United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, since World War II the United States has traded away American jobs in the name of foreign policy by entering into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.

With a 9.1 percent national unemployment rate, 14 million Americans looking for work, and 10.6 percent unemployment in Rhode Island, there are no more jobs to give. As such, I cannot support these trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama that the Senate is considering today.

I am not convinced these trade deals will result in net job growth for the United States. The International Trade Commission's analysis of the agreements finds negligible changes to aggregate employment and output. Analysis from The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Korea FTA would lead to a loss of 159,000 jobs--much of this in the manufacturing sector. It must be stressed that, according to these analyses, any potential job gains associated with increases in American exports will be offset by job losses resulting from increased imports to the United States.

Moreover, as a recent economic study has shown, my State is one of the most susceptible to labor-intensive imports. And as the International Trade Commission's sector analysis of these free trade agreements found, industries that are based in Rhode Island align with those foreign industries that will have the most access to U.S. markets. I am very concerned that Rhode Island businesses will feel the brunt of this import pressure while realizing little of the potential gains from exports.

It is likely that U.S. job losses associated with the Korea FTA will be disproportionately felt in Rhode Island, particularly in the textile sector. The nature of the agreement and the change in tariff schedules pick clear winners and losers. U.S. agriculture and passenger vehicles will be winners, while manufacturing industries central to my State like textiles will be losers. I have heard from Rhode Island businesses opposed to the Korea agreement for this very reason.

I, also, have serious reservations about the Colombian and Panama agreements. These agreements will have a relatively small impact on the U.S. economy, but present basic questions of accountability. Colombia has one of the highest rates of anti-union violence in the world. Panama has its own duty free zone and there are concerns about whether there are enough resources being dedicated to deter illegal transshipment of goods, which could lead to other nations taking advantage of our trade agreement with Panama by skirting customs and violating ``rules of origin'' requirements. Additionally, despite Panama's recent tax information exchange agreement, questions remain about the degree to which transparency and bank secrecy laws will continue to be obstacles to enforcing U.S. tax law.

Both Colombia and Panama have made efforts to correct these issues. However, the results of these efforts are not clear and more work remains to be done to ensure that accountability is built into the system.

I do want to stress that my opposition to these agreements is not meant to undercut the good work of our partners and allies in Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Korea is one of our most vital partners in Asia and a democracy that shares our values. Colombia is an important Latin American ally that has made enormous progress in strengthening the rule of law and combating extremist organizations and drug traffickers. And the United States has a singular relationship with Panama that has progressively strengthened over time.

However, at this time, I think we should stop and pause and think about our domestic needs and how to get our economy back on track. The United States needs to enter into trade agreements that will unequivocally benefit Americans workers--these trade deals do not. So, I will vote against the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements, and continue working to find a better way to promote bilateral trade that will lead to job growth here at home.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source