[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6812-H6832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3080) to implement the United States-
Korea Free Trade Agreement will now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana,
Dr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I rise in support of all three of these very important
agreements because they promote U.S. engagement in strategically
important countries around the world. Also, they promote U.S.
leadership. They open new markets for American farmers, ranchers, and
businesses. This means American jobs, good-paying American jobs. These
agreements constitute a signature jobs bill, a jobs promotion bill.
South Korea is a critical U.S. ally in Asia and one of the fastest
growing economies in the world. Multiple agreements have occurred
throughout Asia over the past few years while America sat on the
sidelines. This agreement is the largest free trade agreement for the
U.S. and could result in an increase of our exports by $9.7 billion,
according to the International Trade Commission, by lowering tariffs
and other barriers to U.S. goods and services. We must pass this
agreement in order to gain leverage in Asia and to show support for one
of our key allies in Asia.
This expansion of U.S. engagement will serve as a platform to build
further commercial relationships, creating more jobs for American
workers by opening new markets. Upon implementation, more than one-
third of Louisiana's exports will be duty free, and that's just a
starting point. This alone will give Louisiana companies a significant
advantage over similar products made in countries that don't have an
FTA with South Korea.
We know small and medium-size businesses are the key to creating new
jobs. Over 18,500 companies of this size, small and medium companies,
export to South Korea. And they will be able to grow and hire new
workers here in the United States, right here at home.
{time} 1520
These agreements are about creating jobs. In fact, President Obama
estimates that the passage of these bills will create over 250,000 new
jobs right here at home as a starting point.
Madam Speaker, I urge voting to promote all of these agreements
because it will promote American competitiveness and American jobs. It
will promote American credibility with our trading allies. It will
promote American confidence in our international engagement. And it
will promote American leverage as we work with our trading partners.
And most importantly, it will promote American leadership in the 21st
century.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), ranking member on Trade.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Korean free
trade agreement.
We should all be proud of Korea. We created Korea. Our troops went to
Korea at the beginning of the Korean War and saved South Korea from
becoming North Korea. That's how the Koreans look at it.
I took a trip with the Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, who's now the
Ambassador to China. And the Koreans said, we're very grateful and we
want to have this relationship with you. And they have come--because we
opened our markets to them, they are the most successful country in
Asia in coming from nowhere to an average income of around $33,000 per
person.
Now, making an agreement with them is making an agreement more with
an equal. And when we went from Seattle, we know about our regional
relationship with them, we are the third-largest State exporter to
Korea. In 2010, Washington State exported more than $55 billion worth
of goods; more than half of all that went to Asia. Hundreds of
thousands of jobs in my State depend on this trade relationship. So
this is not something where we're going to lose jobs.
I believe it's important to move ahead because I think it's equally
important to move ahead right. And what
[[Page H6813]]
is amazing is how the Bush administration went into this thing and
never figured out the biggest problem, that it was a one-way trading
operation. We said to them, send us anything you want, and they did.
And now we were going to go for an agreement where we were going to
turn it around and say, we're going to send some things to you.
The Bush administration ignored that. Had it not been for Charlie
Rangel and Sandy Levin and the Democrats, we would never have gotten
them to sit down and renegotiate. They didn't want to reopen. They had
actually passed it and felt badly, and kind of--they lost some face
because we didn't respond. But we said, no, it's not good enough. So we
brought this agreement back and got an agreement that is much fairer
and much more equitably deals with our economy, particularly our
automobile industry, but also beef and some other things.
And this is an agreement between equals. This is not going out
looking for cheap labor. They were that once. Back in the mid-1950s,
when we said send us anything, they made all the textiles. They were
the textile bunch. But they don't make textiles anymore. That's not
what they're doing. They're dealing with high-end exports. And we have
to have an agreement with them that makes it possible for us to have a
level playing field.
This agreement does it, and from that point of view, I think this is
one that everybody can support. I urge my colleagues to support this
free trade agreement with the People's Republic of Korea.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
In response to the two previous speakers, I just want to highlight at
this time the lunch bucket that I carried with me for over 29 years at
Great Northern Paper Company in the mill. The Korea free trade
agreement is bad for the workers who carry a lunch bucket similar to
this.
At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
speak in opposition to this fatally flawed trade agreement. During a
time when our top priority should be job creation, Congress is instead
considering free trade agreements that will ship more American jobs
overseas.
Making matters worse, we need to make sure that our current trade
laws are being enforced. This Korea FTA will allow China to dump even
more cheap goods into the U.S. without paying proper duties. And we're
not talking about just a couple of dollars here either.
Chinese companies fraudulently labeled many of their products as
``Made in Korea'' to the tune of $153 million last year. This fraud
will mean lost jobs and lost revenue here in the United States. If this
agreement passes, more Chinese companies will ignore our trade laws. I
think we can all agree that we should be working toward supporting our
manufacturing sector, not making it easier for China to cheat us.
Working families in this country deserve better than this flawed
agreement. For that reason, I'm urging my colleagues to vote against
it.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Marchant), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of these free
trade agreements. Simply put, the trade agreements create more jobs,
increase exports, and broaden economic growth. At a time when the
United States unemployment hovers around 9 percent, including 8\1/2\
percent in Texas, engines of job growth are needed.
As the independent International Trade Commission points out, the
three trade agreements would increase U.S. exports by $13 billion.
While more jobs are good news for the country as a whole, Texas, in
particular, stands to benefit from increased trade. In today's
globalized economy, Texas depends more than ever on world exports.
Businesses in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are positioned for big
gains. DFW Airport, one of the world's leading trade gateways, already
handles almost 65 percent of all international air cargo in Texas. The
trade agreements would increase shipments of goods from DFW to some of
the most lucrative Latin American and Asian markets.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. MARCHANT. DFW alone has five direct flights every week to South
Korea. Madam Speaker, I am in support of the trade agreements.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of
our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. On balance, the package of measures moving forward is
a constructive development for America's economy, and particularly for
my State of Oregon. The people I represent will see increased sales
abroad of machinery, technology, and agricultural products. This, in
turn, will lead to increased activity at our ports. Beef exports from
Oregon will increase to help our State's farmers and ranchers. Services
ranging from engineering, design, to the legal sector, all will
increase. The Korean free trade agreement means jobs for Oregonians.
Some people have complained this process took too long, but I commend
this administration and, particularly, my colleague, Mr. Levin, who
didn't rush to approve trade deals that weren't good enough. Dramatic
improvements have been made to the Korean free trade agreement where
blatant unfairness towards American automobile sales in Korea have been
addressed. Indeed, this agreement is now supported by the American
workers who make cars. And I commend Mr. Levin for his untiring
efforts.
In total, these agreements represent improvements that we can build
upon, but do not signal that we can relax our efforts. There's more
that can be done. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure the
benefits of trade are more widely distributed, and in the spirit with
which we discussed today, that they, in fact, are enforced.
I've been encouraged by the renewed commitment to use the tools as
they're supposed to be. I was pleased the Senate has acted on Chinese
currency manipulation, and that the administration's decision to impose
tariffs on illegal Chinese activity in the tire market was sustained by
the WTO. I look forward to helping ensure a continued focus on
appropriate trade enforcement.
Our economy has grown increasingly interdependent around the world,
especially in Oregon. Our best efforts are needed to make sure we
realize the promise of international trade. It is not a one-way street.
The years spent to improve these agreements were an important step in
that direction.
{time} 1530
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, the Korea trade agreement is bad for
workers who carry a lunch bucket like this one.
At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).
Mr. KISSELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Korean
free trade agreement, and I want to make two points. One, Korea is a
very important ally, a good friend of ours. It's just that their name
is on the latest of these NAFTA-type template deals that we've been
asked to pass. Two, I love exports, but if you look at our trade
deficit, you've got to figure out that we don't know how to get our
exports higher than our imports, not even get close.
I want to talk about the textile industry today. I spent 27 years of
my life working in textiles. Hundreds of thousands of good Americans
were working there. Their only mistake was in believing their American
Dream could be fulfilled in an industry that our government decided to
give away in trade deals. Now we're at it again. The South Korean free
trade agreement will eliminate around 40,000 textile jobs. How much
more can one industry be asked to give? They give good solid jobs, and,
once again, we give those jobs away.
We heard last week the average American working family is now
effectively down to a standard of living of the mid-1990s. I simply ask
this question: How much more of the American Dream of our American
working families should they have to give up, have to delay, until we
figure out how to get this right, until we quit trying to give
[[Page H6814]]
our jobs away to other parts of the world and we concentrate on this
great American economy and make it here in America?
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would just note that in countries that we
have trade agreements with, we have a surplus in manufacturing exports.
With that, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Being from Georgia's Third Congressional District, we have been
blessed to have a robust manufacturing industry. We have both Kia
Motors and a large textile presence in my district.
I would like to ask the chairman if he would enter into a colloquy.
Mr. CAMP. Yes, I would be glad to.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, what will the Ways and Means
Committee do to ensure no textile jobs in the U.S. are lost due to the
Korea free trade agreement?
Mr. CAMP. If the gentleman would yield, first of all, the agreement
includes a robust safeguard that allows the United States to raise
tariffs if imports from South Korea surge and injure the domestic
textile industry.
Second, the agreement includes a number of provisions to prevent
transshipment of products from China or other third countries to ensure
that U.S. companies are competing only against South Korean imports.
Third, KORUS uses a ``yarn forward'' rule of origin, which requires
that the yarn production and all operations forward occur either in
South Korea or in the United States. This stringent rule is consistent
with other U.S. trade agreements.
Fourth, the agreement will open up significant new commercial
opportunities for U.S. textile and apparel exporters and support the
creation of new textile and apparel jobs in the United States.
South Korea is the 10th largest market for U.S. textile and apparel
exports. The ITC estimates that U.S. textile exports would increase by
$130 million to $140 million, that's 85 to 92 percent, and apparel
exports would increase by $39 million to $45 million, that's 125 to 140
percent.
U.S. textile and apparel exporters are currently at a significant
disadvantage vis-a-vis European textile and apparel exporters. U.S.
companies currently face average tariffs in South Korea of 10.2 percent
on U.S. textile and apparel exports. As a result of the EU-South Korea
FTA entering into force, EU textile and apparel exporters now face an
average tariff of just 0.1 percent.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further, Mr. Chairman, what has the Ways and Means
Committee done to ensure textiles from China do not illegally enter the
U.S. through Korea?
Mr. CAMP. If the gentleman would yield, we are currently working with
U.S. Customs and with the Koreans to avoid this problem. The agreement
itself includes a number of aggressive provisions to address
transshipment. In addition, U.S. Customs and South Korean Customs have
worked closely to develop state-of-the-art procedures, including
advanced risk management techniques. For example, textile products are
automatically categorized as ``high risk'' and subject to a greater
level of scrutiny by U.S. Customs.
In addition, the agreement authorizes textile-specific fraud
detection and verification programs. For example, article 4.3 of the
agreement requires the South Korean Government to share detailed
information about textile manufacturers in South Korea, including
production capacity, supplier information, and machinery. This allows
U.S. Customs to quickly and accurately estimate likely production and
to flag suspicious shipments and companies.
The agreement also allows U.S. Customs to send inspectors to South
Korea to conduct on-site verifications to prevent evasion and
transshipment. These inspectors are allowed to make unannounced visits;
and if the South Korea firm refuses to allow U.S. Customs officials to
inspect, Customs can suspend preferential tariff treatment for goods
from that company.
U.S. Customs maintains a permanent Customs liaison in our Seoul
Embassy who focuses closely on transshipment issues. South Korea has
already started implementing its commitments in preparation for the
trade agreement. South Korea has dramatically increased resources to
address transshipment, including tasking 157 Customs employees to work
exclusively to verify the accuracy of country of origin information to
products going to countries in which South Korea has a trade agreement.
I will continue to work with Customs and the Koreans to ensure that
trade enforcement is a high priority in the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his
commitment to bolster the customs enforcement and close the loopholes
in the customs process that have negatively impacted U.S. textiles,
including taking up the Textile Enforcement and Security Act, which I'm
sure the chairman would do.
It is my understanding that Korea's tariffs on U.S. textiles are
subject to a 5-year phaseout, but the U.S. tariffs would go to zero
immediately, allowing for free entry for Korean textiles. What is your
committee doing and will it do to ensure an equal playing field for
U.S. textiles in Korea and there's not a flood of Korean textiles into
the U.S. market?
Mr. CAMP. If the gentleman would yield, actually the tariff asymmetry
works the other way around. By value, 73 percent of U.S. textile
exports to South Korea would receive duty-free treatment immediately
upon entering into force. In contrast, only 52 percent of South Korean
textile exports to the U.S. by value would become duty-free
immediately.
So, in addition, it's worth noting that South Korean exports to the
United States have fallen by 50 percent over the past 5 years, while
U.S. exports to South Korea have nearly doubled.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I'd like to ask the chairman, will you promise to
work with the Textile Caucus to ensure that the textile provisions of
the Korean free trade agreement are not used as a model of future free
trade agreements, especially the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Mr. CAMP. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I look forward to
continuing to work together with you and your colleagues in the Textile
Caucus to work to address your concerns and ensure that the USTR is
aware of industry concerns and that Customs adequately prioritizes its
trade enforcement responsibility, particularly as it relates to
textiles.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the chairman for the colloquy.
I would like to submit two articles about the impact of the Korea
free trade agreement on the textile industry.
[From Bloomberg Businessweek, Sept. 15, 2011]
Kolon Loses $920 Million Verdict to DuPont in Trial Over Kevlar
(By Jef Feeley, Gary Roberts and Jack Kaskey)
Kolon Industries Inc. lost a $919.9 million jury verdict to
DuPont Co. over the theft of trade secrets about the
manufacture of Kevlar, an anti-ballistic fiber used in police
and military gear.
Jurors in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, deliberated
about 10 hours over two days before finding Gyeonggi, South
Korea-based Kolon and its U.S. unit wrongfully obtained
DuPont's proprietary information about Kevlar by hiring some
of the company's former engineers and marketers. The award
yesterday is the third-largest jury verdict this year,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
DuPont, based in Wilmington, Delaware, is spending more
than $500 million to boost Kevlar production and meet rising
demand for armor and lightweight materials that reduce energy
use. Kevlar and Nomex, a related fiber used in firefighting
gear, accounted for about $1.4 billion of DuPont's $31.5
billion in sales last year.
The ``jury decision is an enormous victory for global
intellectual property protection,'' Thomas L. Sager, DuPont's
general counsel, said in a statement. ``It also sends a
message to potential thieves of intellectual property that
DuPont will pursue all legal remedies to protect our
significant investment in research and development.''
DuPont rose 86 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $45.52 in New York
Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday. The shares have
declined 8.7 percent this year.
Kolon said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
Multiyear Campaign
The ``verdict is the result of a multiyear campaign by
DuPont aimed at forcing Kolon out of the aramid fiber
market,'' Kolon said in a statement e-mailed by Dan Tudesco
of Brodeur Partners, a public relations agency. ``Kolon had
no need for and did not solicit any trade secrets or
proprietary information of DuPont, and had no reason to
believe that
[[Page H6815]]
the consultants it engaged were providing such information.
Indeed, many of the `secrets' alleged in this case are public
knowledge.''
Kolon said it will continue to pursue an antitrust case
against DuPont, which is scheduled for a March trial. DuPont
will file motions later this year to have the case dismissed,
Sager said in a telephone interview.
DuPont will pursue recovery of the award ``wherever we can
find Kolon assets,'' Sager said. The company also will seek
punitive damages for each of the 149 stolen secrets,
reimbursement of more than $30 million in attorney's fees and
an order barring Kolon from making products with DuPont's
information, Sager said.
Body Armor
DuPont, the largest U.S. chemical company by market value,
sued Kolon in February 2009 alleging it stole confidential
data about Kevlar. DuPont began selling the bullet-resistant
fiber in 1965 and it's used in body armor, military helmets,
ropes, cables and tires. Kolon began making its own version
of the para-aramid fiber in 2005.
DuPont argued in court filings that Kolon executives
conspired with five former employees of the U.S. chemical
maker or its Japanese joint venture, DuPont-Toray Co., to
gain access to Kevlar information.
To spur sales of its Heracron aramid fiber, Kolon hired
Michael Mitchell, a former DuPont engineer who also had
served as a Kevlar marketing executive, DuPont said in court
papers. DuPont contended that Mitchell, hired as a
consultant, provided Kolon with proprietary information about
Kevlar.
Home Computer
Mitchell ``retained certain highly confidential information
on his home computer'' and passed the information to Kolon,
DuPont alleged in court filings.
After learning about Mitchell's activities, DuPont
executives alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
according to U.S. Justice Department officials.
During a search of Mitchell's Virginia home, FBI agents
uncovered DuPont documents and computers containing
confidential information belonging to his former employer,
federal prosecutors said last year.
