Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Platzer, Michaela D." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for Congress [November 21, 2018]
"On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued two proclamations imposing tariffs on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, respectively, using presidential powers granted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that the targeted products are being imported into the United States 'in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.' Section 232 investigations and actions are important for Congress, as the Constitution gives it primary authority over international trade matters. In the case of Section 232, Congress has delegated to the President broad authority to impose limits on imports in the interest of U.S. national security. The statute does not require congressional approval of any presidential actions that fall within its scope. In the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, however, Congress amended Section 232 by creating a joint disapproval resolution provision under which Congress can override presidential actions in the case of adjustments to petroleum or petroleum product imports."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Fefer, Rachel F.; Jones, Vivian Catherine; Hammond, Keigh E. . . .
2018-11-21
-
Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for Congress [September 11, 2018]
"On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued two proclamations imposing duties on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, using presidential powers granted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that the targeted products are being imported into the United States 'in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.' Section 232 investigations and actions are important for Congress, as the Constitution gives it primary authority over international trade matters. In the case of Section 232, Congress has delegated the President broad authority to impose limits on imports in the interest of U.S. national security. The statute does not require congressional approval of any presidential actions that fall within its scope. In the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, however, Congress amended Section 232 by creating a joint disapproval resolution provision under which Congress could override presidential actions in the case of adjustments to petroleum or petroleum product imports."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Fefer, Rachel F.; Jones, Vivian Catherine; Hammond, Keigh E. . . .
2018-09-11
-
Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for Congress [July 27, 2018]
"On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued two proclamations imposing duties on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, using presidential powers granted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that the targeted products are being imported into the United States 'in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.' Section 232 investigations and actions are important for Congress as the Constitution gives it primary authority over international trade matters. In the case of Section 232, Congress has delegated the President broad authority to impose limits on imports in the interest of U.S. national security. The statute does not require congressional approval of any presidential actions that fall within its scope. In the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, however, Congress amended Section 232 by creating a joint disapproval resolution provision under which Congress could override presidential actions in the case of adjustments to petroleum or petroleum product imports."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Fefer, Rachel F.; Jones, Vivian Catherine; Hammond, Keigh E. . . .
2018-07-27
-
Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for Congress [July 5, 2018]
"On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued two proclamations imposing duties on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, using presidential powers granted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that the targeted products are being imported into the United States 'in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.' Section 232 investigations and actions are important for Congress as the Constitution gives it primary authority over international trade matters. In the case of Section 232, Congress has delegated the President broad authority to impose limits on imports in the interest of U.S. national security. The statute does not require congressional approval of any presidential actions that fall within its scope. In the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, however, Congress amended Section 232 by creating a joint disapproval resolution provision under which Congress could override presidential actions in the case of adjustments to petroleum or petroleum product imports."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Fefer, Rachel F.; Jones, Vivian Catherine; Hammond, Keigh E. . . .
2018-07-05
-
Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for Congress [Updated April 2, 2019]
From the Document: "On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued two proclamations imposing tariffs on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, respectively, using presidential powers granted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that the targeted products are being imported into the United States 'in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.' Section 232 investigations and actions are important for Congress, as the Constitution gives it primary authority over international trade matters. [...] This report provides an overview of Section 232, analyzes the Trump Administration's Section 232 investigations and actions, and considers potential policy and economic implications and issues for Congress. To provide context for the current debate, the report also includes a discussion of previous Section 232 investigations and a brief legislative history of the statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Fefer, Rachel F.; Hammond, Keigh E.; Jones, Vivian Catherine . . .
2019-04-02
-
Textile and Apparel Sectors Disagree on Certain Provisions of the Proposed U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Agreement [March 5, 2019]
From the Document: "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is the proposed replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which entered into force in 1994 and gradually eliminated tariffs and quotas on regionally made textile and apparel products. The proposed agreement would make several changes in rules affecting textiles and apparel among the three countries. U.S. textile manufacturers and the apparel and retail industries have expressed overall support for the USMCA. Still, certain provisions have been controversial, and textile producers and the apparel sector hold divergent views. If Congress considers the USMCA, its textile and apparel provisions may draw particular scrutiny."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2019-03-05
-
U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations [August 28, 2014]
"Textiles are a contentious and unresolved issue in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations to establish a free-trade zone across the Pacific. Because the negotiating parties include Vietnam, a major apparel producer that now mainly sources yarns and fabrics from China and other Asian nations, the agreement has the potential to shift global trading patterns for textiles and demand for U.S. textile exports. Canada and Mexico, both significant regional textile markets for the United States, and Japan, a major manufacturer of high-end textiles and industrial fabrics, are also participants in the negotiations. U.S. textile manufacturers produce yarn, thread, and fabric for apparel, home furnishings, and various industrial applications. In 2013, the U.S. textile industry generated nearly $57 billion in shipments and directly employed about 230,700 Americans, accounting for approximately 2% of all U.S. factory jobs. More than one-third of U.S. textile production is exported, with the bulk of the exports going to Western Hemisphere nations that are members of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). These free trade agreements provide that certain exports from member countries may enter the U.S. market duty-free only if they are made from textiles produced in the region. This has encouraged manufacturers in Mexico and Central America to use U.S.-made yarns and fabrics in apparel, home furnishings, and other products. Exports to the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries contributed to a U.S. trade surplus of $2.4 billion in yarns and fabrics in 2013."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2014-08-28
