[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1834-E1835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      UNITED STATES-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 11, 2011

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
U.S.-Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). Put simply, this agreement is 
a bad business deal for the United States.
  KORUS is an example of an agreement that stands to benefit certain 
industries at the expense of others. For instance, the Obama 
administration went to great lengths to include special provisions to 
ensure that our auto manufacturers have equal access to South Korean 
markets. While the economic fairness may help, the effect is likely to 
be minimal. Currently, over 95 percent of South Koreans drive South 
Korean cars. Because of this, I have serious concerns about the 
realistic ability of our auto industry to succeed in a reluctant Korean 
market.
  In addition to my concerns with the feasibility of success for the 
auto industry in South Korea, it is widely acknowledged that textile 
workers will lose out because of the deal. The Economic Policy 
Institute estimates that 159,000 American manufacturing jobs will be 
lost, and because of the administration's failure to address textile 
issues, it is estimated that 40,000 textile jobs will be lost. I have 
always said that 1 job lost as a result of free trade is too much.

[[Page E1835]]

  Perhaps most troubling about KORUS-FTA is the unintended economic 
boost it will give to China, currently South Korea's largest trading 
partner. Rules of origin provisions in the agreement are set far too 
low so that only 35 percent, less than half, of a product has to come 
from either South Korea or the United States.
  Because such a small portion of a product must come from South Korea 
in order for it to ensure duty-free access to the United States, the 
majority of supplies can come from neighboring countries in Southeast 
Asia, such as China, or even other foreign trading partners, such as 
the European Union with which South Korea recently entered into a free 
trade agreement. The United States currently has a $273 billion trade 
deficit with China, and we should not be in the business of helping 
China increase their exports with special access to our market.
  Proponents argue that new, stronger customs provisions in the 
agreement prevent the transshipment of goods from China or other 
countries through South Korea. However, the fact of the matter is that 
these provisions are modeled off NAFTA, which stands as an example of 
failed free trade. U.S. Customs data shows that fraud has increased as 
a result of NAFTA, and there has been a decreased ability to intercept 
or deter illegal activity. These same failed policies should not be 
replicated in a new agreement.
  We need to look no further than our previous free trade agreements to 
see the effects of these deals. In the 17 years since NAFTA, our trade 
balance with Mexico has gone from a $1.4 billion surplus in 1994 to a 
$97.2 billion deficit in 2010. South Korea is currently the seventh-
largest trading partner of the United States, and the United States is 
South Korea's third-largest trading partner. Therefore, any agreement 
is sure to have significant effects on the U.S. economy and trade 
balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel that this agreement includes too many loopholes, 
carries too many unintended benefits for foreign competitors, and will 
result in U.S. job loss.

                          ____________________