Mitchell pleaded guilty to theft of trade secrets and
obstruction of justice and was sentenced in March 2010 to 18
months in prison.
Kolon recruited other former DuPont workers, including
engineers and researchers, as part of a ``concerted effort''
to obtain information about Kevlar, according to court
filings.
``DuPont's investment in developing this information,
amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars over many years,
was thereby essentially lost,'' the company said in a filing
in October. ``Kolon is now able to compete against DuPont in
the aramid marketing using DuPont's own information against
it.''
____
[From the New York Times, Oct. 11, 2011]
Textile Makers Struggle To Be Heard on South Korea Free Trade Pact
(By Binyamin Appelbaum)
Washington.--There are still a few textile mills in the
Carolina piedmont, making futuristic fabrics that cover
soldiers' helmets and the roofs of commercial buildings.
There is also a new threat on the horizon. A proposed free
trade agreement with South Korea, which the House and Senate
are scheduled to consider this week, would open the American
market to a manufacturing powerhouse that has its own high-
technology textile industry.
The South Korea deal, and companion pacts with Colombia and
Panama, are sailing toward approval. Both political parties
are eager to show they are doing something to revive the
ailing economy, and there is a broad consensus among the
Obama administration, Republican leaders in Congress and many
moderate Democrats that the deals will reduce costs for
American consumers and increase foreign purchases of American
goods and services.
That has left opponents of trade deals, like the textile
industry, struggling to be heard. They say past trade
agreements, which remove tariffs and other protections for
domestic manufacturers, have eroded the nation's industrial
strength. The new round of deals will repeat that pattern,
they say, allowing South Korean companies to flood the
domestic market without creating significant export
opportunities for American manufacturers.
``We are very much in favor of global trade, but we're just
not about having agreements that are unfair to the U.S.
textile industry,'' said Allen E. Gant, Jr., chief executive
of Glen Raven, a family-owned company that employs 1,500
people in the United States. ``The U.S. needs every single
job that we can get.''
The Obama administration renegotiated some elements of the
deals--first authored by the Bush administration--to address
concerns raised by trade unions and industries including
automakers. The agreements are a centerpiece of its strategy
to increase exports as a driver of faster economic growth,
and the White House is pushing to seal the deals in time for
a state visit to Washington this week by President Lee Myung-
bak of South Korea.
Votes in both chambers of Congress could come as soon as
Wednesday, during Mr. Lee's scheduled visit.
``These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs
across the country for workers making products stamped with
three proud words: Made in America,'' President Obama said in
a statement last week when he submitted the deals to
Congress.
Economists generally argue that free trade agreements
benefit all participating countries by creating a larger
market for goods and services. But that benefit derives in
part from the movement of some activities to the lower-cost
countries. In other words, even if the deal is good for the
United States as a whole, it is likely to create clear
losers.
The government estimated in 2007 that the deals would
increase annual economic output by up to $14.4 billion, or
about one-tenth of one percent. Most of that demand would
come from South Korea, which would join a short list of
developed nations that have free trade pacts with the United
States, including Australia, Canada, Israel and Singapore.
But the study by the United States International Trade
Commission found that the deals would cost jobs in some
industries, and it singled out the textile industry as one
likely to face the largest blow.
Highland Industries, a Greensboro, N.C., company that
employs 680 people at two factories, manufactures a kind of
fabric that is used to reinforce the roof coverings on
commercial buildings like big-box stores. The massive rolls
of fabric can be 12 feet wide and 5,000 yards in length.
South Korean companies already sell similar material at
prices 15 to 20 percent below Highland's. Bret Kelley, the
company's marketing manager, said Highland was able to
compete on speed and customer service, but he said that could
change if the trade agreement passed, because the tariff
reductions would allow South Korean companies to lower prices
by another 10 percent.
``We're quick and nimble, and we forge strong
relationships, but what we're selling is a commoditized
product,'' Mr. Kelley said. ``Those companies will start
looking away for savings of 25 and 30 percent.''
Textile industry executives are particularly incensed that
for some products, like the roofing fabric produced by
Highland, the deal requires the United States to reduce
tariffs more quickly than South Korea.
The administration says there are only about two dozen such
cases, and that the deal on the whole favors American
companies. South Korea must eliminate tariffs immediately on
98 percent of the roughly 1,500 listed products in those
categories, and to complete the process within five years.
The United States, by contrast, would eliminate tariffs
immediately on 87 percent of listed products, and complete
the process within 10 years.
But many in the textile industry say they have a broader
concern. Even once all the tariffs are gone, a deal between a
large economy and a smaller one inevitably favors the smaller
one, because it gains access to a much larger market. South
Korea's economy is less than one-tenth the size of the
American economy.
``There's not a market for our products there,'' Mr. Kelley
said. ``We don't have an opportunity.''
All of this is a familiar story for the textile industry.
The production of shirts and sheets has shifted steadily from
the United States to countries with lower-cost labor.
Economists argue that this process strengthens the economy as
companies and workers shift to more productive and lucrative
kinds of work.
The American Apparel and Footwear Association, a trade
group that includes many members who have shifted some
production overseas, is among the supporters of the trade
deals. The group's president, Kevin M. Burke, has said the
deal would ``create more jobs here at home,'' because
American workers still run textile companies, and design,
transport and sell the products.
But from the perspective of the dwindling ranks of domestic
manufacturers, putting existing jobs in jeopardy seems like
an act of senseless destruction.
``We have felt for many years that our government isn't
supporting the idea of keeping manufacturing alive in the
United States,'' said Ruth A. Stephens of the United States
Industrial Fabrics Institute, a trade group that represents
companies with domestic factories.
Critics also see little evidence that American workers are
moving on to better jobs in more competitive industries. The
primary benefit of the deals, they say, is that corporations
are able to produce goods more cheaply for consumption in the
United States.
``We don't have a free trade agreement with Great Britain,
which could actually buy American products,'' said Auggie
Tantillo, executive director of the American Manufacturing
Trade Action Coalition, which opposes the agreements.
``Instead we have this penchant for doing free trade
agreements with countries that are low-cost manufacturing
centers. Why? Because multinational companies aren't looking
at this and saying, `It will be great to make things in Ohio
and send it to South Korea.' No, they're looking at this and
saying, `It will be great to make things in South Korea and
send it to Ohio.' ''
Mr. Tantillo said he expected it would be clear even a year
from now that the benefits predicted by the government were
overstated.
Mr. LEVIN. First, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, in a letter to the president of the Committee to
Support
[[Page H6816]]
U.S. Trade Laws, the Ambassador of the Trade Representative, Mr. Kirk,
said there is nothing in the trade treatment that will weaken the
international rules or U.S. laws to address unfairly traded imports
that injure U.S. industry and workers. The specific trade remedies
provisions you raise are carefully crafted by our negotiators to mean
that they will not adversely affect the efficacy of relief under U.S.
anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws.
Executive Office of the President, The United States
Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, April 13, 2011.
Gilbert B. Kaplan,
President, Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, c/o King &
Spalding, LLP, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Kaplan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding
certain provisions in the trade remedies chapter of the U.S.-
Korea trade agreement (KORUS). Let me assure you that the
Administration is committed to maintaining strong and
effective trade remedy laws. There is nothing in KORUS that
will weaken the international rules or U.S. laws to address
unfairly traded imports that injure U.S. industries and
workers.
The specific trade remedies provisions you raise in your
letter were carefully crafted by U.S. negotiators to ensure
that they would not adversely affect the efficacy of relief
under U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws, and
would not impinge upon the rights of U.S. petitioners to seek
and obtain relief from unfairly traded imports. None of the
provisions mentioned in your letter--relating to
undertakings, pre-initiation notification and consultation,
and the committee on trade remedies--will require any change
in current U.S. laws or regulations or any substantive change
to current U.S. practice. Furthermore, the dispute settlement
provisions of the agreement do not apply to the antidumping
and countervailing duty provisions of the trade remedies
chapter.
With regard to undertakings, which are currently permitted
under U.S. law, KORUS does not require that any special
consideration be given to requests for undertakings from
Korean exporters or the Korean government or otherwise
obligate the U.S. Department of Commerce to enter into
undertakings. The only requirement in KORUS that does not
already exist in current practice involves the provision of
written information on the procedures for requesting an
undertaking, as well as the timeframes for offering and
concluding such an undertaking. This information is readily
available in U.S. law and regulations. The requirement to
provide a copy of this information at the time an
investigation is initiated will in no way affect our ability
to enforce our trade remedy laws.
With respect to the pre-initiation notification and
consultation provisions in KORUS, these are procedural
provisions that will not require any changes to U.S. law,
Under current law and practice, the Commerce Department
notifies the government of the exporting country when an
antidumping or countervailing duty petition is filed. Pre-
initiation consultations are already required under U.S.
countervailing duty law, In the antidumping duty context, the
agreement clearly states that the provisions are to be
applied consistent with U.S. law. Accordingly, these
provisions do not alter current laws or regulations in any
way.
As you note in your letter, KORUS establishes a Committee
on Trade Remedies, the purpose of which is to exchange
information and discuss issues related to trade remedies;
enhance each country's knowledge and understanding of the
other country's trade remedy laws and practices; and improve
cooperation on trade remedy matters. This forum will allow
U.S. trade law administrators and experts an opportunity to
exchange information and views with their Korean
counterparts, and could provide us a basis to address matters
of common concern and better advocate on behalf of the
commercial interests of U.S. exporters, manufacturers and
workers. Moreover, the United States succeeded in obtaining a
commitment from Korea to use this Committee as a forum to
discuss industrial subsidies, which will enhance our ability
to obtain information on Korean government subsidy practices
to the benefit of U.S. companies and workers.
Thank you again for sharing your views on these important
issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
additional concerns.
Sincerely,
Ambassador Ron Kirk.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement
today as I have in support of Colombia and Panama as well.
Madam Speaker, the Korea trade agreement is another example of
President Obama and his team at USTR, led by Ambassador Kirk,
inheriting what I thought were three pretty good trade agreements when
they assumed office, but realizing there was room for improvement, and
much to the credit of the chairman and the ranking member of the Ways
and Means Committee, we got that crucial improvement with Korea over
two vital sectors of the U.S. economy--automobiles and beef.
More specifically for the State of Wisconsin, which is the largest
cranberry-producing State in the Nation, this enables us to get back
into the game with meaningful exports going into the Korean market.
Each day we wait to pass this agreement, Chile captures more market
share, affecting the ability to export and the job creation that we
desperately need back home.
{time} 1540
It's also true for one of the largest manufacturers and, therefore,
one of the largest employers in my district in western Wisconsin,
located in my hometown of La Crosse. Right now, the goods and products
that they're making at that La Crosse plant face an 8 percent tariff
barrier to the export into the Korean market. With the passage of this
agreement, that tariff goes down to zero, which is the point of all of
these trade agreements, that we're leveling the playing field for our
workers and our businesses so they can compete more effectively and
fairly in gaining greater market access to Korea, to Colombia, and to
Panama.
These won't be the panaceas to the job creation we need at home, but
they are important steps in the right direction. They all contain vital
international labor and environmental standards in the bulk of the
agreements, fully enforceable with all other provisions. That has been
a significant improvement as far as the elevation of standards globally
and the leveling of the playing field for our businesses and our
workers at home, which cannot be discounted.
Again, I commend the members of the Ways and Means Committee, the
leadership there, and especially President Obama and his USTR team in
taking these three trade agreements, improving upon them, and making
sure that the ``open for business'' sign is over the United States of
America again so we can pursue a meaningful economic engagement
throughout the rest of the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. KIND. I do subscribe to Cordell Hull's theory on trade. He once
stated that trade is more than just goods and products crossing borders
because, when that occurs, armies don't.
These are an important tool in our diplomatic arsenal and also part
of the answer to the economic growth that we need desperately in this
country.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. My friend who preceded me talked about the reduction in
tariff exports. Well, guess what? That will be blown away if they
manipulate their currency, and Korea is one of only three nations on
Earth identified as a currency manipulator by our own U.S. Treasury.
Does this agreement preclude currency manipulation? No, it does not.
Secondly, they rebate their national taxes, a Value Added Tax, to all
their exports. Build a car in Korea, you don't have to pay taxes in
Korea. Guess what? Build a car in the U.S., we can't rebate the taxes
under these crummy trade laws we've bound ourselves to, and when the
U.S. car gets to the border of Korea, they have to pay a 10 percent
tax. So we're going to be able to export autos to Korea if they're 20
percent cheaper than those produced by cheaper labor in Korea. Not very
likely, but let's say we could do that. Then there are a couple of
other problems.
If you buy a U.S. car and if you're a Korean citizen, they will audit
your taxes. Most employers do not allow the owners of foreign
automobiles, which are mostly luxury automobiles over there--there are
very few foreign automobiles--to have parking spaces at work. Also,
Korea does not buy very many cars. They have a 65 percent mix: 65
percent of the cars they produce are exported.
This is not about U.S. exports to Korea. Once again, it's a platform
for them to say to us stop here--it's cheaper--and displace American
jobs.
Even the U.S. International Trade Council, the wildest cheerleader in
the
[[Page H6817]]
world for all of these failed agreements, says we're going to have a
bigger deficit in autos. These are the same people who said we were
going to have huge trade surpluses with Mexico. Whoops, got it wrong.
They can't even mess around with this and pretend we're going to
benefit from this--$300 million, they say, of additional auto exports
to Korea and $1.7 billion of more auto exports from Korea to the U.S.
That's what the cheerleader is saying. Imagine what the real numbers
are going to be like.
We're talking about 160,000 to 200,000 U.S. jobs. Kiss the remainder
of the auto industry and auto parts goodbye with this agreement.
Mr. CAMP. I would just note that this agreement is endorsed by the
three big automakers as well as by the United Auto Workers.
With that, I would yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this
important issue and for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, many Americans believe that Congress can't agree on
anything; but if there is one thing Washington can agree on, it's that
we're in a jobs crisis and that we should be doing everything in our
power to create an environment that encourages the private sector to
thrive and create jobs.
If we are looking to make a dramatic and immediate impact on our job
market, we need to look no further than the South Korean trade
agreement. Ratifying this deal will secure at least 70,000 American
jobs as we increase our exports by more than $10 billion, adding $12
billion to our GDP. This agreement also means jobs for Kansas. Our
agriculture sector is looking at a multibillion-dollar expansion in our
processed foods, chemical and transportation industries, which do well
over $150 million of business with South Korea each year, and are prime
to expand further under this deal.
If our focus is on jobs, jobs, jobs, then let's pass this South
Korean trade agreement, and let's get America back to work.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our
committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I rise today in support of this agreement between the
United States and Korea. I especially want to thank my colleague, Mr.
Levin of Michigan, for his tireless efforts to improve the agreement,
along with Chairman Camp and Congressman Brady of Texas in a bipartisan
way.
A lot of credit for the concept of this agreement should also go to
President Obama. The Bush administration was willing to submit an
agreement that heavily favored Korea, but the Obama administration held
out until we got a better deal--a more fair deal, a more fair
agreement.
For a long time, our roadways have been home to cars named Hyundai.
Now, because of this agreement, South Korean roadways will see more
American cars on them. It's only right that Fords and Chevys have the
same access that Hyundai has here in America. This agreement will not
only break down barriers for American car manufacturers, but American
services and goods, such as insurance, legal, finance, television, and
movies will now be available in South Korea. Korean services companies
have always had the right to operate here, but this agreement is about
making sure that American companies have the same ability to operate in
South Korea.
That's good news for American businesses and good news for American
workers. For a State like mine, which depends so much on the service
industries, it is important that we are able to export our products
throughout the world. It is no secret that the number one reason to
support this agreement is that it tears down barriers for U.S.
exporters and will create jobs right here in the United States.
But the number two reason is just as important. I have often
discussed with my Korean American constituents back in Queens and in
the Bronx the importance of there being a strong South Korea. This is
as much about diplomacy. This is as much about our geopolitics. South
Korea is in an area of the world that is dangerous and unpredictable.
America needs strong allies in this region, and this agreement
acknowledges South Korea as a friend and stalwart ally of the American
Government and, more importantly, of the American people. Since we
stood shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war against the
advancement of Communism to our joint efforts today to stop terrorism
throughout the world, South Korea has been a true ally of the United
States.
This agreement sends a message to countless other countries around
the world that, if you want to be treated like South Korea, act like
South Korea.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. CROWLEY. South Korea has strong labor and environmental laws.
South Korea is committed to a representative democracy, and South Korea
recognizes that trade is a two-way street that must benefit Americans
as well as South Koreans.
I strongly urge the passage of this agreement.
{time} 1550
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise to voice my strong opposition to this trade
agenda with South Korea.
Like the two other NAFTA-style trade agreements before us, we know
this deal will lead to the outsourcing of American jobs, potentially
displacing 159,000 U.S. workers, according to the Economic Policy
Institute. It will provide Chinese businesses engaged in the
transshipment of goods through third countries an easy opportunity to
take advantage of tariff rates that are intended for South Korean
goods.
