Chairman. I would like to get 

each of your comments on this, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Athreya and Mr. 

Lucy. An overwhelming majority of Americans favor the United 

States requiring compliance with international labor standards as 

part of international trade agreements. A survey by the Chicago 

Council on Global Affairs and the World Public Opinion Organization found that nine in 10 Americans support requirements for 

countries that sign trade agreements to meet minimum labor and 

environmental standards. What do each of you think of this, which 

is the opinion of the American people? Mr. Murphy, then Dr. 

Athreya and then Mr. Lucy. 

Mr. MURPHY. I will be brief. I think that underscores the vitality 

of the compromise that was reached on May 10, 2007, in which a 

practical basis was found as a reference in the 1998 ILO declaration, and Congress has a fantastic opportunity to move forward on 

trade on that basis. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. But you do agree with these, accept these? Do 

you know feel that this represents the true thinking of the American people? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, speaking for the Chamber on May 10, 2007, 

we jumped up and down and cheered. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. Okay. Dr. Athreya? 

Ms. ATHREYA. We believe these rights are fundamental human 

rights, and it is consistent with all of the conversations I have ever 

had with people out there that they believe that we should respect 

these rights all over the world. I believe Congress thinks this, too. 

It is in our trade law, and it is in our development law. We would 

love to see it enforced. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And, Mr. Lucy? 

Mr. LUCY. I can’t help but agree with what Dr. Athreya said. I 

mean, the American people recognize the unfairness and lack of 

abilities of a people’s substandard ways. America stands for something. It stands for something. It is why we remain the envy of the 

80

world. It is why regardless of all of our faults, and we have them, 

regardless of all of the imperfections of America, America stands 

for constantly reaching for that standard, and that is what is at 

stake here, and that is why if we let down that standard and we 

enter into trade agreements that don’t hold that standard, we hurt 

ourselves. 

I believe we can get to that point with Colombia, with others, 

but, Mr. Murphy, you would accept going into trade agreements, 

and I might add that you are looking at someone who was down 

there, 2,700 is a lot stretched over 20 years as you have said, but 

47 were killed in the year that I went down. As a matter of fact, 

one life is too many lives lost, the pattern, and there is a reason 

why the issue is impunity. Now, you and I, no one can do anything. 

The government says we can’t do anything about somebody 

shooting or killing somebody else. That happens. Murder, it happens. We try to prevent it, but it happens, but the one thing the 

government can do is go through the process of getting some results and convictions and searching and have a system where they 

don’t tolerate it. That is a problem with Colombia. 

It is indeed the killings and that, but it is a government that has 

a record of complicity in some of them and a dragging of the feet 

of not having the judicial system in place or the priority in place 

to adjudicate these cases and bring some people to trial. One or two 

that have got, they have even let go, so I just wanted to make that 

point as plain as I could because I think that we have a standard 

in this country. We have a standard that is held high in the world, 

and we can’t lower that standard. I see my time it out. I don’t want 

to go to my question. Maybe I will have another round. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you all, and I apologize. I had to step out 

for just a moment but wanted to ask a couple of questions. One of 

the issues that I was concerned about particularly in this global 

economic crisis that it has created an even greater reliance on sub 

and sub-subcontracted production that hires workers under shortterm contracts in often exploitative conditions. 

In your estimation, to what extent are U.S. companies making 

real efforts to effectively monitor their supply chains and take actions when necessary, and what more can or should be done to ensure that multinational companies source goods and services that 

are made under decent working conditions, and let me start with 

Mr. Lucy. 

Mr. LUCY. Mr. Chairman, let me give you an experience. In visiting with migrant workers in Jordan about a year or so ago, and 

we have an agreement with Jordan, it is supposed to be a fairly 

good model, but we found workers there who have had their passports taken, their work permits taken and forced to work and live 

under some of the most dreadful conditions. We don’t see the 

American corporations who benefit from those products doing a 

whole lot to change those conditions, and we strongly support the 

agreement, but we also support fair treatment of workers under 

that agreement. 

