[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.

                          ____________________