According to the Korea Customs Service, the quantity of products
illegally labeled ``Made in Korea'' doubled from 2008 to 2010. These
transshipped products come primarily from China and southeast Asian
nations.
Chinese companies have a history of transshipping goods to the U.S.
through other countries so that they can avoid duties that are levied
against them for illegal trading practices. Korea's proximity and 16
ports, including the world's fifth-largest, makes them a usual target
for Chinese companies.
Investigations by U.S. Customs in recent years have resulted in
indictments and convictions for a variety of duty evasion schemes that
hurt America, including cases concerning steel, wire garment hangers,
and honey from China. There are no provisions in this agreement to
guard against a potential flood of Chinese products shipped through
Korea.
That means we can expect an increase of cheap Chinese goods into our
market, again to the detriment of U.S. workers, if we pass this
agreement. Millions of jobs have been lost or displaced because of our
trade deficit with China, and Chinese products from chicken to toys
have posed serious public health concerns.
What American families need right now is real job creation. We should
be focused on policies that will put Americans back to work here at
home in good, well-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. And what we
do not need are shortsighted trade deals that open a back door for
Chinese companies to exploit.
I urge my colleagues: Stand up for struggling Americans and oppose
this agreement.
District Lodge 26, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
Kensington, CT, March 22, 2011.
Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Dear Representative DeLauro: I am writing to you, and all
members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation, to make
certain that we have conveyed clearly to you the position of
the International Association of Machinists regarding the
proposed South Korea Free Trade Agreement.
It is our understanding that you have already declared your
opposition to this unacceptable treaty. Thousands of IAM
members across the state and the country thank you for your
decision to protect working families rather than cave in to
global corporate interests. Hopefully, the material in this
letter will give you more ammunition with which to actively
encourage defeat of this flawed pact.
Let me start by stating plainly and without equivocation--
the Machinists Union nationally and in Connecticut is
strongly opposed to this proposed agreement. Much has
[[Page H6818]]
been written about this pact, so I will not repeat arguments
unnecessarily. Attached to this correspondence is a statement
from our national leadership declaring their opposition. Our
main concern, and one that has been borne out by the results
of a series of regrettable so-called ``free trade''
agreements, is further loss of US jobs, and a mounting US
trade deficit.
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the US will
lose approximately 159,000 jobs as a result of this pact. We
cannot afford to lose any jobs, and certainly not here in
Connecticut.
Our state is particularly vulnerable in regards to this
agreement. As you may know, South Korea has embarked on an
ambitious renewable energy program, and one of their favored
technologies is the fuel cell. While neither our state nor
our federal government has seen fit to invest significantly
in fuel cells, South Korea is now the largest consumer of the
technology.
Fuel Cell Energy has already located production facilities
in South Korea, and there is no doubt that other producers,
including UTC Power, are continually evaluating the location
of their production in relation to markets.
The US State Department, in its 2010 Investment Climate
Guide, states:
The Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS-FTA) would be a
major step to enhance the legal framework for U.S. investors
operating in Korea. All forms of investment would be
protected under the KORUS-FTA agreement, including
enterprises, debt, concessions and similar contracts, and
intellectual property rights. With very few exceptions, U.S.
investors will be treated as well as Korean investors (or
investors of any other country) in the establishment,
acquisition, and operation of investments in Korea. In
addition, these protections would be backed by a transparent
international arbitration mechanism, under which investors
may, at their own initiative, bring claims against a
government for an alleged breach of the KORUS-FTA chapter.
Submissions to investor-state arbitration tribunals would be
made public, and hearings would generally be open to the
public.
Such re-assurances about the ease & safety of investing in
Korea are, in fact, alarming to workers whose jobs will be
the ``collateral damage'' when such investments occur. That
includes Connecticut working families.
The 35% content provision--allowing goods with up to 65%
content produced outside of South Korea to be treated as
South Korean exports--makes the agreement a conduit for
sweatshop products from all over Asia. These are not
provisions that help workers either in the US or South Korea.
There has been some small confusion, exacerbated by
proponents of the treaty, about where the US trade movement
generally stands on this issue. It is true that the United
Auto Workers and the United Food & Commercial Workers have
stated their support--but labor's support stops there. The
AFL-CIO and its affiliates oppose this treaty--period.
Just as importantly, the South Korean labor movement also
vigorously opposes the pact. Given the claims that workers'
rights are enhanced in the agreement, the Koreans' opposition
is a sobering reality check. In fact, the International
Metal-Workers Federation (IMF), of which the IAM is a part,
stated in 2009 that ``Union repression in South Korea is
among the worst in the world.'' That article is attached, as
is a recent piece concerning a huge struggle taking place at
a South Korean shipyard where thousands of workers are losing
their jobs, despite contractual commitments from the
employer.
Incidentally, the conduct of large Korean corporations,
even outside of Korea, calls into question their attitude
towards workers. Attached is an article describing the
ongoing hardship being endured by employees of the South
Korean ship building HANJIN in the Philippines. The situation
is, in a word, shameful.
South Korea, and the rights of workers internationally, is
of such importance to our Union and its members that Eastern
Territory General Vice President Lynn Tucker recently
traveled to Korea for a conference of ship-building unions,
to speak to delegates. General Vice President Tucker was
appalled at the accounts of abuse of South Korean workers. He
asks very pointedly how President Obama can give assurances
that the ``re-negotiated'' treaty protects workers, when here
in the US workers in states like Wisconsin and Ohio are being
trampled into the ground. ``Does Obama know how to get to
Wisconsin or Ohio and demand from those Governors a fair
agreement for workers? I think not,'' GVP Tucker concluded.
Please dispense with any notion that the labor movement is
supportive or ambivalent about the South Korea Free Trade
Agreement. We urge you to remain steadfast against the treaty
and to work on persuading your colleagues to do the same, in
the best interests of our great country and our beleaguered
state.
Thank you. Please contact me if you have any questions or
concerns about this matter. I can be reached at 860 459-5381.
Sincerely,
John W. Harrity.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Tiberi).
Mr. TIBERI. I rise in support of the three agreements before us today
and would like to read a recent quote from our President, Barack Obama:
``If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in
South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers. I want to see more
products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: `Made in
America.' ''
Madam Speaker, this is about jobs, and I support the President's
effort, our chairman's effort in crafting these three agreements before
us today. In fact, I asked Ambassador Kirk earlier this year in our
full committee, how many jobs did he think would be created if these
three agreements were passed? And his answer was 250,000 new American
jobs would be supported with these three agreements.
In Ohio, Madam Speaker, agriculture is still the number one industry.
We believe, the trade ambassador believes, that we will see an increase
in exports to South Korea and the three other countries of 55 million
per year.
This is about jobs, Madam Speaker. This is about exports. This is
about leveling the playing field.
I urge my colleagues' support of the agreements.
Mr. LEVIN. It is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Korea free
trade agreement, as well as the Panama and Colombia agreements before
us today.
Economic growth depends upon a number of factors, including growing
access to foreign markets. These agreements do that. Foreign goods
enter our country under few restrictions, but around the world our
products face product tariffs and other prohibitive barriers to trade.
The current situation is neither free nor fair trade.
This changes that. The barriers are against our products. This
reduces and eliminates those barriers.
The pending agreements will allow American products to better compete
globally and drive job creation here at home. That's why I support
these agreements.
Perhaps no industry stands to gain more than agriculture throughout
America, and especially in California, the number one agricultural
State in the Nation. Passage of these agreements with South Korea means
American-grown raisins, asparagus, almonds, pistachios, and wine will
benefit from immediate duty-free access to the world's 12th-largest
economy. Many other crops, including citrus, will also benefit.
Recognizing the agreement's potential to create over 70,000 American
jobs, it's been endorsed by the United Auto Workers, United Food and
Commercial Workers, and many of the agricultural trade associations.
With Panama, American exports will gain duty-free access to Latin
America's fastest-growing economy. The agreement with Colombia will
eliminate most barriers to trade for U.S. products entering Central and
South America, its third-largest economy, and strengthen our ties with
a key ally in that region.
Simply put, expanding access to emerging foreign markets will boost
agricultural revenue and, in turn, help put Californians back to work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. COSTA. But simply passing these agreements is not enough. We must
build on the current and future administration's accountability to
ensure these trade agreements are enforced. We cannot afford to sit on
the sidelines while other countries forge their own pacts with emerging
markets. Increased exports mean more jobs for here at home and for
America.
I ask you to support these measures.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
These are the same promises that we heard during NAFTA and during the
Most Favored Nation trade status debate with China.
We hear a lot of statistics about job creation. We don't need
statistics. Come to Ohio. Go to Toledo. Go to Pittsburgh. Go to
Fayetteville, North Carolina. Go to Youngstown, Ohio. Go to Akron. Go
down the Ohio River. All
[[Page H6819]]
these promises were made before, and it didn't pan out. It didn't work.
And these trade issues are sideshows. The number one issue facing
this Congress is whether or not we're going to deal with China and
their currency manipulation. That bill came to the floor, this floor,
last year. We had 99 Republicans vote for it. It passed with 350 votes.
It just passed the Senate.
We need to bring that bill to the floor and take on the beast in the
middle of the room, and that's the Chinese, and drive investment back.
When we put a tariff on oil country tubular goods in China,
countervailing duties and anti-dumping, we had $2 billion of investment
that now came into the United States in steel mills.
We know what to do. We just need the courage to do it. And to all my
friends here who are going to help all these multinational
corporations, they're going to get the money that they made, and
they're going to utilize the Citizens United case, and they're going to
invest it in your campaigns to beat you.
It's time we have the courage to take on the beast and do what's
right.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
Well, the beast in the room is jobs, and that's what these bills are
about: jobs.
We need to pass these trade agreements just like President Obama
said. Pass these trade agreements now. Pass these jobs bills now.
That's what these are, jobs bills.
Korea alone, 70,000-plus jobs. And how does that work? Well, 95
percent of the tariffs that we pay currently to Korea disappear.
They're eliminated almost immediately.
What happens then? Guess what. Our prices go down. More demand for
our goods. More demand for our goods, what does that mean? Produce more
products. When you produce more products, what happens? This is Economy
101.
{time} 1600
You have to hire more workers, more workers to make more products.
Guess what. The unemployment rate goes down.
That's what we need to do today. We have to come together, and we
know this is a bipartisan effort. We know that people have come
together on both the Democrat side and the Republican side. We know
that the White House has supported these trade agreements.
What happens if we don't pass these bills? We lose. The European
Union has already made their agreement with Korea. It went into effect
on July 1. Their exports to Korea have already increased by 17 percent.
We are losing market share. Ninety-five percent of our market is
outside of this country. We need to sell America. We need to pass these
trade agreements now. We need to pass these jobs bills now.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman
Michaud, for his tireless work to promote responsible trade policy.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the U.S.-South Korea
free trade agreement. Nearly 14 million Americans remain out of work;
and instead of considering a job creation bill, we are voting today on
a trade bill that the Economic Policy Institute estimates will cause
the loss of an additional 159,000 U.S. jobs.
This trade deal will further devastate the American manufacturing
sector which has already lost 6 million jobs since 1998; 55,000
factories have closed in the last decade. The three Bush-negotiated
trade deals under consideration today are an expansion of the NAFTA
trade model, which has decimated cities and towns across America.
Agreements like the Korea FTA have accelerated the outsourcing and off-
shoring, sending American jobs and plants overseas.
This trade agreement is a bad deal for American workers. Trade can be
a valuable tool to bolster the U.S. economy, but only if we utilize a
trade model that promotes U.S. jobs. If we want to create jobs, we need
to create jobs, not pass another trade agreement that will ship even
more U.S. jobs abroad.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this is a difficult time in the life of our Nation--
9.1 percent unemployment nationally, and millions of Americans families
are hurting. And the American people are looking to Washington, D.C.,
more for solutions than for fights. And today with the Korea free trade
agreement, with the Colombia trade promotion agreement and the Panama
trade promotion agreement, Washington, D.C., in a bipartisan way is
coming together with a solution that will help to create jobs and get
this economy moving again, and I heartily support it.
I want to commend Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, Speaker
Boehner, Leader Cantor, and even the President of the United States for
working together in common purpose to bring us to this important
moment. I've always believed that trade means jobs. And I say with some
pride, that's especially true in the Hoosier State.
Indiana is uniquely poised to take advantage of the free trade
opportunities provided in these agreements, and I'm grateful for the
chance to elaborate on that. I often say in Indiana we do two things
well: we make things and we grow things. The truth is that in the State
of Indiana, we do a lot more than that. But in Indiana, what we grow
and what we build is really at the heart of the Hoosier economy, and
expanding global markets for what we make and for what we grow is going
to create jobs in Indiana, in the city and on the farm.
The American Farm Bureau estimates that implementing these three
agreements will increase agricultural exports in Indiana by nearly $55
million a year, creating 500 new agricultural-related jobs.
The Korea agreement that we debate at this moment will eliminate $1.3
billion in tariffs on U.S. exports that cover many products Indiana is
known for, like feed corn, soybeans, and dairy. It will eliminate those
duties while other duties on products like pork will be phased out.
Other industries, like Indiana's growing life sciences sector, will
benefit.
Let me say again, I rise in support of these agreements because I
believe that trade means jobs. And America and Indiana need jobs like
never before. I urge my colleagues in both parties to join in this
bipartisan effort, and let's move this bill.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine has 11 minutes
remaining, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 8 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Every time a President, Democrat or Republican, asks Congress to
approve a trade deal, they give us these wild optimistic projections
for how many jobs these deals are going to create.
Sadly, this administration is no different. President Obama has
suggested that the Korea free trade agreement will create 70,000 new
jobs. The record shows just how wrong that claim is.
In the 1990s, President Clinton suggested that NAFTA would create
over 200,000 jobs. Well, here's the reality: Since NAFTA passed in
December 1993, America has lost 5.15 million jobs. Lost 5.15 million
manufacturing jobs. And 384,000 of these jobs were lost in my home
State of North Carolina.
In 2005 President Bush claimed that CAFTA was a ``pro-jobs bill''
that would stem the tide of U.S. manufacturing job losses. But since
CAFTA passed in September of 2005, America has lost 2.4 million
manufacturing jobs.
Here we have roughly 9.1 percent unemployment in this country, due in
no small part to the Washington elite jamming these job-destroying
trade agreements down our throats.
[[Page H6820]]
Americans do not want more ``free trade.'' A recent NBC-Wall Street
Journal poll showed that 69 percent of the American people believe that
free trade has cost American jobs. The poll shows that 61 percent of
Tea Party supporters believe that trade agreements have hurt this
Nation.
It's time we started listening to the will of the American people and
doing what is in the best interests of the American people, not in the
best interests of the foreign nationals who desperately want to take
our jobs.
Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
show their true American colors and vote ``no,'' ``no,'' and ``no'' on
these three trade agreements.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, as the public is listening to this, I
think they're kind of collectively going, Whew, finally there's
something that's going on in Congress. Finally there's something going
on with the other body. Finally there's something going on with the
White House that is common ground around a very simple premise, and
that's this: no-cost job creation. It doesn't cost a single dime.
For my home State, the proof is in the pudding. This means it's going
to help 145,000 Illinois jobs right now that are tethered within 650
companies that are dealing with exports. This deal helps them. Twenty-
five percent of all manufacturing jobs in my home State of Illinois are
related to exports. And let's face it, 95 percent of the world's
consumers live outside of the United States. So you know what this
trade deal does, this says: game on. The U.S. can compete. Give us a
fair playing field, and game on. We can compete.
These were hard-headed, hard-nosed negotiations led by Chairman Camp
and the White House and Ranking Member Levin and others. These were
tough deals that were put together that were not just weak handshakes.
This was staring down opponents and finally coming to common ground and
putting something together that has a great deal of possibility, a
great deal of promise in a country that is desperate, I mean absolutely
desperate, for solutions; and this is a remedy. This is a way for us to
move forward.
{time} 1610
It's important from a strategic point of view. We've got one of our
Nation's best friends poised in Asia, the 10th largest economy in the
world, a country that has moved from the devastation of the Korean War,
that has transcended all of that and is now a donor nation, and we've
got the opportunity to be in a unique and strategic relationship with
them.
This is our opportunity to move forward. I think we need to support
all of these FTAs. I urge their passage.
Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has fought
harder and longer for fair trade than any Member I have served with.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my dear colleague Mr. Michaud, who has fought
equally hard.
I'm proud to stand here on behalf of the communities and workers and
businesses of our country that want to compete on a level playing
field. The problem with our trade policies is they export more U.S.
jobs than products.
The gentleman talks about possibility. I don't want possibility. I
want results. When you look at what's happened over the last quarter
century, we don't have any balanced trade accounts. They're all in the
red. And these trade deficits snuff out economic growth. Didn't anybody
here take math? Look at the balance sheet. It's all negative.
