Over the weekend, [President] Obama directed the U.S. Trade Representative to begin new discussions with South Korea to resolve outstanding issues in the FTA before Obama’s visit there for the next G-20 meeting in November. After those issues are resolved, Obama plans to submit the trade deal to Congress.
AFL-CIO ‘Strongly Opposes’ Korea-U.S. Trade Agreement
Richard Trumka, leader of the AFL-CIO:
This flawed agreement is the last thing working people need. With a fragile and incomplete economic recovery, and unemployment estimated to remain near 10 percent for the foreseeable future, we should not be putting in place new trade agreements that will speed up the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on the U.S.- South Korea Trade Agreement
Unless the trade agreement is drastically improved, it should not be submitted to Congress. If a bad deal is submitted, Congress should defeat it. This adminstration should not jeopardize the coalition that supports it and the Democratic Party by pushing through a trade agreement that enriches global investors and impoverishes American workers. That would be a big error that could have negative consequences, as it did in 1994 with NAFTA.
Then-president George W. Bush completed negotiations in 2007 on the agreement, which would be the largest for the United States since the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.
snip
But the Democratic-led Congress has not taken up the agreement. Lawmakers -- including Obama, when he was a senator -- contended it did not give enough access for US cattlemen and carmakers to Asia's fourth largest economy.
Some US lawmakers and others say South Korea still has barriers other than tariffs that block US exports.
S.Korea rejects US free trade deal complaints
Obama said a completed deal would strengthen commercial ties between the two countries and "create enormous potential economic benefits" by removing barriers to the sale of American products in South Korea, the 14th largest economy in the world. The administration estimated it could boost exports of American products by $10 billion to $11 billion annually.
Obama said the agreement would "create jobs here in the United States which is my No. 1 priority."
snip
Gibbs said the two major sticking points for the administration included barriers South Korea has erected to the sale of U.S. autos and beef in South Korea.
Chicago Sun Times
I believe the President wants to create American jobs and I hope that adherence to a discredited "free trade" ideology does not overcome his heart-felt desire to create American jobs.
[The Trade agreement] has been stalled since Obama took office, along with two other Bush trade deals with Panama and Colombia, because of strong resistance from many Democrats such as House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat.
South Korea exported around 500,000 autos to the United States in 2009 but imported only about 6,000 U.S. autos, which critics say is evidence of its largely closed market.
snip
Steve Collins, president of the American Automotive Policy Councils, said U.S. automakers wanted a results-oriented trade deal ensuring they make additional sales in the South Korean market in exchange for U.S. tariff cuts.
"A well-negotiated U.S.-Korea Free Trade agreement represents the last, best chance to open the Korean market to imported automobiles," Ford Motor Co. said in a statement on Monday.
Obama risks Democratic fight in pressing Korea deal
South Korea's initial response is to reject the attempts to improve the bill and hold on to their trade barriers. I don't think that will be sufficient for the President.
SEOUL (AFP) – South Korea said Wednesday it would reopen talks soon with the United States on a major free trade deal, but rejected complaints it unfairly restricts US beef and auto exports.
S.Korea rejects US free trade deal complaints
They said NAFTA would create jobs in America, and we all have seen what transpired. Clinton split the Democratic Party with the NAFTA sell out of workers. I don't want to see it again. I have confidence that the President will not agree to a bill that destroys American jobs.
Unfortunately, global investors were able to change the rules of the senate on this long ago.
The Fast track negotiating authority (also called Trade Promotion Authority, TPA) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. ... On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.
snip
The authority will cover implementing bills with respect to trade agreements entered into before July 1, 2007. (19 U.S.C. § 3803(c)(1)(B).) The authority expired on July 1, 2007, without being renewed by Congress. [2] Nonetheless, the authority will be available for Congressional consideration of free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and Korea, all of which the United States signed before the deadline.
wikepedia: Fast Track
Yes, you can filibuster unemployment benefits, causing people to lose their benefits, go hungry, lose homes, etc., or you can filibuster health care reform, preventing a public option, or you can filibuster climate change (it's only the fate of the world at risk). But global investors and movement of capital and off-shoring American jobs, that takes only a majority in the Senate to pass. YOU CANNOT FILIBUSTER TRADE DEALS.
If you don't see the class war in that, then you are blind.
The entire statement by Mr. Trumka is here:
We remain deeply concerned about and strongly opposed to the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement as negotiated by the Bush Administration. The agreement would exacerbate our already lopsided trade relationship with South Korea, putting at risk thousands of good U.S. jobs in the auto, steel, and other industrial sectors.
The agreement phases out tariffs on goods and services between the two countries, but does not go nearly far enough in eliminating the non-tariff barriers that currently prevent American products – especially autos – from entering the South Korean market fairly.
This flawed agreement is the last thing working people need. With a fragile and incomplete economic recovery, and unemployment estimated to remain near 10 percent for the foreseeable future, we should not be putting in place new trade agreements that will speed up the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Our negotiators should go back to the table to address the imbalanced market-access provisions in the agreement and to revisit the flawed investment, procurement, and services provisions as well.
President Obama promised a "smart, fair and strong" trade policy. The KORUS FTA does not meet this standard, and we will work closely with the Administration and Congress to improve this agreement on behalf of American and Korean workers. Unless and until the agreement is amended to address these concerns, we will strongly oppose passage of the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement.
Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on the U.S.- South Korea Trade Agreement
"Congress expects to be consulted actively in these negotiations and the date targeted by the president can be met only if the outstanding issues are fully addressed with enforceable commitments," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich.
Chicago Sun Times
"There are significant changes that must be made in order for this free trade agreement to gain broad congressional support," Representative Louise Slaughter, a leader of trade-wary Democrats warned on Monday in a statement.
Obama risks Democratic fight in pressing Korea deal
Like Mr. Trumka said,
This flawed agreement is the last thing working people need. With a fragile and incomplete economic recovery, and unemployment estimated to remain near 10 percent for the foreseeable future, we should not be putting in place new trade agreements that will speed up the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Our negotiators should go back to the table to address the imbalanced market-access provisions in the agreement and to revisit the flawed investment, procurement, and services provisions as well.