Mr. CARNAHAN [presiding]. How do you think we can better shine 

a light on those kind of practices when they happen? 

Mr. LUCY. I am sorry. I missed your——

81

Mr. CARNAHAN. How do you think we can better shine a light on 

those practices when they are found? 

Mr. LUCY. I think effective reporting by the responsible agencies 

of the U.S. Government and not pull punches, but state the situation as it exists, just as it was asked with regards to Mr. Posner 

earlier. The State Department and Labor Department ought to be 

clear and concise in their reporting on incidents such as this. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. All right. Doctor? 

Ms. ATHREYA. Thank you very much for the question. Since the 

issue of impunity has arisen in the comments of this committee, I 

would like to particularly point out that some of the companies 

that directly benefit from trade access in places like Colombia and 

the Philippines, which I also mentioned in my testimony, are reported to directly aid and abet violence against trade unionists. We 

can mention a case against Dole Corporation in Colombia right 

now. 

We can mention cases involving both Dole and Nestle in the Philippines and the aiding and abetting of torture, disappearance, murder of trade union leaders and community members as well to clear 

out their land to get access for planing agricultural products. We 

believe strongly that it is important that these companies that benefit directly from increased access also be held directly accountable 

for maintaining all of the labor rights in their operations in these 

countries and that much more is needed to strengthen the ability 

of these programs to look deeply at who is receiving the benefits 

and whether those companies and those industries are actually upholding labor rights. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think we live in a day and age when your reputation is everything whether you are a Member of Congress or a company, and that is why companies that operate around the world 

often go to extraordinary lengths to vet their own supply chains, 

to have their own solutions to inspections and finding ways to 

make sure that they are living really up to the highest standards 

of respect for labor rights. I see that all around the world. I have 

traveled extensively in places like Honduras and seen in the apparel operations there how this is a priority for those industries, 

and that is why working for an American company is usually a big 

step up over many of the economic opportunities there. 

I think that is the reason why the business community as I have 

mentioned supported using the 1998 ILO declaration as a reference 

point in the context of free trade agreements. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Just to follow that up, to the extent that I take 

it you think most companies, and understandably so, would be concerned about their reputation to being sure those supply chains 

and standards are done correctly, we hear about a lot of the extreme examples, obviously. What do you think is the best strategy 

in dealing with those? 

Mr. MURPHY. In dealing with the extreme examples? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. I think the business community does agree that 

there is an important role that is played by U.S. administration 

programs, such as the ones we heard about in the first panel. 

Those things are not generally in question. I think when you see 

82

the business community establishing its own vigilance programs to 

fill in a void, I think that is a sign that many in the business community would like to see government have a role there that it is 

currently not fulfilling. 

Mr. LUCY. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, Mr. Lucy? 

Mr. LUCY. In our written testimony, Mr. Chairman, we spoke to 

the need for being able to do more. Certainly, ILO Convention No. 

81 provides a function of inspection which would take care or certainly raise an earlier flag on a lot of these situations, so the adoption of that convention will certainly be a positive step in the right 

direction. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. That is it for my questions. I want to ask if any 

others have any followup? I am going to allow my chairman to go 

first. Chairman Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. Just to set the record straight, the idea that 

it is no more dangerous to be a union activist in Colombia than a 

citizen of the Unites State requires the most bizarre math. Five 

hundred union activists have been brutally murdered during the 

Uribe presidency. Now, you could say that is a tiny risk if you divide that 500, the entire population of Colombia or all working people in Colombia, maybe even all labor union members of Colombia, 

but it is not like the 500 people that were killed were just randomly selected union members or working people. 

These were the folks who were the key to organizing the union. 