This is Korea today. All negative. Our trade accounts with them have
been negative. They're already negative. What difference does this deal
make? It only says ``maybe.'' Maybe Korea will allow us to sell more
than 7,450 cars in their market when they're selling half a million
here already. Shouldn't reciprocity be at the heart of our trade deals?
We've got a half a trillion dollar trade deficit. How many times do
you have to be hit over the head before you say, You know what? This
isn't working.
Soybean exports aren't enough. Cranberries aren't enough. Look at the
job outsourcing of America from coast to coast. Our people's wages are
going down. Their standard of living is going down. Their jobs have
been outsourced. They're losing their homes. Unemployment is stuck. GDP
isn't rising. Is anybody here listening? Is anybody paying attention?
This is just another example of powerful Washington elites being
totally out of step with Main Street and the American people.
I'm proud of the Tea Partiers who are out there organizing and I'm
proud of the Occupy Wall Street rallies because they're saying, You
folks, you are out of step up here in Washington. Pay attention to what
is happening on Main Street.
I oppose this agreement with Korea as well as Colombia and Panama and
ask this Congress to have some real common sense and move to trade
balance rather than trade deficit. Create jobs in America by balancing
our trade accounts.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Canseco).
Mr. CANSECO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the South
Korea free trade agreement, which is the most significant trade
agreement the United States has negotiated in more than 16 years, and I
thank the leadership of our chairmen, Mr. Camp, Mr. Brady, and Mr.
Dreier, in this regard.
The International Trade Commission's analysis shows that the South
Korean agreement will increase U.S. exports to South Korea by at least
$9.7 billion annually, the tariff cuts alone will add $10.1 billion to
the U.S. economy annually, and that U.S. exports to South Korea will
increase by nearly 30 percent more than imports from South Korea.
The economic activity that will result from the South Korean
agreement will mean thousands of new jobs here at home. The Commerce
Department has estimated that every $1 billion in exports creates 6,000
new jobs.
In particular, the South Korean agreement is especially beneficial
for agriculture. In the 23rd District of Texas, I have the privilege to
represent many agricultural producers. This agreement would be a huge
win for American farmers and ranchers by ensuring that our competitors
who are also seeking trade agreements with Korea are not at an
advantage in South Korea's $15 billion per year agricultural market.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, would you tell us each our remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
8 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 3\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) has 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today as a former mill worker who punched a time clock for
over 29 years at the Great Northern Paper Company in East Millinocket,
Maine. What I've seen firsthand is the devastation that these free
trade agreements can do to our communities.
This agreement is the most economically significant since NAFTA, and
its consequences for America's middle class will be enormous. Since
NAFTA, we have lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs. We've seen
more than 50,000 factories close in the last 10 years alone. The Korea
FTA will bring more of the same. It will cost us more manufacturing
jobs, it will shut down more factories, and it will ship more jobs
overseas, all at a time of 9 percent unemployment when the American
middle class can least afford it.
My colleagues have already highlighted the many reasons to oppose the
Korea FTA, but I want to highlight two of those issues again. First, it
does nothing to protect the U.S. in the face of Korea's currency
manipulation. Second, this agreement isn't just a giveaway to Korea;
it's also a giveaway to China.
Korea has a history of manipulating its currency to boost its
exports. Once in 1988 and twice in 1989, the U.S.
[[Page H6821]]
Treasury Department officially labeled Korea a currency manipulator.
Even though the Treasury stopped officially identifying currency
manipulators, in their February and May report of 2011 they stated
explicitly, ``Korea should adopt a greater degree of exchange rate
flexibility and less intervention.''
The International Monetary Fund agrees. In August of this year, the
IMF stated that the won was undervalued by 5 to 20 percent. The fact
is, Korea manipulates its currency. Our own Treasury Department
recognizes it. But the FTA does nothing to protect American businesses
and workers from it.
You only have to look at Mexico's 1994 devaluation of the peso to see
how effectively an undervalued currency can wipe out an FTA's benefits.
Our trade balance with Mexico has never been positive since.
Without a provision to protect us from the won undervaluation,
Korea's exports will continue to be cheaper than our own exports. This
Korean advantage will wipe out the FTA's tariff benefits for American
companies and cost American workers their jobs.
{time} 1620
Candidate Barack Obama recognized this threat, claiming that as
President he would ``insist that our trade deals include prohibition
against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.'' But this FTA
includes no such prohibition at all.
And, second, this agreement is not just good for Korea; it's great
for China too. Today, we're actually voting on an FTA that will be an
outright boon for China's auto parts sector. The agreement's rules of
origin require that only 35 percent of the car's content value come
from Korea or the U.S.
We have two FTAs with car-producing countries: NAFTA and the
Australia FTA. In the Australia FTA, the content requirements are 50
percent. And in the NAFTA, the content requirements are 62.5 percent.
Korea's car production in 2010 was almost equal to that of Canada's and
Mexico's combined; yet the Korea FTA content requirements are much
lower than NAFTA's. By allowing 65 percent of a car's content value to
come from a third country, we're opening the door for that 65 percent
to come from--guess who--China. As a result, these rules of origin will
be devastating to the American auto parts industry.
The U.S. auto supply chain is already facing challenges from China.
According to the Commerce Department 2010 report titled, ``On the
Road,'' China auto parts exports to the U.S. have increased 43 percent
from 2004 to 2009, and they're expected to account for an increased
share of U.S. automotive parts in the future. In fact, Commerce
predicts that many auto parts companies will continue to move
production to China in an effort to reduce costs and remain
competitive. If this FTA passes, that's not a prediction; that's a
guarantee.
I've already mentioned the fact that we have lost more than 50,000
factories since 2001. Before voting today, I urge you to imagine how
many more factories will close if we are to pass this agreement, and to
think about the devastation that will be brought to those towns when
that happens.
I oppose it because it will devastate our manufacturing sector at a
time when we need to rebuild it. I oppose it because this President
promised hope and change, not more of the same. I oppose it because in
my home town, unemployment is more than 28 percent. I oppose it because
I want to create jobs in the United States, not South Korea, and
definitely not in China.
As a former mill worker from East Millinocket and on behalf of
America's middle class, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Korea FTA
agreement.
I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO in
opposition to all three free trade agreements.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, July 7, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I write to
urge you to oppose the proposed trade agreements with
Colombia, Korea and Panama. Working people, in the U.S. and
around the world, are bearing the brunt of decades of flawed
trade policy. We need Congress and the White House to focus
on creating the millions of good jobs at home that we so
desperately need--not passing more flawed trade deals. These
trade agreements, negotiated by the Bush Administration,
incorporate too many of the disastrous policies of the past,
rather than laying out a new and progressive vision for the
future.
Instead of using valuable time and effort advancing these
flawed agreements, Congress should instead focus on effective
job creation measures, including currency rebalancing and
enforcing existing trade laws. We need to invest in a modern,
functional infrastructure; in a high-tech, high-skilled
workforce; and in clean renewable energy. It is time to
update our trade model for the 21st century so that it
strengthens labor rights protections for all workers,
safeguards domestic laws and regulations, and promotes the
export of U.S. goods rather than jobs.
COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Violence: Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world
for trade unionists. In 2010, 51 labor leaders were killed in
Colombia, an increase over 2009 and more than in the rest of
the world combined. So far in 2011, another 17 have been
killed. The government of Colombia--despite renewed efforts--
has been unable to effectively guarantee the rule of law
allowing workers to exercise their legal rights without fear
of violence.
Impunity: Impunity in cases of violence against trade
unionists remains high, with more than 95% of cases unsolved.
No Opportunity to Exercise Fundamental Rights: As a result
of this campaign of violence, as well as weak labor laws and
inconsistent enforcement, only four percent of Colombian
workers are unionized today, and only one percent of workers
are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Most
workers lack freedom of association, the ability to engage in
collective bargaining, and the right to strike effectively.
Labor Action Plan Inadequate: In April 2011, the Obama
Administration negotiated a Labor Action Plan with the
Colombian government to address long-standing concerns about
violence, impunity, and weak and unenforced labor laws.
Unfortunately, the Labor Action Plan does not go nearly far
enough in addressing these issues. It fails to require
sustained, meaningful, and measurable results with respect to
reductions in violence and improvements in impunity prior to
ratification or implementation of the agreement, and it does
not address the need for broad labor law reform. In addition,
the Action Plan is not enforceable under the trade agreement
itself.
Need to Wait for Results: Once the agreement is in force,
the United States will have lost its most important leverage
to improve the human rights situation in Colombia. The Labor
Action Plan will not fix Colombia's problems overnight.
Congress should wait to see if it is implemented as promised,
and if conditions for working families in Colombia actually
improve as a result.
Korea-US Free Trade Agreement
Job Loss: The Korea FTA is the largest trade deal of its
kind since NAFTA. If enacted, the Economic Policy Institute
estimates the Korea FTA would displace 159,000 U.S. jobs--
mostly in manufacturing.
Kaesong: The Korea FTA does not adequately protect against
goods from the Kaesong Industrial Complex, a sweatshop zone
in North Korea where workers have few rights and earn an
average wage of $61 a month. Kaesong provides $20 million a
year to a dangerous North Korean regime.
Weak Rules of Origin: In order to qualify for reduced
tariff under the Korea FTA, automobiles need only have 35%
U.S. or South Korean Content--meaning up to 65% of the
content of autos traded under the deal could be from other
any other country, including China.
Transshipment: South Korea has already reported an increase
in transshipped goods (primarily from China) illegally and
improperly labeled ``made in South Korea.'' This illegal
transshipment is likely to increase further as unscrupulous
businesses try to take advantage of reduced U.S. tariff rates
specified in the Korea FTA.
Panama Free Trade Agreement
Investment, Financial Services, and Procurement Problems:
The Panama FTA contains similar flaws as other past trade
agreements, including:
Investment provisions that give foreign investors the right
to bypass U.S. courts while they challenge our domestic
health, safety, labor, and environmental laws.
Provisions that reduce our ability to re-regulate the
financial sector; prevent banks from becoming ``too big to
fail''; and even use taxpayer money to ``buy American'' and
create local jobs.
Labor Rights: Panama has a history of failing to protect
workers and enforce labor rights.
Tax Haven: Panama is known as a ``tax haven,'' with a
history of attracting money launderers and tax dodgers. The
Tax Information Exchange Treaty that Panama recently signed
does not go into effect for another year and may be too weak
to fix the problems. Only time will tell if Panama will live
up to its promises.
American families need a new way forward on trade, not more
of the same. So long as these agreements fall short of
protecting the broad interests of American workers and their
counterparts around the world in these uncertain economic
times, we will oppose them.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director,
Government Affairs Department.
[[Page H6822]]
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell) for the
purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. KISSELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KISSELL. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record 27,000
petitions from American Textile Workers expressing opposition to the
Korean free trade agreement.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
letter from the AFL-CIO on Korea's labor violations.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, July 6, 2011.
Legislative Alert
Dear Representative: As you will soon be asked to ratify
the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, I would like to share
important information regarding serious labor violations in
South Korea.
The AFL-CIO has learned disturbing allegations from our
colleagues in the Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU). These
allegations call into question the Government of South
Korea's commitment to promote and defend not only the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (as
promised in Chapter 19 of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade
Agreement), but human rights more generally.
The allegations center on concerted actions against two
different employers. The first involves Hanjin Heavy
Industries, which in December 2010 unilaterally dismissed 170
workers in violation of the employment security agreement
with KMWU. Later that month, the union local began a strike,
which included a sit-in protest inside the factory. We
understand that, in June, Hanjin hired some 400 private
contractors, who, together with 2000 riot police, forced most
of the peaceful protestors out of the building. In addition,
it is alleged that, for the protesters who remain on site in
``Crane 85,'' these security forces have limited the food and
water available and cut off electricity.
Instead of helping these workers, we understand that the
Government of South Korea has imprisoned one striker, issued
arrest warrants for four union leaders, and issued police
summonses for an additional 240 union members in connection
with its ``Obstruction of Business'' law. The ILO has
repeatedly called on Korea to revise this law to bring it
into conformity with the internationally recognized right of
workers to exercise their freedom to associate.
The second incident involves Yuseong Piston Ring (YPR), a
major supplier for Hyundai Motors. On May 18, workers at YPR
engaged in a two-hour work stoppage in order to protest
management's apparent failure to implement a ``2-day shift
system'' per an agreement signed with the workers in 2009.
That day, YPR instituted a lockout that remains in place.
When workers attempted to return to work on June 22, 150
private contractors physically attacked union workers with
iron pipes, fire extinguishers, and other weapons. Some 20
union members were seriously injured, and four arrest
warrants were issued for KMWU leaders.
These allegations are made all the more disturbing with the
impending vote on the Korea FTA. If these types of violations
are occurring at a time when Korea should be putting its best
foot forward in hopes of gaining trade concessions from the
U.S., it is unlikely that the government will feel the need
to better uphold its promises to guarantee fundamental rights
for workers once the agreement is in place and Korea's
internal labor relations are no longer under a microscope.
While opinions differ on the underlying merits of the Korea
FTA, the AFL-CIO asks that you oppose Congressional
consideration of the FTA at least until the fundamental
rights of South Korean workers to organize and bargain
collectively are respected.
I urge you to contact the Korean Government and make your
views known on this important matter.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director,
Government Affairs Department.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from California (Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to
insert into the Record a resolution from the League of United Latin
American Citizens expressing opposition to the free trade agreement.
To Support a Fair Trade Model and Opposing the Colombia, Panama and
South Korea Free Trade Agreements
Whereas, the League of United Latin American Citizens is
this nation's oldest and largest Latino organization, founded
in Corpus Christi, Texas on February 17, 1929; and
Whereas, LULAC throughout its history has committed itself
to the principles that Latinos have equal access to
opportunities in employment, education, housing and
healthcare; and
Whereas, LULAC supports a new U.S. trade policy that
creates living-wages, sustainable jobs for people in the U.S.
and trade partners countries while promoting democracy, human
rights, labor standards, a healthy environment, and access to
essential services; and
Whereas, LULAC opposes the U.S. Korea Free Trade Agreement
(FTA), U.S. Colombia FTA and U.S. Panama FTA, and it has in
the past opposed the U.S. Peru FTAs and the Central America
FTA (CAFTA) because these pacts did not meet these goals; and
Whereas, LULAC has succeeded in bringing to national
attention how agriculture provisions in the North American
FTA (NAFTA) and CAFTA have forced rural Latin Americans to
leave their countries and families, risking their lives
crossing the U.S. border to be able to support their loved
ones back home; and
Whereas, since NAFTA the U.S. has lost over 5 million
family-supporting manufacturing jobs and whereas the country
cannot sustain further job loss of this magnitude, especially
when unemployment disproportionately affects Latino families
and other people of color; and
Whereas, the foreign investor provisions and their private
enforcement included in pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA threaten
the sovereignty and the environment of Latin American
nations, and their control of their natural resources; and
Whereas, President Obama committed during his campaign to
create a new American trade model that could deliver benefits
to more people and remedy these problems, but to date has not
implemented these commitments; and
Whereas, a comprehensive, bipartisan reform bill--the Trade
Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE)
Act--that would deliver on Obama's commitment by addressing
agricultural displacement, job loss and other past trade deal
problems was supported by LULAC and over 150 members of
Congress; and
Whereas, the Obama administration has announced that it
will send to Congress three NAFTA-style trade deals with
Colombia, Panama and South Korea; and
Therefore be it resolved, that the League of United Latin
American Citizens will continue to fully and actively support
a new fair trade model based on the TRADE Act; and
Be it further resolved, opposes ratification of FTAs with
Colombia, Panama and South Korea leftover from the Bush
administration; and
Be it further resolved, that a copy this resolution be
provided to the President of the United States, the Members
of the appropriate Congressional committees, the U.S. Trade
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
Labor, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Approved this 1st day of July 2011.
Margaret Moran,
LULAC National President.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congressman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz)
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CRITZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
letter from the United Steelworkers in opposition to the Korea free
trade agreement.
United Steelworkers,
June 20, 2011.
Re oppose the free trade agreements with Korea, Panama and
Colombia
U.S. Senate,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator/Representative: On behalf of the 1.2 million
active and retired members of the United Steelworkers (USW) I
write to urge you to vigorously oppose the Free Trade
Agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia. These three FTA's
will undermine our economic recovery, further decimate
American manufacturing and jobs and deepen the economic
insecurity and devastation faced by workers across the
country.
International trade and the consequences of accelerated
globalization are matters of long-standing and deep concern
to the USW, as an overwhelming portion of our members work in
import-sensitive manufacturing sectors and all too often have
lost their jobs due to bad trade deals and unfair and
predatory trade practices. Promises made by administrations
past and present touting the benefits of free trade have
simply not materialized for America's manufacturing workers.
