[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 160 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8072-H8073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1920
U.S.-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, please allow me to explain what happens when
flawed free trade agreements are implemented and outsource more U.S.
jobs.
Our Nation has not had balanced trade accounts for over 25 years. In
fact, every time we sign one of these so-called free trade agreements,
we lose more and more jobs in our country. In its attempt to move
forward the George W. Bush-negotiated U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement,
it appears the Obama negotiators may have forgotten the real costs of
so-called free trade.
With Korea, it has been more than a dozen years already since the
United States held a trade surplus with Korea. We're already in the
red. In 1997, America actually held a small trade surplus with Korea of
a little over $1 billion. Since then, we've accumulated $161 billion
worth of trade debt, and that is in the red. That translates into lost
jobs, lost opportunity in our country. Using the Department of
Commerce's estimate that each billion dollars of trade deficit costs us
14,000 jobs, our trade deficit already accumulated with Korea has cost
us over 2 million American jobs. And everybody knows we're short over
20 million jobs in our country.
The proposed new Korea Free Trade Agreement will make our markets
more open to Korean industries but does not do enough to open Korean
markets to our products. Every time the United States imports more than
we export, it leaves us with higher trade deficits and more lost jobs.
This NAFTA-inspired Korean free trade agreement will lead to just that,
even higher trade deficits and lost jobs here with Korea.
Since NAFTA passed in 1994, more than 3 million American
manufacturing jobs have been lost to Mexico and Canada. In fact, the
Economic Policy Institute estimates that a trade deficit between NAFTA
countries alone could have led to 1 million additional manufacturing
jobs here in our country. Why would a NAFTA-inspired free trade
agreement like the Korean deal yield different results? It won't. The
Economic Policy Institute projects 159,000 more jobs will be lost if
this deal is put forward, and the International Trade Commission
projects increases to our trade deficit with Korea. How can this be a
pathway to economic growth in our country?
Just in the automotive sector in 2009, Korea sold 700,000 of their
cars in the American market, compared to sales of U.S. cars there of
7,000. Just a smidgeon. Acknowledging that Korea's population is about
one-sixth of the population of the United States, a proportional fair
trade equivalent would be a total of 113,000 cars from our country sold
in Korea--not 7,000, 113,000. That would require a 1,514 percent
increase in the number of American vehicles sold in Korea. Why wouldn't
we wait for them to open their market to our goods before we give away
the store again? Instead, the proposed solution in the auto sector--and
this is written in the agreement--says, our three auto companies can
expect to export 25,000 vehicles each, so it's 75,000 total, into their
market--which is certainly better than the current 7,000--but it
accepts no limits on the amount of Korean cars that can be sold into
our market. But there are limits imposed on U.S. vehicle sales to
Korea. How is that balanced? How is that fair?
This is neither fair trade, nor is it reciprocal. It is a managed
trade arrangement that accepts an inferior position for U.S. producers.
And why do we do that when our economy is hurting so very much? And
it's not just in autos. It's in beef. It's in electronics and every
single category.
In order for the United States to have a square deal with Korea, this
is what should be in the agreement: We should eliminate tariffs in both
countries. We should make certain that discriminatory nontariff
barriers are immediately eliminated by both nations, not gradually
implemented over time. We should include provisions to redress Korea's
discriminatory value-added tax. We should contain mechanisms that will
prevent an offset currency manipulation and, as well, eliminate
provisions that weaken trade remedy laws. This deal does none of that.
The United States can ill afford to continue job-killing trade
policies. We should embrace the old adage that, in fact, George Bush
once used, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.''
Well, Congress cannot allow the American people to be fooled again by
the false promise of the so-called free trade agreements. When have we
heard that before?
The U.S.-Korea free trade agreement should not be ratified until
changes are made to make it truly free, truly fair, and truly
reciprocal based on results, not dreams. Then we would hold promise to
create jobs again in our Nation as well as in South Korea and Asia in
general. But why should the United States keep coming up with these
agreements that make us second class and that hollows out our middle
class?
Let me say in closing this evening, as did Congresswoman Sheila
Jackson Lee, the people of our region in northern Ohio--in fact, our
whole Buckeye State--wish to offer deepest condolences in the death of
Elizabeth Edwards. Her passing truly takes from the horizon one of the
bright stars in our country. I met many people in my political life.
And I can tell you, her intelligence, her humility, her kindness are
values that I know her children and her family will long cherish. And
we send our deepest sympathy to them, to
[[Page H8073]]
the people of her State, and all those who had the great privilege of
knowing her.
____________________