These were among a group of 5,000 or 10,000 people who were the 

most active in trying to bring a labor movement to Colombia and 

the death rate among them massively exceeds any of the statistics 

that have been put forward by the Chamber of Commerce. Being 

a CPA is an occupational hazard. You get numbers, and you actually look at them, and sometimes it is a little bizarre. 

Mr. Lucy, thanks for being here. I look forward to working with 

you to fight for labor rights around the world. I do have one question. Since 2001, March, which was the peak of the business cycle 

most recently, the United States has lost 3 million manufacturing 

jobs, and of course it is manufacturing that is most affected by 

international trade agreements. So far they haven’t figured out a 

way to contract out my job, but manufacturing jobs are affected by 

international trade, and we have seen this 17.4 percent decline. 

To what extent are these losses due to differing labor standards 

in our trade partners, and what is the impact of these free trade 

agreements on labor standards both domestically and abroad? 

Mr. LUCY. I think a substantial number of those jobs, Mr. Chairman, can be directly attributed to the trade agreements as almost 

incentives to remove good-paying industrial and manufacturing 

jobs offshore. The 3 million jobs that are gone was substantially the 

foundation of our middle class. They are gone. They will not be 

back unless we find some magical way of creating an industrial policy that will speak to our domestic needs. 

We see cities around the country that were related to industry 

and manufacturing, think of Detroit, Cleveland and many others 

directly affected by NAFTA, directed affected by some of these others, so the American worker and the American middle class has 

suffered tremendously as a result of these trade agreements. 

83

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank you for your answer, and I look forward 

to a trade policy that is in the interests of the American working 

family rather than a policy dominated for the interests of Wall 

Street and Wal-Mart, and with that, I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Now, Mr. Scott, for followup questions? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. I would like to just ask each of you to comment 

on the International Labor Organization’s core conventions concerning collective bargaining are Conventions 87 and 88. The U.S. 

has not yet ratified these conventions, nor has it submitted them 

for review by the tripartite, by the administration, Labor and business representatives, so the question I have is taking just simply 

Colombia, how can the U.S. leadership, particularly the forces that 

I have sitting here before me, each of you represents a unique and 

separate constituency to this. 

Mr. Murphy, business. You are with the International Labor Organization. You are with the American labor movement, and I am 

wondering where can particularly, Mr. Murphy, the Chamber of 

Commerce, and the labor movement in America, how can you work 

together to put pressure on Colombia? I know the value of a Colombia trade agreement. I know the importance of trade. There is no 

question about it. 

It is clear that if we enter trade agreements with a poison pill 

in it as we have done to a degree with NAFTA and others where 

we have suffered, where we have seen jobs go where they shouldn’t 

be, multi-national corporations who operate all around the world 

certainly want that, but it hurts the American worker here at 

home. If we take the Colombia situation, how can labor and business work together to put pressure on Colombia to straighten up 

its act? 

I think that as long as there is a dichotomy of thought here in 

the United States in terms of our trade policy, some of these countries don’t move as fast as they should, and I am saying especially 

on getting the infrastructure in place to make sure the impunity 

that is going on in Columbia, that can stop. That can be put to 

place, but I just wanted to know, and I thought the question might 

be appropriate. Where can we work together here? Where can you, 

Mr. Murphy, work with Mr. Lucy and Dr. Athreya? I know I have 

butchered your name. I am sorry. Is it Athreya? 

Ms. ATHREYA. You were perfect. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you so much. Where is there we can work together on this? Is there some way we can work because I tell you 

there is a split opinion in this Congress on moving forward on 

these trade agreements. Central to it is the labor rights, the treatments of the trade unions there and this impunity issue. Is there 

some ground where particular Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lucy, are there 

areas that can be worked together with some united force in this? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, 50 years ago when George Meany was the 

head of the AFL–CIO, he strongly supported the interests of the 

American worker to pursue international trade. He opposed issues 

like Buy American and argued with people across the country that 

the American workers’ destiny was to be making things to sell 

around the globe. Unfortunately, I think that we have come a distance, and there is a strong difference of opinion here, and if you 

84

are talking about Colombia specifically, I think that this place to 

start is really to look at the facts on the ground there. 