This is clearly reflected in the nation's massive trade
deficit--a deficit fueled by trade deals that grease the path
for greater and greater out-sourcing and off-shoring of jobs
and capacity--and every bit as dangerous as our federal
deficit.
[[Page H6823]]
The results of ``free trade'' deals are all too clear: In
the last decade alone six million manufacturing jobs and
55,000 plants have been lost. Multinational companies easily
set up operations overseas and export back to the U.S.
market. Numbers tell the story. New Department of Commerce
data show that large U.S. multinational companies cut their
workforces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while
increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This continues
even as workers and families wrestle with a tepid and
uncertain economic recovery that is generating insufficient
job growth with millions still unemployed or underemployed.
It's no wonder--our trade policies encourage job growth
overseas. Trade deals force working Americans to assume all
the risk and encourage big multinationals to reap all the
rewards.
USW members have sacrificed enough. We oppose these trade
deals because they do not adequately address the changing
nature of trade and accelerating globalization. They are
based on the failed NAFTA model. We need to update and reform
our nation's trade policies, not simply continue on the
present course.
The following comments provide an overview of our
objections to these three agreements. They touch upon only
some of the issues which undermine our nation's interests.
US-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
The Steelworkers have spent considerable time and effort
analyzing the proposed FTA and engaged in a substantive and
extensive dialogue with the Administration and leaders on the
Hill regarding the FTA's provisions. Regrettably, the US-
Korea FTA (KORUS) will undermine America's economic interests
and lead to higher trade deficits and greater job loss.
While the focus of the Obama Administration's activities
relating to KORUS was on improving the provisions relating to
trade in autos, their efforts came up short for the vastly
larger US auto supply chain. The final provisions allow for a
vehicle to be eligible for the preferences of KORUS with only
35% of the content, by value, coming from the signatory
countries. So, a Korean vehicle, to be eligible for duty-free
treatment entry into the U.S., could have almost 2/3rds of
its content, by value, coming from another country--like
China. And, KORUS gives automakers the discretion to choose
among three different methods to calculate content allowing
them to choose whichever method is best for them, not for job
retention or creation.
Americans want the term ``Made in USA'' to mean something.
Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission's standard for Made in
USA is that ``all or virtually all'' of the content should be
of U.S. origin. The KORUS will accelerate the off-shoring and
outsourcing of auto parts production, jeopardizing not only
the jobs of the 350,000 Steelworkers that make products that
can be used in the auto supply chain, but those of other
workers across the country.
These provisions alone make the FTA fundamentally flawed,
but, there are other problems that will cause serious
economic consequences with the KORUS:
It will jeopardize jobs across the economy. The Economic
Policy Institute estimates that KORUS will cause the loss of
159,000 jobs;
It will increase the trade deficit in seven high-paying
sectors, according to the International Trade Commission;
It undermines our trade laws by allowing for the diversion
of dumped or subsidized components to be shipped to the U.S.
from third countries. The agreement lacks sufficient
safeguards to address this serious problem and provides new
procedures that could advantage Korean producers.
It does not include provisions to ensure reciprocal market
access--the Korean market is one of the toughest markets in
the world for foreign products to compete in. Tariffs are
often buttressed by a labyrinth of non-tariff barriers that
will continue to impede our exports.
It fails to address Korea's ongoing currency manipulation.
It fails to include a comprehensive and annual review
mechanism that will allow for comprehensive oversight of the
workings of the FTA to ensure that the provisions that are
adopted, and fully and faithfully enforced. It largely leaves
to the private sector the job of demanding compliance, rather
than an ongoing review mechanism that identifies and
addresses problems before the injury is inflicted on our
workers, farmers and businesses.
U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement
The U.S.-Panama FTA is not an economically meaningful
agreement in terms of providing a robust market for U.S.
exports and job creation. But, its flawed provisions continue
to expand the existing trade model that has proven to
undermine our economic and employment interests. Thus, it
further jeopardizes our economic recovery and expands an
unacceptable trading framework.
Among the reasons the U.S. Panama FTA should be rejected
are:
It fails to provide significant economic opportunities to
promote our economic recovery and job creation;
It fails to reform the existing FTA approach to investment
allowing for Panamanian investors to challenge many of our
most important health, safety, environmental and other laws;
It fails to ensure adequate provision of labor rights
despite recent changes adopted by the Panamanian government;
It does not do enough to address Panama's historic role as
a tax haven or center for narco-trafficking.
US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement puts in jeopardy
America's moral leadership by sacrificing the lives and
livelihoods; the worker and human rights of the Colombian
people at the altar of free trade. Trade has the power to
lift people up and to advance America's values--it also has
the power to entrench the status quo.
In Colombia, the status quo has made that country the most
dangerous place in the world to be a union member. Indeed, as
the ITUC concluded in its most recent, 2011 world survey of
anti-union violence, Colombia, in the words of the ITUC,
continues ``to maintain the lead in a grim record of murder
and repression of workers involved in trade union
activities.''
Moreover, the Colombian government continues to fail
miserably at effectively prosecuting those responsible for
anti-union violence. Thus, impunity for anti-union killings
remains at 96%, while impunity for other forms of anti-union
violence remains at an incredible 99.8%.
Colombia should not be rewarded with a trade agreement
until it has a proven track record of bringing to justice
those who have perpetrated crimes against union activists and
has adopted and enforced workers' rights throughout the
country. In recent weeks,--since the Action Plan was
announced between our two countries--violence against union
activists and worker repression has continued unabated. And,
while the Action Plan purports to improve Colombia's existing
framework of laws and regulations, there is no reason to
believe that these changes will have any real positive impact
on workers. The US is giving away the one tool it has to
effect change in Colombia, by voting to pass the agreement
before there is time to see if the Santos Administration will
live up to its commitments under the Action Plan. Only time,
and additional improvements in the operation of their laws
and judicial system and the enforcement of their labor laws,
will position Colombia as an appropriate free trade agreement
partner.
Among the reasons that the US-Colombia FTA should be
rejected are:
Violence against union leaders and activists continues;
Colombia has not developed a sufficient investigatory and
judicial infrastructure to bring the perpetrators of this
violence to justice;
Significant opportunities exist for employers to deny
workers their most basic organizing rights. Employers can
continue to use cooperatives, temporary contracts and other
means to thwart union organizing and the ability of workers
to exert their rights;
The Action Plan is not part of the FTA and, as a result,
Colombia's adherence to its terms may be subject to the
discretion of this and future Administrations. The provisions
of the Action Plan need not only to be given time to be fully
and faithfully implemented but must be subject to specific
mechanisms and commitments to ensure that they will be
effective--now and in the future;
The FTA, through its agricultural provisions and its
encouragement of further corporate exploitation of Colombian
land, will only accelerate internal displacement in Colombia
which just overtook the Sudan as the country with the largest
internally displaced population (over 5 million) in the
world.
America's economic recovery is still tenuous. We face a
significant jobs and trade deficit which will only deepen if
these agreements were to pass. And, indeed, passage of the
Colombia agreement will create a moral leadership deficit--
where America's promotion of internationally-recognized
workers' rights is put in jeopardy. At any time, but
certainly at this time, these three agreements should be
rejected.
The American people, in increasing numbers, reject the
approach our policymakers have taken on the trade issue. They
will remember, at the next election, those who stood by their
side and those who put their jobs, their families and their
communities at risk.
Sincerely,
Leo W. Gerard,
International President.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree)
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. PINGREE of Maine asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the
Record a letter from the Building and Construction Trades Department of
the AFL-CIO in opposition to all three FTAs.
Building and Construction
Trades Department,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2011.
Dear House of Representatives: As President of the Building
and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, I strongly
oppose the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Columbia,
Panama, and South Korea, and I urge you to oppose each of
these trade agreements because they represent an expansion of
failed trade policies that will cause great harm to workers
in the building and construction trades.
[[Page H6824]]
In 1993, President Bill Clinton worked to pass the North
America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated by
President George H.W. Bush. NAFTA has contributed to the
erosion of America's industrial base and been a disaster for
our members who build America's factories and retool and
service them. Many of our unions represent manufacturing
workers, as well as those in the construction trades, and our
members have lost jobs as well as line workers in America's
shuttered factories. The loss of manufacturing jobs also
undermines our nation's ability to finance the public
infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools) on which we all
rely.
When unfair trade policies destroy our manufacturing base
and erode the tax base for infrastructure, our jobs in the
building and construction trades disappear too.
With that experience, I am very disappointed that Congress
may soon consider the free trade agreements for Colombia,
Panama and South Korea. These trade agreements, negotiated by
President George W. Bush, replicate the failed trade policies
of the past that have exploded our trade deficit, destroyed
millions of jobs, driven down U.S. wages, undermined the Buy
America policies that reinvested our taxes in our
communities, and exposed our domestic laws to repeated
attacks in foreign tribunals.
From the extreme violence against labor leaders in Colombia
to the tax havens in Panama and the failure to address
currency manipulation in South Korea, these trade deals are a
bad deal for U.S. workers. In addition, efforts to provide
expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits are a
recognition that jobs will be lost as a result of these trade
agreements.
The Building and Construction Trades Department supports a
more equitable trade model. Our nation can and must do better
to enact fair trade policies that expand economic
opportunities for all Americans. With unacceptable
unemployment levels and working families struggling to
recover from the Great Recession, our members want Congress
to pass real job-creation legislation, not more job-killing
trade agreements. In the end, working families will remember
who is working for them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark H. Ayers,
President.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Representative from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. JONES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record two
letters opposing the Korean free trade agreement, one from the American
Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition and another from the United States
Industrial Fabrics Institute.
American Manufacturing
Trade Action Coalition,
October 7, 2011.
AMTAC Urges ``No'' Vote on KORUS
Dear Member of Congress: The American Manufacturing Trade
Action Coalition (AMTAC) urges you to vote NO on the U.S.-
South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). The agreement was
submitted to Congress on October 3, and a vote is expected in
both the House and Senate on Wednesday, October 12.
AMTAC strongly opposes KORUS for three main reasons:
the agreement is flawed in concept;
the terms of the agreement are unfavorable to key
industries such as textiles; and,
the textile and apparel provisions in the agreement are
unlikely to be adequately enforced.
These problems are why as many as an estimated 40,000 U.S.
jobs are expected to be lost in the first seven years after
implementation just as a result of textile concerns with the
agreement.
If Congress is serious about creating jobs, passing trade-
law enforcement measures like the stalled anti-currency
manipulation legislation, strengthening our ``buy American''
laws, and eliminating trade distortions caused by foreign
border-adjusted taxes should be targeted instead.
(1) KORUS Is a Continuation of a Job-Destroying U.S. Trade Policy
KORUS replicates a fatal flaw contained in almost every
free trade agreement (FTA) that the United States has
implemented: our FTA partners can (and do) sell more to us
than we to them. During the lifetime or our existing FTAs,
the United States has run a cumulative $2.1 trillion deficit
with our trade partners. This flaw drives up the U.S.
production shortfall manifested in our trade and current
account deficits that have destroyed so many middle-class
American jobs.
The disparity in market opportunities is immense for
several reasons. South Korea's population is less than one-
sixth of the United States. Its GDP of $986.3 billion is less
than 7 percent of the U.S. GDP of $14.6 trillion in 2010.
Despite the South Korean economy's smaller size, it is an
export superpower in many important industries such as autos,
electronics, and textiles.
With respect to textiles, South Korean has a highly
sophisticated, vertically integrated industry that is a
world-class manufacturer of even the most technical products.
In 2010, South Korea was America's 8th largest supplier of
textiles and apparel by volume. For just yarns and fabrics,
the largest component of the U.S. industry, South Korea is
America's 2nd largest source of imports.
In addition, South Korea has a long history of unfair
trading practices. Currently, there are 16 antidumping and
countervailing duty orders in place against U.S. imports of
goods from South Korea.
Moreover, despite its obligations under the World Trade
Organization (WTO), South Korea has been hostile to imports.
It has raised non-tariff barriers for those goods where there
is sizeable Korean production, autos being the prime example.
We would also note that while KORUS will give South Korean
goods duty-free entry into the U.S. market, U.S. exports to
South Korea will still be subjected to a 10 percent Value
Added Tax (VAT). Through their VAT system, South Korea will
be allowed to maintain what amounts to a permanent 10 percent
tariff on U.S. exports to their market. Moreover, South Korea
has complete freedom to raise their VAT rate above the
current 10 percent at any point in the future. It was a major
error on the part of our negotiators not to address this
inequity as part of KORUS, as border taxes are another
persistent example of foreign practices that place domestic
companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Finally, the agreement is geographically disadvantageous to
the United States. South Korea faces roughly the same
logistical challenges as its other Asian competition when it
exports to the United States. In contrast, the United States
must ship its exports of manufactured goods several thousand
miles across the Pacific Ocean to a market where our
competitors in China and Japan are right next door.
The disparity in market opportunity is one reason why the
United States ran a $10 billion trade deficit with South
Korea in 2010. Of that total, the U.S. ran a $10.6 billion
deficit in motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts and a $600
million deficit in textiles and apparel. It is also why the
U.S. textile industry and some other sectors expect few
export opportunities for their products under KORUS.
In the face of these unfavorable factors, KORUS will
eliminate U.S. tariffs on 95 percent of current trade in
industrial products within three years of implementation of
the agreement while not guaranteeing reciprocal U.S. access
to the South Korean market for key industrial products such
as autos and textiles.
With South Korea's current capabilities as a major producer
and exporter of industrial products, its close proximity to
China, and its traditional hostility to imports, KORUS will
hurt U.S. manufacturers and exacerbate our trade deficit.
No wonder the Economic Policy Institute predicts the KORUS
agreement will increase the total U.S. trade deficit with
South Korea by about $16.7 billion annually and displace
approximately 159,000 American jobs within the first seven
years after it takes effect.
(2) KORUS'S Textile Chapter Hurts U.S. Textile Manufacturers
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)
estimates that U.S. textile and apparel output will decline
by the largest percentage of any sector as a result of KORUS
and cites expected increases in U.S. imports from South Korea
as the driving factor.
According to the U.S. International Trade Commission's
initial analysis of entering into an agreement with South
Korea, ``The largest gains for Korean exports to the United
States are anticipated in textiles, apparel, and leather
goods, and other manufacturing (e.g., chemicals and allied
products, electronics, and transportation).'' Various studies
cited in the 2007 USITC report on KORUS uniformly predict
declines in U.S. textile and apparel output ranging from 0.4
to 1.5 percent.
AMTAC estimates that 9,300 to 12,300 U.S. textile and
apparel manufacturing jobs are expected to be lost in the
first seven years after implementation as result of flaws in
the textile chapter of KORUS. Moreover, because U.S.
government figures show that approximately three additional
jobs are lost to the U.S. economy for each textile job that
is eliminated, the total estimated job loss climbs to nearly
40,000. It is also important to note that these figures do
not account for job losses as a result of a likely surge in
illegal Chinese transshipments via South Korea, which we
expect to be significant.
One highly sensitive market where South Korea competes
head-to-head with U.S. producers in the U.S. market is in
industrial textiles, a sector with employment of more than
25,000.
U.S. industrial textile manufacturers are particularly
concerned about this agreement and its impact on the extended
domestic supply chain for coated and laminated membranes used
in industrial and military applications such as fuel cells,
oil booms, rapidly deployable shelters/tents, radar
attenuating covers, safety and protective gear, and many more
advanced applications, including automotive fabrics. Many
companies participating in this supply chain also support the
military needs of our warfighters. Their ability to innovate
and responsively supply the military is dependent on an
overall healthy domestic market and industry.
Our principal concerns with the text include (1)
accelerated tariff phase-outs that
[[Page H6825]]
do not give U.S. producers time to adjust, (2) non-reciprocal
tariff phase-outs that favor the South Korean textile
industry in key products, and (3) exclusion of certain
textile components from the rule of origin.
The aforementioned reasons and others are why, as the auto
provisions of KORUS were being reopened, AMTAC and other
industry associations made a request to the Obama
administration in August 2010 that they also reopen the
textile and apparel chapter of the agreement to fix the
problems therein. Textile concerns, however, were never
raised with South Korea and these damaging provisions remain
unchanged.
Problematic Accelerated Tariff Phase-Outs
Contrary to the precedent established in the NAFTA, 86
percent of textile and apparel product lines are duty free
immediately under KORUS and an additional 10 percent will be
duty free on January 1 of Year 5 of the agreement. This is
the first time a large number of sensitive products from a
country with a large, sophisticated textile industry have
received immediate access to the U.S. market. Tariff phase-
outs for sensitive products have traditionally been a key
part of trade agreements in order to give companies time to
adjust business models and minimize large-scale potential job
displacement. For example, South Korea exports of polyester
fiberfill have entered the United States under anti- dumping
orders for the past 15 years. This dumping case passed two
sunset reviews, the last of which was successfully completed
prior to the end of the KORUS negotiations. Nevertheless,
KORUS immediately removes the U.S. duty on polyester
fiberfill, defeating the purpose of the anti-dumping rule and
defying logic of equitable trade negotiations.
