[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 19100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1920
                    U.S.-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

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

                          ____________________