I strongly disagree with the facts as they have been presented by 

some in this hearing here today. In the past few years, there has 

been 300 convictions of priority cases identified by trade unions in 

Colombia, convictions that have happened there. Labor unions in 

Colombia have grown by more than 50 percent during the Uribe 

administration to more than 1.5 million, and you don’t have to be 

an actuary to do the math that 29 murders of trade unionists last 

year among 1.5 million is a murder rate that is 1/17 that of the 

District of Columbia. 

We have to establish the facts first and move past the rhetoric 

of 10 years ago and see Colombia for what it is today. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If you really think your likelihood of being killed 

by brutal anti-labor forces is equal whether you are a rank and file 

member or whether you are an organizer, if you live in that kind 

of fairy tale land, then it is not dangerous to be an organizer in 

Colombia. When you use as your denominator something other 

than the number of organizers, you use a phony denominator in 

calculating your murder rate, and you can keep repeating the same 

number over and over again, but if you use a phony denominator, 

you get a phony rate. I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, and here is the fact, and I don’t think you will 

argue with it, in more than 95 percent of the killings, there has 

been no convictions, and the killers remain free, and this is from 

Human Rights Watch World Report 2010 Colombia, 20 January 

2010. This is a part of the problem. I mean, that is a stark situation down there. The business community of this country wields an 

awesome amount of power. 

There is a need for us to try to get this free trade agreement 

there. There is all kinds of reasons. We need it. I have been down 

there. I know we need it, but we have got to resolve this human 

rights and labor problem, and I think that the business community 

could join with labor and unite and put pressure on the Colombia 

Government to really resolve this. I think we could move forward 

with getting a trade agreement there that we would be proud of, 

but under these circumstances where these people have been 

killed, assassinated, these trade unionists, and nothing is being 

done about it. 

There is a record of complicity with the Uribe government that 

is real, and 95 percent of the people are walking free who have 

done the killing, there is just no way we can put that there, but 

I think that if we could find a way to work together here, that is 

what I am after. You can throw up this fact, you could throw up 

that, but the fact is a lot of people are getting killed, and they are 

not being paid for. This cannot go on, and how do we move together 

to resolve it? Is there a willingness on business to work with labor 

to resolve this? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think the Colombian Government has shown incredible resolve. You mention a number of more than 2,000 murders dating back to 1988. Most of those are more than 5 or 6, 7 

years ago and took place in a period of civil war in the 1990s. That 

is why the government identified in consultation with the ConfedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\TNT\031010\55396 HFA PsN: SHIRL
85

erations of Trade Unions these priority cases, and they have made 

remarkable progress with them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Murphy, there have been trade unionists who 

have been killed this year. Mr. Lucy, is it possible for American 

business and American labor to work together to put pressure on 

this Colombian Government to kind of help resolve this issue? 

Mr. LUCY. Well, I think, Mr. Scott, history has shown that labor 

can find a way to work in any difficult situation except we cannot 

compromise on some fundamental principles. Principle 1, workers 

in Colombia and all over the globe have the right to freedom of association. That is just fundamental. That is a position that the 

Chamber just disagrees with. Secondly, we have a right to collective bargaining. How else will workers get their share of the benefits of a society from this trade, developments or what have you unless they have the right to come together and sit across the table 

as equals from their employer. 

There is a fundamental disagreement on that point. We have 

said many, many times that we would like to see conditions set in 

that protect the interests of workers, that protect the environment, 

and there is a willingness to work on all of these, but we can’t work 

where there is no acceptance of fundamental workers rights, and 

that is the freedom of association, a right to collectively bargain 

and all that goes with that. 