In the U.S. technical textile market, South Korea has
emerged as the number one exporter of advanced textile
reinforcements, and this sensitive tariff line is scheduled
for immediate tariff phase out. U.S. industrial textile
producers have already lost significant market share to South
Korean manufacturers, and this FTA will do significant harm
to the industrial textile industry and greatly diminish the
sustainability of our fragile domestic supply base.
Socks are another sensitive product where most tariff lines
go to zero immediately. South Korea was the 6th largest
exporter of socks to the United States in 2010 by volume,
shipping more than 152 million pair.
Non-Reciprocal Tariff Phase-Outs
The agreement also provides South Korea with a more
generous and expedited tariff elimination schedule than what
is afforded U.S. producers and exporters for certain
products. One example is para-aramid fiber, which is used to
produce tough, flame-retardant fabrics for industrial and
military applications including body armor. Under KORUS,
South Korea will be allowed to export aramids to the United
States with immediate duty free treatment. U.S. producers do
not get duty free access to the Korean market as South Korea
is allowed to phase out its tariff to be duty free on January
1 of Year 5. This puts U.S. manufacturers at a direct
disadvantage.
Job-Destroying Loopholes in Rule-of-Origin
The rule of origin is a critical element of any free trade
agreement because it defines which products qualify for
preferential treatment and whether countries not party to the
agreement will receive benefits. The KORUS contains a ``yarn
forward'' rule of origin. While we support a basic yarn
forward rule, certain specific exemptions to the product
origin rules under KORUS are very problematic.
In essence, the rule applies only to the component that
determines the tariff classification of the apparel or home
furnishing good (in other words, the main or essential
fabric) plus certain visible lining fabrics. Applying origin
rules in this manner means that key component yarns, threads
and fabrics are not adequately covered under the rule of
origin and therefore do not have to be of U.S. or South
Korean origin. This conflicts with the majority of our recent
agreements including CAFTA-DR, Peru, Colombia and Panama
which apply the yarn forward rule beyond just the essential
character fabric.
Under KORUS, components including sewing thread, pocketing
and narrow fabrics, all of which are in plentiful supply from
U.S. producers, are allowed to come from anywhere. This
allows third parties, such as China, to benefit without
making any market concessions of their own. Domestic
producers of these types of component yarns and fabrics
provide thousands of U.S. jobs, which will be put into
jeopardy if KORUS is implemented.
(3) High Likelihood of Massive Customs Fraud Due to Inadequate
Enforcement Provisons
In addition to the flaws in the textile chapter of KORUS,
there is strong evidence that Customs' ability to enforce
this agreement will be ineffective.
Due to South Korea's history of transshipment paired with
significant cross-border investment with China, upgraded
customs enforcement provisions are essential to prevent
large-scale customs fraud under KORUS. China already exports
nearly $4 billion annually in textiles and apparel to South
Korea, and South Korea was labeled by U.S. Customs as a major
transshipment point for Chinese exporters when quotas were
in place.
Instead of strengthening enforcement, however, the customs
language in KORUS was significantly weakened compared to
other high risk agreements such as the Singapore PTA.
Key enforcement provisions that were dropped under KORUS
include the ability for U.S. Customs to (1) seize goods from
repeat offenders, (2) reduce South Korea's access if it does
not enforce the rules of the agreement, and (3) deny
fraudulent companies import privileges for several years.
The substandard customs provisions in the KORUS leave the
U.S. textile industry and its workers vulnerable to large-
scale illegal imports from China through South Korea. As a
result, the industry fully expects Chinese textile exporters
to be a primary beneficiary of KORUS.
In addition to its direct threat to the U.S. market, the
specter of increased illegal transshipments likely to be
generated by KORUS represents a significant attack on the
hemispheric textile production structure encouraged by U.S.
policy for the past three decades.
The KORUS threatens to damage the Western Hemisphere
because South Korea's textile and apparel exports are
expected to surge and displace orders currently being sourced
in the region. When finished product orders are lost by
manufacturers in the Western Hemisphere, U.S. mills also lose
the orders for the yarns and fabrics that go into garments
and made-up articles.
The potential loss of business is enormous. As a result of
trade preference programs and the NAFTA/CAFTA/Peru FTAs,
nearly two million textile and apparel workers in those
regions produce garments, home furnishings, and the textile
components incorporated into those products. The U.S. textile
and apparel industry is a critical link in the supply chain.
We export more than $12 billion a year to our preferential
partners in the Western Hemisphere, predominantly in
components such as yarns, threads, and fabrics. This trade
accounts for more than 60 percent of total U.S. textile and
apparel exports.
CONCLUSION
AMTAC urges Members of Congress to vote NO on KORUS due to
the expedited tariff reductions, lack of reciprocity in
certain key product areas and overall negative impact on U.S.
companies and jobs. Congress should prioritize fixing U.S.
trade policy, stopping manufacturing job loss, and closing
the trade deficit before considering any new trade deals
including KORUS.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Auggie Tantillo,
Executive Director,
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition.
____
USIFI,
April 6, 2011.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman.
Hon. Sander Levin,
Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee Office, 1102
Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: The United
States Industrial Fabrics Institute (USIFI) submits the
following comments for the record in conjunction with the
Ways and Means Hearing on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade
Agreement.
The United States Industrial Fabrics Institute (USIFI) has
fifty company members, each with significant U.S.
manufacturing. The member companies supply technical textiles
and made-up products for advanced industrial and military
applications. USIFI is a sub-set of the 2,000 member not-for-
profit Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI).
The United States technical textile industry (also known as
specialty or industrial textiles) continues to be a pawn in
the chess game of international trade agreements. Our own
government, in its analysis of the pending U.S. Korea Free
Trade Agreement, states ``The expected increase in imports
from Korea will likely be concentrated in goods for which
Korea is a competitive, and major supplier, and U.S. tariffs
are high, such as man-made fibers, yarns, fabrics, and
hosiery, and will likely displace domestic production of such
goods and especially imports of such goods from other
sources. . . . The expected increase in U.S. imports of
textiles and apparel from Korea under the FTA will likely be
concentrated in man-made fibers and goods made of such
fibers, for which Korea is a major world producer and has a
``proven advantage.''
In fabrics, the expected growth in U.S. imports from Korea
will likely be concentrated in knit and woven industrial and
specialty fabrics and will likely displace domestic
production of such fabrics. Korea was the third-largest
source of U.S. fabric imports in 2006 with 11 percent ($953
million) of the total, reflecting significant positions in
knit fabrics (27 percent import share or $203 million) and
specialty fabrics (13 percent or $116 million). Korean
producers reportedly are expanding output of industrial and
specialty fabrics that use information technology and
biotechnology for use in tire-cord fabrics and engineering,
construction, and medical applications. Industrial fabrics
include high-strength reinforcements, textile reinforcements,
and laminated sheet goods that use
[[Page H6826]]
the textile reinforcements to make them stronger. The fabrics
are used in awnings, tents and shelters, signs and banners,
tarpaulins, commercial roofing membranes, health-care
mattress and seating covers, truck covers, conveyor belting,
fabrics for package handling and treadmills, and geotextiles
for water-containment linings and erosion control.
Committee Members, these are the products our member
companies produce in the United States.
U.S. companies in the specialty technical textile industry
manufacture highly specialized products for protection
(ballistic, shelter, chemical-biological-radiation-nuclear
protection textiles, potable water and fuel fabrics and
bladders); partner with our military and academic
institutions to develop new textile fibers, fabrics, and
finishes; and employ highly skilled workers in almost
every state in the Union. The U.S. technical textile
industry is a success story--expanding, efficient, and
leading the world in innovation. These are the jobs that
will disappear if you ratify the U.S. Korea Free Trade
Agreement.
A USIFI member, one of the largest U.S. military tent
manufacturers, shared this comment:
The technical textile military shelter supply base consists
of suppliers of fibers, yarn, woven fabrics, specialty
chemical films and technical coatings, all of which are
combined by our technical fabric suppliers to our end
products manufacturers for use in the manufacture of military
tent liners, covers and flooring materials in broad range
military tent shelters as well as a large family of related
products made from technical fabrics. This supply chain
employs unique and highly sophisticated processes that
require major capital investments, thus making their
sustainability extremely sensitive to the loss of volume.
The severe constriction that has already occurred in the
U.S. technical fabrics supply chain has greatly diminished
the sustainability of the industry. This proposed FTA will
further reduce the sustainability of our extremely fragile
domestic supply base upon which our U.S. military relies for
shelters and related personal protection products.
--J.C. Egnew, President, Outdoor Venture Corporation,
Stearns, KY.
The technical textile segment of the U.S. textile and
apparel industry has grown; in 1998, this segment made up 25%
of the market by volume. Now it comprises 43% of the domestic
market. In contrast, the apparel market in 1998 had 38% share
and now is only 20%, directly due to imports and the move to
off-shore manufacturing.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are
393,000 textile and apparel jobs left in the United States as
of February 2011. Five years ago, this segment employed
617,500 (February 2006), a loss of 224,500 jobs (-36%). Ten
years ago, the textile and apparel industry employed
1,028,900 (February 2001), making a cumulative loss of
635,900 good paying, skilled jobs (-62%) in the last decade.
It is estimated that U.S. domestic textile mills and
finishers producing fabrics specifically for the technical
textile market employ approximately 160,000. USIFI member
companies account for more than 25,000 of this number. This
figure does not include made-up products nor does it include
the raw materials like fiber or chemicals for dyes and
finishes. The U.S. textile industry predicts that the threat
placed on us by the substantial increase in Korean imports if
KORUS is ratified will jeopardize 40,000 technical textile
and related jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates
that 159,000 good paying American manufacturing jobs across
all sectors will be lost if the KORUS agreement is passed.
With South Korea's current capabilities as a major producer
and exporter of industrial products, its close proximity to
China, and its traditional hostility to imports, the
Agreement is not in the best interests of American
manufacturing. USIFI has been tracking imports from Korea for
more than a decade; their data, compiled from the U.S.
Department of Commerce (DOC) and the USITC, shows that Korea
is the largest supplier to the U.S. of advanced textiles
reinforcements, the second largest supplier of yarns and
fabrics, and second largest supplier of coated and laminated
membranes.
Specifically, we have three main concerns with the
Agreement:
Customs enforcement;
Tariff phase-out schedule;
Product coverage of the rules of origin.
Customs Enforcement: Korea is a known illegal transshipment
axis for Asia, especially China. The Agreement as drafted
leaves the U.S. and its workers vulnerable to large-scale
fraud. The long history between the South Korean and Chinese
textile industries and the documented cases of
transshipment cooperation between producers in these
countries are major sources of concern. Korea's position
as a transit hub for Chinese goods will make the
enforcement of the KORUS particularly challenging. The
Korean port of Busan is the 5th largest container port in
the world and is the largest transshipment port in
northeast Asia, handling more than 13 million twenty-foot
equivalent unit (TEU) containers annually. The port
handles cargo from 500 ports and 100 countries with an
expansive feeder vessel operation connecting Busan with
China, Japan and Russia. The U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol, while its budget has increased, has decreased its
commitment to its customs textile enforcement program as
priorities have shifted to other areas.
Tariff Phase-Out Schedule: Korean textile products are
provided a much more generous phase-out schedule than U.S.
products, allowing many Korean products immediate duty-free
access to the enormous U.S. market (96% of their products go
to zero duty within three years). Access to the much smaller
Korean market for those same U.S.-made products will be
phased in over ten years. The disparity in the phase-out
schedule is particularly concerning because Korea is already
the largest supplier to the U.S. of technical textiles and
has a sophisticated, government supported technical textile
industry, with excess capacity, just waiting for this
agreement to pass so they can flood the U.S. market with
their products.
Product Coverage of the Rules of Origin: The rules of
origin under the KORUS agreement exclude certain components
such as sewing thread, narrow fabrics and pocketing fabrics,
items that are required under the CAFTA-DR and Panama
Agreements and are important to U.S. textile manufacturers.
Allowing these inputs to be sourced from countries not party
to the Agreement is a departure from recent FTAs and it is
illogical that these and other products were excluded in this
Agreement.
You have seen the Agreement and studied its analysis. You
read in government documents that whole segments of the U.S.
economy will not be helped by this Agreement, including
technical textiles. We are asking that you address this flaw
now with your vote against the U.S. Korea Free Trade
Agreement, ending the chess match where U.S. textile
manufacturing never wins.
Sincerely,
Ruth A. Stephens,
Executive Director, U.S. Industrial
Fabrics Institute (USIFI).
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski)
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing
trade bill, and I would like to insert into the Record a letter from
the International Federation for Professional and Technical Engineers
in opposition to the Korea FTA.
International Federation of Professional & Technical
Engineers,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2011.
Hon. Hilda L. Solis,
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Kirk,
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Solis and Ambassador Kirk: The International
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE)
applauds the Obama Administration, most notably the
Department of Labor (DOL) and the office of the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) for your willingness to include
labor in last year's discussions preceding the
Administration's announced agreement on the US-South Korea
(KORUS) Free Trade Agreement. That said, and after a long
review and analysis of this FTA, I am writing to express
IFPTE's concerns with the final proposal. While some
improvements compared to the Bush Administration negotiated
KORUS FTA were achieved, IFPTE continues to believe that the
proposed agreement falls short in several key areas and fails
to put US workers and businesses in a better position to
compete.
First and foremost, KORUS does not include enforceable
labor protections. Granted, the language urges the United
States and South Korea to adhere to the International Labor
Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work. However, like the 2007 Bush Administration
negotiated Korea deal, as well as the Panama, Peru and
Colombia FTAs, the practical implication of this provision is
the exclusion of any enforceable ILO labor protections. The
fact is that the ILO Declaration itself has no teeth and is
not enforceable. Instead, it is the eight ILO Conventions
themselves that are enforceable. Yet, and despite the urging
of labor to include the ILO Conventions, they are not
included in KORUS. The resulting compromise allows potential
FTA panels the flexibility to ignore, or even weaken through
misguided interpretations, the true labor protections called
for by the ILO.
It is IFPTE's long-standing position that any trade
framework should be reflective of a broader US industrial
policy whose foundation is enhancing the rights of workers
not only here in the US, but worldwide. Consequently, the
mere fact that the ILO Conventions are absent from this
agreement is reason enough for IFPTE to oppose the KORUS FTA.
We have many other concerns as well, including our
skepticism with claims of a limited negative impact on
American workers. The basis for these claims stems from an
analysis of KORUS by the United States International Trade
Commission (USITC), which attempts to predict the impact that
specific trade agreements will have on the US economy. The
USITC suggests that KORUS will have no negative impact on US
jobs, and will have a limited impact on the US trade deficit
with South Korea over the
[[Page H6827]]
first seven years. However, USITC estimates have historically
underestimated the damage that past trade agreements have had
on US workers and the economy. For example, when China sought
membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the USITC
predicted that our trade deficit with China would increase by
$1 billion, and it would have a negligible impact on jobs.
Instead, from the time China entered the WTO in 2001, through
2008, our trade deficit with China ballooned to $185 billion
annually and resulted in the loss of 2.4 million American
jobs. In other words, IFPTE warns against relying on the
USITC metric.
We at IFPTE believe that a more reliable, and realistic,
estimate of the impact of KORUS is outlined by the Economic
Policy Institute (EPI). Contrary to the USITC findings, EPI
found that over the first seven years of implementation,
KORUS will result in 159,000 lost American jobs and increase
the US trade deficit with Korea by $16.7 billion. To put this
into practical terms, an analysis by the United Steelworkers
of America (USW), for example, suggests that KORUS will only
enflame our trade deficit with Korea. In expressing their
opposition to KORUS, the USW issued a statement saying,
``auto parts, petroleum products, tires and iron and steel,
for example--have contended with fast growing imports from
Korea this year, and the FTA will only ensure a continuation
of the negative impact of this import flood on domestic
production and employment.''
Equally troubling is that KORUS mirrors NAFTA when it comes
to foreign investor privileges and Buy America policies.
Among the foreign investor problems with this bill are the
following:
Gives foreign investors the right to enforce FTA privileges
by suing the U.S. government in foreign tribunals for
violations of FTA rights;
Opens up U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other
policies to challenge by foreign investors in foreign
tribunals;
Requires that foreign based companies in South Korea, like
those in all FTA nations, have the same access to state and
federal government contracts as that of U.S. based companies;
and,
Forbids the reinvestment of U.S. taxpayer dollars back into
the domestic economy by governments at the state and federal
levels through, ``Buy America'' policies.
