April 25, 2008 – 3:43 p.m.
As lawmakers gear up for consideration of another free-trade agreement, this time with South Korea, proponents will have to win over skeptical Republicans as well as Democrats.
The Bush administration has yet to submit the implementing legislation for the deal — the most commercially significant since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 — but Republicans from manufacturing states are already opposed, saying it would keep U.S. automakers shut out of the South Korean market.
“I think this was a very poorly negotiated trade deal,” said Rep.
The fate of the pact is also clouded by the recent spat over a smaller trade deal with Colombia, which House Speaker
South Korea was the seventh-largest market for U.S. exports in 2007, with $34.7 billion worth of goods sold. But the United States had a $12.8 billion trade deficit with the Asian nation last year, with auto-related trade making up the bulk of the imbalance.
Under the trade agreement, the two countries would eliminate or reduce tariffs on automobiles and auto parts. But opponents say South Korea isn’t making the necessary concessions with regard to non-tariff barriers, such as the higher taxes it imposes on cars with large engines, which U.S.-made autos tend to have.
“It actually would exacerbate our auto trade imbalance with South Korea,” said Alan Reuther, legislative director for the United Auto Workers. “It would make a bad situation even worse” and cost the United States “tens of thousands of jobs.”
The deal is also drawing fire from some unexpected quarters.
Rogers said that if the trade pact were to come up for a vote in its current form, many Republicans would oppose it, even those who, like him, regularly support free-trade agreements.
One is fellow Michigan Republican
“I don’t know if there are enough votes,” Knollenberg said. “I think it might not even come up for that reason.”
The trade agreement gained momentum April 17 when South Korea announced it would lift restrictions on imports of U.S. beef. South Korea halted the imports in 2003, after a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease, was discovered in the United States.
The country eased its restrictions in 2006, but beef remained a major obstacle to moving forward with the agreement.
Before the ban was imposed, South Korea was the third-largest market for U.S. beef.
Since the breakthrough on beef, Pelosi has remained mum on the trade deal. Instead, she’s been responding to repeated GOP attacks regarding her decision to indefinitely delay a vote on the Colombia free-trade agreement.
The House voted, 224-195, on April 10 to suspend fast-track rules for the Colombia agreement (
Most House Democrats and labor groups oppose the agreement, saying the Colombian government has not taken sufficient steps to reduce violence against union members.
Republicans counter that Colombia has worked hard to crack down on right-wing paramilitary groups blamed for much of the violence.
Pelosi has had objections to the South Korea deal from the start. On June 29, 2007, a day before the U.S. signed the bilateral agreement, she issued a statement with other House Democratic leaders saying they could not support the pact because it “does not address in an effective manner the persistent problem of non-tariff barriers, particularly those blocking access of U.S. manufactured products in South Korea’s market.”
Opponents regularly note that in 2007, South Korea exported more than 700,000 cars to the United States, while U.S. auto exports in the other direction numbered fewer than 5,000.
The administration is likely to submit the implementing legislation for the South Korea deal to Congress under fast-track rules, even though Congress could let the clock run out and adjourn if both chambers use the maximum number of days allotted by the fast track.
The rules bar amendments to trade pacts negotiated by the executive branch and require both chambers to act within 90 legislative days after a pact’s implementing legislation is submitted.
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, noted that because of the time crunch, the administration would have to receive some assurances of a vote not just from the House Democratic leadership but also from Senate Democrats, since there might not be enough time for a fast-track vote in the upper chamber.
The administration “would have to get an agreement from Reid to ensure there are 60 votes” to prevent a filibuster against the deal, Wallach said, referring to Senate Majority Leader
To be sure, House Democrats could once again vote to suspend fast-track rules if the measure is submitted to Congress without their approval. Some supporters of the South Korea trade pact argue that it shouldn’t be infected by the same politics as the Colombia deal.
“The fast-track actions on Colombia did not dissuade the Koreans from coming here and striking a deal on beef,” said Doug Goudie, director of international trade policy for the National Association of Manufacturers. “This is a great agreement for manufacturers.”
The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that, upon full implementation, the agreement would increase U.S. gross domestic product by as much as $11.9 billion.