Mr. Murphy says that these killings were 10 years ago and 

therefore we ought to forget them, well 20 percent of them was 

done under the administration of Mr. Uribe. I mean, this is not illusions. These are real people who are trying to establish their position and status and in the Colombian society, and for that, they 

are assassinated, and we can’t pretend that doesn’t exist, and we 

have got to hold somebody accountable, and if the government in 

place refuses to pursue justice for the victims or their families, how 

do you rationalize entering into an arrangement with that and still 

say we are the leading country in the world in terms of human 

rights? 

Mr. SCOTT. Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, and I am going to just wrap up with 

one more question that I presented to the first panel. It is one of 

the things that has concerned me with regard to what has been 

termed this race to the bottom with a lot of manufacturing jobs 

that have left the U.S. They have gone south of our border. They 

have gone to Asia, and this race to the bottom in terms of standards for the workforce, for the environment, but also safety standards, and we have seen the problems with vehicles, with drywall, 

with toys, with baby formula. 

I think as was mentioned by one of the earlier panelists, there 

are common parallels with these product safety problems and with 

workers rights and environmental rights. I would like to ask each 

of you if you would just comment briefly about how you think we 

can incorporate that because I think that is very much in our interest for U.S. consumers to address these issues but also for U.S. 

businesses because it helps us with a more fair playing field to 

compete. We will start with Mr. Murphy and go to your left. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, my reaction is that in this worldwide economy where we are in competition every day, the first 

86

place we have to look to think about how we are going to win in 

that competition is inward. We have to get our own act together 

on everything from K–12 through college education. We have to invest more in our infrastructure, which has suffered in recent years. 

We have to think about how our global companies are able to compete. 

This country has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the 

world, and that creates a very negative incentive to be doing business in this country. We have to think about getting those incentives right, and if we do that right, then we will be in much stronger shape. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. If I could? I wanted to particularly address the 

issue of product safety. 

Mr. MURPHY. I think in recent years there has been a considerable effort made on both food, phytosanitary, sanitary side and on 

product safety. I think that is a work in progress, but we recognize 

that it is very important. Having an approach that finds a way to 

weigh those risks and dedicates the resources that we have to mitigating those risks where they are has got to be the way forward. 

That is going to be the biggest bang for the buck. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Dr. Athreya? 

Ms. ATHREYA. We are very concerned with issues of product safety and food safety in the developing countries where we work, and 

we find a direct corollary between the existence of democratic organizations for workers that have access to justice and the ability of 

those workers to blow the whistle when they see their management 

their cutting corners and disobeying the standards that are supposed to be applied in the production of these goods. The right of 

workers to organize and have a voice in the workplace is actually 

very fundamentally linked to product safety and food safety. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lucy? 

Mr. LUCY. I think the last point the Doctor made was absolutely 

on point, but beyond that, there are existing conventions that deal 

with the issues of safety, both workers’ safety and product safety, 

and the empowerment of workers with them able to speak to the 

quality of products that they manufacture, their ability to negotiate 

processes and procedures of doing work will obviously address some 

of these issues. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I just want to set the record straight on the U.S. 

corporate tax rate. We have enormous, giant loopholes for corporations to exploit, particularly with regard to international transactions. You have got to look not at the nominal rate, but the effective rate of taxation, which is lower on our corporations now than 

it has been for a long, long time, and you cannot simply circle the 

nominal rate and repeat that over and over again as if it is an accurate reflection of the effective rate. I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank the gentleman. I thank the panel for 

your patience, for your insight and for your frankness here today 

all of you. It has helped us I think get a good overview of this 

issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on these 

efforts. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(87)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

88


55396n-1.eps
89


55396n-2.eps
90


55396m.eps
91


55396a-1.eps
92


55396a-2.eps
93


55396g-1.eps
94


55396g-2.eps
95


55396g-3.eps
96


55396g-4.eps
97


55396g-5.eps
98


55396g-6.eps
99

Æ


55396g-7.eps