It is worth noting that the Korean Confederation of Trade
Unions (KCTU), South Korean Farmers organization, and civil
and human rights groups have also lined up in opposition to
KORUS. Indeed, our national experiment with free trade
agreements has been negative for workers in America, as well
as those around the world. There has been enough suffering
from one sided trade deals that are great for business, but
are disastrous for American and foreign workers alike.
Therefor IFPTE opposes the KORUS FTA and will encourage
Congress to reject it.
I thank you for your consideration. Should you have any
questions please feel free to contact me, or IFPTE
Legislative Director Matt Biggs.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Junemann,
President.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
statement from the National Council of Textile Organizations in
opposition to the Korea free trade agreement.
Textile Workers Deliver 27,000 Petitions Urging ``No'' Vote on U.S.-
Korea FTA
United States Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
2,584 Petitions Signed
The U.S. textile industry has witnessed firsthand the
damage that poorly constructed trade agreements inflict on
textile and apparel producers in our country. The industry
requested that the Obama Administration renegotiate the
textile and apparel chapter of the Korea FTA and was ignored.
At a time when our country's unemployment rate remains at
record high levels, the industry would like to count on you
to stand up for textile jobs and vote NO when this poorly
negotiated agreement comes up for a vote.
The textile industry is creating jobs in the United States.
Exports have increased more than 16 percent this year alone.
The industry is experiencing a shift of sourcing by brands
and retailers out of China and into the Western Hemisphere in
order to take advantage of the hemisphere's unique trading
relationship and its ability to quickly supply major
retailers in the U.S.
Enacting the Korea FTA will reverse this positive trend.
The reality is that this agreement benefits China and a
select group of Korean exporters while it hurts U.S. textile
workers.
Please Vote NO on H.R. 3080, the U.S. Korea Free Trade Agreement
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
letter from the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and a
letter from the National Farmers Union in opposition to the Korea FTA.
International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO,
Hanover, MD, June 30, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 140,000 active and
retired members of the International Union of Painters and
Allied Trades (IUPAT), I am writing you regarding the
proposed Free Trade Agreement between the United States and
the Republic of Korea (KORUS FTA). I have serious concerns
about duty free construction materials entering the United
States and the devastating effect that this and all free
trade agreements have on the manufacturing sector.
The IUPAT represents men and women working in the finishing
trades as commercial and industrial painters, drywall
finishers, wall coverers, glaziers, glass workers, floor
covering installers, sign makers, display workers, convention
and show decorators, and many more occupations. Our union is
made up of over 400 local union halls throughout the United
States. While the IUPAT is working overtime to make sure our
membership has the ability to provide for their families
through this time of chronic and crippling unemployment, I
find it unimaginable that this job killing trade agreement
would even be considered. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 13,700,000 Americans remain unemployed and nearly
2.5 million Americans have given up on finding work because
job loss is so rampant in their communities. The United State
International Trade Commission (ITC) report from March 2010
projects that implementation of the Korea Free Trade
Agreement would increase the U.S. goods trade deficit. This
predicted increase in the U.S. trade deficit under the Korean
FTA would risk the jobs of millions of Americans, including
IUPAT members, employed in our industries.
Even the White House has ceded the point that this Free
Trade Agreement will cost jobs when they demanded on May 16,
2011, that Trade Adjustment Assistance be a prerequisite to
the ratification of any of the three pending Free Trade
Agreements. While the IUPAT is supportive of the president's
promise to provide burial insurance to thousands upon
thousands of Americans who will lose their jobs due to the
Korean Free Trade Agreement. A better policy would be to
focus on rebuilding the frail U.S. economy by investing in
American workers instead of workers from North Korea, Korea,
China or any other country that imports component parts
through Korean ports.
Approximately 20% of IUPAT members work in the
manufacturing sector. They work to maintain factories and
manufacture paint, plate glass, and floor covering materials,
and fabricating glass systems. According to the ITC, these
members' jobs and their livelihood would be directly
threatened by the duty free importation of the products they
proudly manufacture or fabricate as American made.
IUPAT members working in glass fabrication shops
manufacture energy efficient shells for buildings and
factories. Their product would be turned away in favor of
duty free glass panels shipped from Korea. The ITC report
indicates that IUPAT members who manufacture floor covering
materials or wall coverings would be told to find a new
career when cheap carpets, rugs, and wall covering materials
flood the United States duty free. It is clear that duty free
will destroy American communities and leave Americans
families helpless.
Beyond the very troubling job loss predicted by the USITC,
I am deeply concerned about the weak rule of origin that was
negotiated by President George W. Bush in this Free Trade
Agreement. In 2009, millions of pounds of toxic drywall
entered the United States. That lack of oversight put
thousands of IUPAT members and an estimated 60,000 families
at risk. This was the direct result of allowing uninspected
products from an under-regulated country. The weak rule of
origin opens the United States, the members of the IUPAT, and
American property owners up to the strong possibility that
subpar and possibly dangerous building materials will enter
the United States and be used in our homes and businesses.
In the interest of the United States economy and all of the
families who wish to be working again, including the
membership of the IUPAT, I strongly urge you to stand up for
American made products and jobs by voting against the
Republic of Korea/United States Free Trade Agreement.
Sincerely,
James A. Williams,
General President.
____
July 7, 2011.
Dear Member of Congress: As the House Ways and Means
Committee conducts mark ups of the three pending Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs), National Farmers Union (NFU) urges members
of Congress to oppose these FTAs unless changes are made to
make sure that the FTAs are fair for each party involved. As
described in a policy resolution NFU's membership passed in
the spring of 2011, in order for NFU to support the FTAs
negotiated with South Korea (KORUS), Colombia and Panama,
inequalities stemming
[[Page H6828]]
from lack of market access, weak labor standards,
extraordinary foreign investor rights and currency
manipulation must be addressed.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has released their
analysis of the KORUS agreement. Losers under the agreement
include all oilseeds (which include soybeans), wheat and
specialty crops (which include forages, sheep, goats and
horses). The report predicts that the agreement would lead to
an increase in the overall U.S. good trade deficit of $308 to
$416 million because seven U.S. industrial sectors will see
net losses. The Economic Policy Institute projects the
agreement will cost the U.S. 159,000 jobs in the first seven
years. At a time of high unemployment, it would be
irresponsible to pass this job-killing FTA.
The U.S. Treasury declared South Korea a currency
manipulator in 1988 and 1999. In February 2011, the Treasury
issued a warning that South Korea was taking the same steps
as it did before past devaluations. Devaluing their currency
could wipe out any gains achieved in any sector of the
agreement. The KORUS agreement does nothing to address
currency manipulation, which puts U.S. producers at an
economic disadvantage.
Although U.S. agriculture has a substantial net trade
surplus with the world as a whole, U.S. agriculture is
currently running a net trade deficit with countries that
have FTAs with the U.S. In fact, U.S. agriculture has
actually done worse after FTAs have been entered into.
As your committee considers the pending FTAs, given our
concerns, we strongly urge members to vote against the
agreements.
Sincerely,
Roger Johnson,
President, National Farmers Union.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
letter from the hardest-working workers in America--the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers--in opposition to this Korean free trade agreement.
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Kansas City, KS, December 16, 2010.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, I write to express our opposition to the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). This misguided
agreement fails to address the long-standing concerns of
American workers, will result in more lost American
manufacturing jobs, and fails to establish an appropriate
model for sustainable global trade. At a time when so many
Americans are struggling in our weak economy, the KORUS FTA
is the last thing our nation can afford to pursue.
We continue to be disappointed the U.S. Trade
Representative has failed to negotiate positive changes in
core aspects of this agreement. The provisions on investment,
procurement, and services continue to constrain both
governments' ability to regulate in the public interest,
promote domestic job creation through responsible procurement
policies, and provide public services. The agreement's rules
on procurement have the potential to restrict policy goals of
vital importance to our union, including domestic sourcing
requirements. It is inappropriate for trade agreements to
restrict the ability of governments to invest tax dollars in
domestic job creation and promote legitimate social
objectives. In addition, the investment provisions of the
agreement include provisions that allow foreign investors to
claim rights above and beyond those granted to domestic
investors.
With respect to the labor chapter, no effort was made to
improve and strengthen the labor provisions with the Korean
Government. Contrary to popular belief, Korean labor laws
fail to conform to norms established by the International
Labor Organization (ILO). In fact, dozens of trade unionists
have been imprisoned for exercising basic labor rights.
Further, the Korean Government passed legislation several
years ago weakening basic labor protections, contrary to the
recommendations of the ILO.
This trade agreement--the most significant in over a
decade--fails to live up to the standards workers in both
countries deserve. During the 2008 Presidential campaign,
then candidate Obama promised to renegotiate the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Instead, two years
later, the Obama administration is asking American workers to
once again turn a blind eye to yet another unfair and
unbalanced trade agreement. It is time to abandon the flawed
model on which the KORUS FTA is based, and move toward a new
policy that creates good jobs, benefits the U.S. economy as a
whole, and protects fundamental rights.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
Newton B. Jones,
International President.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the Congresswoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
letter from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in
opposition to the free trade agreement.
International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2011.
Dear Senator or Representative: On behalf of the
approximately 725,000 members of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), I write to express
my strong opposition to the proposed trade agreements with
South Korea, Columbia, and Panama. All three are North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-style pacts originally
negotiated by President Bush. I urge you to vote no when they
are considered by Congress.
As I stated in a letter I sent you in December, 2010
regarding the South Korea agreement: ``It is long past due
that common sense be applied to the issue of international
trade. For the better part of two decades Americans have been
told that free trade is good for workers and consumers. In
reality, trade policies promulgated by both Democratic and
Republican administrations have benefited multi-national
corporations and their top executives. Although these
policies have allowed consumers access to cheap (though
sometimes toxic) products, they have come at a tremendous
cost in the form of lost jobs, a shrunken tax base,
diminished access to health care, and a reduced quality of
life.'' Now, in addition to the South Korea agreement, the
Columbia and Panama pacts will perpetuate the same job-
killing provisions that gained their greatest traction in
NAFTA.
The problems with these agreements are well-documented.
Adoption of the South Korea agreement will lead to the loss
of approximately 159,000 jobs and expand our trade deficit
with this country by $16.7 billion during the first seven
years of implementation. Additionally, South Korea is a
proven currency manipulator having been declared so by the
U.S. Treasury in 1988 and again in 1999. Unfortunately, the
South Korea agreement does nothing to address currency
manipulation.
Like South Korea, the Columbia agreement is another NAFTA-
style pact, but in Columbia more is being lost than jobs.
Columbia is the most dangerous place in the world for trade
unionists. In 2010, 51 labor leaders were killed in Columbia,
an increase over 2009. This is more than in the rest of the
world combined. The government of Columbia has been unable to
effectively guarantee the rule of law to allow workers to
exercise their legal rights.
The last of the nations being considered for a NAFTA-style
agreement, Panama, is a known ``tax haven'' with a history of
attracting money launders and tax dodgers. Although the Tax
Information Exchange Treaty that Panama recently signed looks
to combat these issues, it does not go into effect for
another year and may be too weak to fix the problems.
Additionally, Panama has a history of failing to protect
workers and enforce labor rights.
``Free trade'' has proven to be a job-killer in the good-
paying manufacturing sector. Lay-offs, closed factories, and
lost tax base have been the legacy of NAFTA, CAFTA, and their
associated trade agreements. This is why I urge you to vote
no on the South Korea, Colombia, and Panama free trade
agreements when they are brought to a vote in Congress.
Sincerely yours,
Edwin D. Hill,
International President.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz)
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CRITZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a
letter from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in
opposition to the Korea free trade agreement.
International
Longshore & Warehouse Union,
San Francisco, CA, Dec. 13, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: President Obama has reached a trade
agreement with South Korea. That agreement must now be
submitted for Congressional ratification. We anticipate that
the President will aggressively shepherd this pact through
Congress.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
represents approximately 14,000 full time dockworkers and
14,000 part time dockworkers on the West Coast of the United
States and in Hawaii and Alaska. Our members are in the
business of moving cargo. By all accounts, the Korea-United
States Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) will increase trade
between South Korea and the United States, which
[[Page H6829]]
will result in an increase in cargo movement between the two
countries. An increase in cargo movement is good for
dockworkers. However, this fact alone is insufficient to
overcome the vast deficiencies of the KORUS FTA.
The KORUS FTA will cost jobs, lower environmental, labor,
food and product quality standards, and empower corporations
from the United States and South Korea to challenge public
interests in both countries. The labor standards provision of
the agreement only provides that each country enforce its own
laws to adhere to the core labor standards identified by the
International Labor Organization. The United States and South
Korea's laws and enforcement in this area are completely
inadequate and must be amended prior to the implementation of
the agreement.
Labor supported President Obama and numerous other
democratic candidates two years ago. In exchange for this
support, we were promised a return to policies and practices
that maintain, restore, and strengthen the middle class and
working people across the United States. For two years, we
have watched campaign promises be broken, one after the
other, on this relentless march down the road of business as
usual. Now, despite his campaign promise that he would only
support trade agreements that ``put workers first,'' the
President is pushing a trade agreement, the largest since the
NAFTA debacle, that undeniably puts workers in South Korea
and the United States in jeopardy.
On December 10, 2010, the International Executive Board of
the ILWU voted unanimously to oppose the KORUS FTA. The ILWU
will not support trade policy that exacerbates inequities,
awards special rights to foreign investors, allows banks to
practice the same disastrous policies that resulted in the
current economic downturn, opens domestic environmental laws
to foreign challenge, increases the trade deficit, and costs
jobs. We urge Congress to support the Trade Reform,
Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, which
outlines a way forward to a new trade and globalization
agenda that would be better for labor, the environment, the
economy, consumers, and our trade partners.
If my letter serves but one purpose, let it be to
communicate this basic message: we have had it. Today, we
join the growing chorus of labor unions who oppose the KORUS
FTA. We also ask that our representatives in the Democratic
Party stand up, discard meaningless oration, and remind us,
with action, what the Democratic Party stands for because we
have forgotten.
The Democratic Party needs to reject the KORUS FTA and stop
taking its base for granted.
Sincerely,
Robert McEllrath,
International President.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 8 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. This is an important discussion, and I want to be clear
what is really at stake here. It's the automotive industry of this
country, but it's more than that. There's a basic principle involved in
the Korea FTA issue, and that is whether we will replace one-way trade
with two-way trade.
When this was negotiated by the Bush administration, it failed to
take the most important step relating to Korea. They were shipping
hundreds of thousands of cars to the United States. We were shipping,
at that time, less than 10,000. So this, indeed, while it mainly
involved automotive--and that was 75 percent of our deficit--it was
even more than that, opening up markets for our goods produced in the
United States of America. This was a Make It in America issue. And
there was a Korean iron curtain against our products--by the way, not
only automotive, but refrigerators and others.
The number one priority of the Koreans was to eliminate the 2.5
percent U.S. tariff, because if you ship 600,000 to 700,000 cars,
that's a lot of money. We said to the administration, no way, we were
not going to let the Korea free trade agreement be approved if it
continued to embody one-way trade.
{time} 1630
The Korean Ambassador met with Mr. Rangel and me often, and the Trade
Minister, and they said, We aren't going to talk about it. And we said,
Well, if you don't talk, there will be no agreement.
And then what happened was that the new administration came into
being, the Obama administration, and it began to work on this issue.
And what happened was there were major changes in the agreement.
Instead of the elimination of the tariff on most vehicles, immediately
it was delayed to the 5th year, and on trucks it was delayed for 8
years to give time to make sure that the one-way street became a two-
way street. That has been accomplished, and to make entirely sure of
this, there were provisions to make sure that they could no longer use
their tax provisions and their environmental standards to keep out our
products.
And to make it even safer, we made sure that there was a safeguard,
so if there's a surge of automotive products into the United States, we
could defend ourselves. That was unique.
And that's why the big three are saying the following: ``As
representatives of the largest exporting sector, this FTA will help
open up an important auto market for Chrysler, Ford, and GM exports.
Our companies make the best cars and trucks on the road, and we are
excited for the export opportunity this agreement represents.'' And
that's why the UAW has indicated its support, because workers making
their cars will now be able to see that their cars can be shipped to
Korea. And Ford has said they're going to use Korea as a base to
penetrate, with American products, the markets of the rest of Asia.
So that's what this is all about. No, it won't be China getting into
the U.S. It will be the U.S. getting into Korea. That's really what
this is all about.
I want to say a word about the issue relating to issues of
transshipment. We insisted in the FTA that there be provisions relating
to transshipment, and I want to quickly refer to them.
If Customs has any doubt about a shipment, it can require Korean
exporters to provide documentation showing that the goods qualify for
FTA treatment. If a Korean exporter refuses or the document is not
acceptable, Customs can deny FTA treatment to the good.
U.S. Customs can also do site visits--this is something different--to
Korean factories to verify information. And if our Customs officials
are denied access or the visit shows problems, they can deny entry to
the Korean goods. And exporters who intentionally or repeatedly make
false claims are subject to penalties.
