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