I have a letter embodying this from the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection that I would like to insert in the Record. I would also like
to insert in the Record the letter that I referred to from the
automobile association and from the UAW.
I also want to quote the statement from the Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association. It says as follows: ``The pending FTAs offer
real opportunities for parts manufacturers and our employees in two of
the fastest growing regions: Asia Pacific and South America. We can ill
afford to neglect these and other markets as key competitors.''
I would like to insert this letter from MEMA into the Record.
So that's what the issue is here today. We faced a one-way market
with impenetrable barriers. These are now being torn down.
This is a jobs bill. This is a jobs bill. We have to be able to
compete, and our auto industry can now compete. In order to be able to
compete effectively, we have to tear down the markets of other
countries and make sure that our markets are not only open to them, but
their markets are open to us.
We worked very hard to make this happen. It wasn't an easy job. There
were times when the administration, perhaps, the new one, the Obama
administration, was going to settle for something less than was
necessary. We pressed. We pressed effectively.
The Obama administration rose to the occasion and, in the end, said
to Korea, You must agree to open the market or we will not send this
agreement, this revised agreement to the U.S. Congress.
This revised agreement has now been sent here. I urge its support.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: CBP's Enforcement Mechanisms
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plays an integral
role in the implementation and enforcement of free trade
agreements, which provide duty-free or reduced duty access to
the U.S. market for qualifying merchandise. CBP is
responsible for assessing and collecting duties, taxes, and
fees and ensuring compliance with all import laws. CBP works
to ensure that the benefits afforded by
[[Page H6830]]
Trade Agreements accrue only to eligible importations.
CBP will utilize its layered trade enforcement approach to
ensure compliance with the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement's
(KORUS) provisions. If CBP finds violations, CBP will take
action to recover duty losses, pursue penalties when
necessary, and establish enforcement criteria to prevent
future potential fraudulent claims.
CBP will use the various enforcement mechanisms listed
below to implement KORUS. Many of these mechanisms are used
in the enforcement of all Trade Agreements, but will be
tailored to take into consideration factors that are unique
to Korea and the provisions listed in KORUS.
Targeting High-Risk Imports
CBP will conduct trend analysis to spot unusual trade
patterns such as U.S. imports of products that South Korea
does not produce.
CBP will monitor the emergence of new importers or changes
in importer behavior.
CBP will review intelligence provided by other governments
or industry.
Under KORUS, CBP can also take several other courses of
action, including but not limited to: conducting
comprehensive cargo exams or importer audits and performing
laboratory analysis on the contents of imports.
Trade Agreement Verifications
Under KORUS, CBP will conduct extensive verifications as
warranted of imports that seek preferential duty treatment to
ensure that they legitimately qualify under the agreement.
CBP will request documentation from importers to
substantiate their preference claims, as needed. If an
importer cannot substantiate its preference claim, CBP will
bill the importer for the duty amount owed, as well as other
associated fees.
Under KORUS, CBP can visit South Korean factories to
validate a factory's production capability as well as
compliance of the goods with the requirements of KORUS. If a
factory does not have the facilities to produce goods or
documentation to support a KORUS claim, CBP can deny duty-
free treatment under KORUS on future shipments.
CBP can also visit South Korean exporters or any other
individuals or companies that may have evidence relative to
the verification of a KORUS claim.
CBP can deny the preferential treatment granted under the
agreement to any good when verification can not be completed
because of a lack of cooperation from the foreign entity.
Textiles and Apparel Goods
KORUS includes provisions similar to other Trade Agreements
that allow CBP to address major concerns of the U.S. business
community, such as the transshipment of textile or apparel
goods from China or other countries to take advantage of the
duty preference.
Under KORUS, CBP can visit South Korean textile factories
to validate a factory's production capability as well as
compliance of the goods with the requirements of KORUS. If a
factory does not have the facilities to produce goods or
documentation to support a KORUS claim, CBP can deny duty-
free treatment under KORUS on future shipments.
CBP can also visit South Korean exporters or any other
individuals or companies that may have evidence relative to
the verification of a KORUS claim.
CBP can deny the preferential treatment granted under the
agreement to any textile or apparel good when verification
can not be completed because of a lack of cooperation from
the foreign entity.
Korea is required to provide CBP with an annual report
detailing those factories that are involved in textile and
apparel production. This information will be used to validate
legitimate yarn, fabric, and apparel producers to assist CBP
with their targeting.
____
American Automotive Policy Council
AAPC Statement in Support of Congressional Passage of the U.S.-Korea
FTA
Washington, D.C.--The American Automotive Policy Council
(AAPC)--representing its member companies Chrysler Group LLC,
Ford Motor Company and General Motors Company--strongly
supports the passage of the U.S. free trade agreement with
South Korea (U.S.-Korea FTA). AAPC and its member companies
worked closely with the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) throughout the negotiations to ensure that the
agreement provides the opportunity for our companies to
compete and succeed in the Korean auto market. Our full
support for this agreement was secured through this ongoing
collaboration and the important improvements made to the auto
provisions late last year.
``As representatives of the largest exporting sector, this
FTA will help open an important auto market for Chrysler,
Ford and GM exports. Our companies make the best cars and
trucks on the road and we are excited for the export
opportunity this agreement represents,'' AAPC President Matt
Blunt said.
AAPC and its member companies support the agreement's
automotive rule of origin (RoO), which is required to be met
for auto products to receive the benefits of the FTA. When
the high-level of integration of the North American auto
market and the very narrow subset of costs that can be
counted under the strict methodology used is considered, AAPC
believes the automotive RoO content level maximizes its
members' export opportunities from the United States, and
allows America's automakers and its workers to fully benefit
from the FTA.
``This agreement will help open a major Asian market that
has been largely closed to U.S. auto exports. I urge members
of Congress to vote for the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.
Not only is it good for the American auto industry and its
workers, but it is good for the nation,'' Blunt said.
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
represents over 700 companies that manufacture motor vehicle
parts for use in the light vehicle and heavy-duty original
equipment and aftermarket industries. Motor vehicle parts
manufacturers are the nation's largest manufacturing sector,
directly employing over 685,000 American workers. MEMA
represents its members through four affiliate associations:
Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), Heavy
Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA), Motor & Equipment
Remanufacturers Association (MERA) and the Original Equipment
Suppliers Association (OESA).
On behalf of this industry, I urge you to vote in favor of
the free trade agreements (FTA) with Colombia, Panama and
South Korea. These agreements are critical to helping America
maintain its leading role in the world economy while
promoting democratic and free market values.
The global economy has drastically changed, bringing
greater competition which requires us to more actively engage
our trading partners, be it through free trade agreements or
other trade/investment partnerships, to help grow our
economy. The pending FTAs offer real opportunities for parts
manufacturers and our employees in two of the fastest-growing
regions: Asia-Pacific and South America. We can ill afford to
neglect these and other markets as key competitors, such as
the EU and Canada, forge stronger partnerships with key
countries.
As manufacturers, MEMA members are ready to take advantage
of the pending FTAs, a sentiment expressed in testimony by
MEMA in April before the House Small Business Committee. As
our members continue to readjust their business operations in
response to the recession, the agreements with Colombia,
Panama, and South Korea will provide significant business
opportunities for the motor vehicle parts industry, creating
jobs and helping to restore manufacturing to its rightful
place in America's economy.
Thank you for your attention as Congress considers these
important agreements.
____
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW
Washington, DC, October 12, 2011.
Dear Representative: The House is expected to vote this
week on legislation to implement pending free trade
agreements and renewal of the 2009 Trade Adjustment
Assistance program (TAA). The UAW urges you to vote for the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) and TAA, and to
oppose the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
The automotive provisions of the original 2007 trade
agreement with South Korea were substantially renegotiated by
the Obama administration in 2010. The revised agreement
creates the opportunity to address our Korean trade imbalance
by providing greater market access for American exports and
stronger safeguards to protect our domestic markets from
harmful surges of Korean automotive imports.
The revised KORUS FTA keeps the 2.5 percent U.S. tariffs on
automobiles and most auto parts in place until the fifth year
after the agreement goes into effect. It also allows the U.S.
to maintain the full 25 percent tariff on light trucks until
the eighth year, and then phases this tariff out over three
years. Korea will immediately reduce its electric car tariffs
from 8 percent to 4 percent, and will phase out the tariff by
the fifth year of the agreement. American automakers believe
that the delayed tariff reductions will give them sufficient
time to enhance their ability to compete in the historically-
closed Korean market.
The revised KORUS FTA includes an auto-specific safeguard
provision to protect against drastic increases in imported
Korean vehicles that harm the domestic auto industry. The
remedy for a finding of injury is the ``snapback'' to the
original tariff levels prior to implementation of the FTA.
The new agreement also addresses the pervasive use of Korean
non-tariff barriers (NTBs). The KORUS FTA includes standards
for the protection of worker rights, including obligations
for South Korea to respect core International Labor
Organization (ILO) labor rights and standards, to refrain
from weakening any laws that reflect those rights in any way,
and to effectively enforce labor laws designed to ensure a
level playing field for American workers to compete. These
labor standards are enforceable in the same manner as the
commercial provisions of the FTA.
The UAW believes that the revised KORUS FTA will lead to an
improvement in our economic relationship with South Korea and
help to protect America's domestic auto industry and its
workers from South Korea's tradition of engaging in unfair
trade practices. Therefore, the UAW urges you to vote for the
implementation of the KORUS FTA.
[[Page H6831]]
The UAW commends the Obama Administration's efforts to
strengthen labor and human rights protections in Colombia
through the recently negotiated Action Plan, and we are
hopeful that the provisions in the Plan will result in
significant changes on the ground in Colombia. We note,
however, that the Action Plan is not included in the Colombia
FTA. Moreover, we cannot support Congressional action on the
Colombia FTA until there is significant progress on the
paramount moral issues surrounding the continued violence
against unionists and concrete evidence that the perpetrators
of these crimes are being brought to justice.
Earlier this month, the International Trade Union
Confederation (ITUC) released its new Annual Survey on Trade
Union Rights, which confirmed that Colombia remains the most
dangerous place on earth for unionists: last year 49 people
were murdered for their trade union activities, more than the
rest of the world combined; 75 additional individuals
received credible death threats; at least 2,500 unionists
were arrested; and thousands more fired from their jobs
solely due to union membership. The Action Plan is not
enforceable under the FTA, and the passage of the U.S.-
Colombia FTA would seriously weaken the pressure on the
Colombian government to fulfill its human rights obligations.
The Colombian government has been unambiguously complicit in
the abuse of labor and human rights and the signing of the
FTA would be an insult to workers everywhere, and to the
basic principles of freedom and justice. Therefore, we urge
you to vote against the Colombia FTA.
The 2009 enhanced TAA program expired in February of this
year. Since that time, tens of thousands of service workers
and manufacturing workers whose jobs were shipped to China
and India have been ineligible for TAA retraining benefits,
and workers who have been certified for TAA have received
reduced benefits. The UAW urges you to vote for legislation
already passed in the Senate to reinstate the provisions of
the 2009 TAA so that workers whose jobs have been offshored
have an adequate opportunity to find reemployment.
Accordingly, the UAW urges you to vote for the KORUS FTA
and TAA, and to vote against the U.S.-Colombia FTA. Thank you
for considering our views on these very important matters.
Sincerely,
Barbara Somson,
Legislative Director.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman.
This agreement will break down trade barriers. Frankly, it will level
the playing field for 19,000 small and medium-sized businesses here in
the United States and the farmers here who export into this market. It
means 280,000 new American jobs and, frankly, it means $10 billion in
new exports.
And let's remember this: Europe has this trade agreement. It went
into effect on July 1. They've seen a 17 percent increase in their
exports into the market in South Korea at our expense. Why? Because,
frankly, U.S. exports to Korea currently face an average tariff of 12.2
percent, and it's, frankly, 49 percent for agricultural products. If we
can bring that down--their tariffs are higher than ours. If we can
bring that down, we can get that market share. We can increase that
trade and develop these jobs.
And the agreement also removes the barriers and provides
transparency. It provides property rights. It has rules on competition
that make U.S. businesses much more competitive in Korea, that gives
them access into that market.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I do want to just touch on some points
raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). We did work closely
together on the supplemental agreement last year with the
administration, with automakers, with autoworkers, and that is
incorporated in the legislation before us today.
It does address, as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, key
tariff and nontariff barriers, including numerous provisions to ensure
that South Korea cannot use a regulatory system or process to block our
exports.
The International Trade Commission estimates that the removal of
nontariff barriers alone will add an additional between $48 million and
$66 million in new exports. That's in addition to the $194 million
dollars in new exports expected from lower Korean tariffs on autos
alone.
Inaction on the Korean trade agreement has allowed the European Union
and other competitors to step in and take our market share. That's
diminished our leadership in Asia. The Korean trade agreement is key to
our engagement in Asia, and it will be a critical counter to Chinese
influence in the region.
We've heard a lot about China today, but how do we counter Chinese
influence in the region through this agreement?
{time} 1640
This agreement, also, I think, is critically important because it
deepens our ties with a strong and important ally. The United States
and South Korea have had a 60-year history of standing together. This
agreement is really a step forward in our bilateral relationship, and
it is an important step that we need to take today.
I would urge passage of this agreement. It has been endorsed--and I
have a 4-page list of organizations and associations, including the
American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable, Heritage, and other
groups, a 4-page list--by many organizations supporting the passage of
this agreement.
[From The Committee on Ways and Means]
The Support for Job Creating Trade Agreements Is Large . . . and
Growing
Aerospace Industries Association, Agri Beef Co., American
Apparel & Footwear Association, American Automotive Policy
Council, American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, American
Chemistry Council, American Council of Life Insurers,
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry
Association, American Forest & Paper Association.
American Frozen Food Institute, American International
Automobile Dealers Association (AIADA), American Iron and
Steel Institute, American Meat Institute, American Peanut
Product Manufacturers, Inc., American Potato Trade Alliance,
American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean
Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Animal Health
Institute, Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of
Commerce.
Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin
America, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Blue Diamond
Growers, Business Roundtable, Business Software Alliance,
California Cherry Export Association, California Date
Commission, California Dried Plum Board, California Fig
Advisory Board, California Pear Growers.
California Strawberry Commission, California Table Grape
Commission, California Walnut Commission, Campbell Soup
Company, Cargill Incorporated, Club for Growth, Coalition of
Service Industries, Commodity Markets Council, Computer &
Communications Industry Association, ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
Corn Refiners Association.
Dairylea Cooperative Inc., Distilled Spirits Council of the
United States, Dow Chemical Company, Emergency Committee for
American Trade, Equity Cooperative Livestock Sales
Association, Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America,
FreedomWorks, Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Heritage Action, Hormel Foods Corporation, Idaho Barley
Commission, Idaho Grain Producers Association, International
Dairy Foods Association, International Intellectual Property
Alliance, JBS USA, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers,
Kentucky Small Grain Growers Association, Kraft Foods.
Land O'Lakes, Inc., Latin America Trade Coalition, Montana
Grain Growers Association, Motion Picture Association of
America, National Association of Manufacturers, National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National
Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers
Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National
Chicken Council.
National Confectioners Association, National Corn Growers
Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,
National Fisheries Institute, National Foreign Trade Council,
National Grain and Feed Association, National Grape
Cooperative Association, Inc., National Meat Association,
National Milk Producers Federation, National Oilseed
Processors Association.
National Pork Producers Council, National Potato Council,
National Renderers Association, National Sorghum Producers,
National Sunflower Association, National Taxpayers Union,
National Turkey Federation, North American Equipment Dealers
Association, North Dakota Grain Growers Association,
Northwest Dairy Association/Darigold.
Northwest Horticulture Council, Ocean Spray Cranberries,
Inc., Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, Outdoor Industry
Association, Pet Food Institute, Produce Marketing
Association, Recording Industry Association of America,
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Seaboard Foods,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
Smithfield Foods, South Dakota Wheat Inc., SPI: The
Plastics Industry Trade Association, Sunmaid Growers of
California, Sunsweet Growers, Inc., Sweetener Users
Association, TechNet, Texas Wheat Producers Association, The
Financial Services Roundtable, Third Way.
Travel Goods Association, Tyson Foods, Inc., U.S. Apple
Association, U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, U.S. Council for International Business, U.S. Dairy
Export Council, U.S.-Korea FTA Business Coalition, U.S. Meat
Export Federation, U.S. Premium Beef.
[[Page H6832]]
Unilever United States, United Egg Association, United Egg
Producers, United Producers, Inc., US Dry Bean Council, US
Wheat Associates, US-Colombia Business Partnership, USA Dry
Pea & Lentil Council, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, USA
Rice Federation, Valley Fig Growers, Washington State Potato
Commission, Welch Foods Inc., Western Growers Association.
I urge passage of this agreement, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 425, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________