-
U.S. Travel and Tourism: Industry Trends and Policy Issues for Congress [April 2, 2014]
"The U.S. travel and tourism industry accounted for 2.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011 and directly employed more than 5.7 million people in 2013. Tourism exports reached a record $181 billion in 2013, representing about a quarter of total U.S. services exports. The sector has posted an annual trade surplus with the world for more than two decades. The Department of Commerce forecasts foreign visitor volume in the United States will reach 80 million in 2018. Lawmakers have disagreed on the appropriate federal role in supporting travel and tourism. In 1996, Congress stopped funding the United States Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA), which for 35 years promoted the United States as a tourist destination. In 2009, it established a public-private entity to promote U.S. tourism, the Corporation for Trade Promotion, which does business as Brand USA. The program is funded by a $10 user fee assessed on international visitors from certain countries and requires annual in-kind and cash matching contributions from the U.S. tourism industry. Brand USA can receive up to $100 million annually in matching federal funds. The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA; P.L. 111-145), which authorizes federal funds for Brand USA, expires at the end of FY2015."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2014-04-02
-
U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implementation [September 16, 2014]
"President Obama signed the legislation implementing the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) on October 21, 2011 (P.L. 112-41), and the Korean National Assembly passed the agreement on November 22, 2011. The KORUS FTA entered into force on March 15, 2012. With the KORUS FTA now in force for over two years, focus has shifted from the debate over its passage to its implementation, economic impact, and effect on future U.S. FTAs. Some U.S. companies have argued that certain aspects of the KORUS agreement are not being implemented appropriately, citing issues related to rules of origin verification, express delivery shipments, data transfers, and pending auto regulations. In addition, a widening trade deficit with South Korea since the implementation of the agreement has led some observers to argue the agreement has not benefitted the U.S. economy, but it is difficult to distinguish the KORUS FTA's impact on U.S.- South Korea trade patterns from the impact of other economic variables. As the largest of the recently passed U.S. FTA's, perceptions of the KORUS FTA's economic impact and concerns over its implementation may influence congressional debate in the new FTAs now under negotiation, specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which South Korea has signaled an interest in joining, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) between the United States and the European Union."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Williams, Brock R.; Manyin, Mark E.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2014-09-16
-
Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications [May 2, 2011]
"On June 30, 2007, U.S. and South Korean trade officials signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the second-largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date, after the agreement with the European Union (EU). It would be the second-largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea's third-largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have substantial economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-210)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Manyin, Mark E.; Cooper, William H., 1949-; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2011-05-02
-
EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States [October 4, 2011]
"On October 6, 2010, the 27 member European Union (EU) and South Korea signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). The South Korean National Assembly and the EU Parliament have ratified the agreement. The agreement went into effect on July 1, 2011. The South Korea-EU FTA (KOREU FTA) is the largest FTA in terms of market size that South Korea has entered into. The KOREU FTA reflects the EU and South Korean trade strategies to use FTAs to strengthen economic ties outside their home regions. It also builds upon the surge in trade and investment flows between South Korea and the EU over the past decade. This agreement has possible implications for U.S. trade with South Korea and congressional action on the proposed U.S.- South Korea FTA (KORUS FTA). President Obama submitted draft implementing legislation (H.R. 3080/S. 1642) for the KORUS FTA to Congress on October 3, 2011. […] Some business representatives argue that enactment of the KOREU FTA before enactment of the KORUS FTA would give European competitors commercial first mover advantages, since EU firms, such as those in the auto industry or the services sector, could gain greater market opportunities in South Korea not afforded to U.S. firms. On the other hand, other factors could also mitigate such advantages. For example, U.S. multinational firms operating in the EU could benefit from the KOREU FTA. Nevertheless, the content and fate of the KOREU FTA could influence the pace and tone of any debate in the United States on the KORUS FTA in the 112th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Jurenas, Remy; Platzer, Michaela D.
2011-10-04
-
U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry [September 23, 2011]
"Increasing U.S. energy supply diversity has been the goal of many Presidents and Congresses. This commitment has been prompted by concerns about national security, the environment, and the U.S. balance of payments. More recently, investments in new energy sources have been seen as a way to expand domestic manufacturing. For all of these reasons, the federal government has a variety of policies to promote wind power. Expanding the use of wind energy requires installation of wind turbines. These are complex machines composed of some 8,000 components, created from basic industrial materials such as steel, aluminum, concrete, and fiberglass. Major components in a wind turbine include the rotor blades, a nacelle and controls (the heart and brain of a wind turbine), a tower, and other parts such as large bearings, transformers, gearboxes, and generators. Turbine manufacturing involves an extensive supply chain. Until recently, Europe has been the hub for turbine production, supported by national renewable energy deployment policies in countries such as Denmark, Germany, and Spain. Competitive wind turbine manufacturing sectors are also located in India and Japan and are emerging in China and South Korea. […] A variety of federal laws and policies has encouraged both wind energy production and the use of U.S.-made equipment to generate that energy. Some of these policies are subject to change at the end of 2011, and others are scheduled to expire in 2012. Future decisions about these policies will affect the extent to which wind turbine manufacturing becomes an important industrial sector in the United States."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2011-09-23
-
Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications [March 24, 2011]
"On June 30, 2007, U.S. and South Korean trade officials signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the second-largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date, after the agreement with the European Union (EU). It would be the second-largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea's third-largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have substantial economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-210)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Manyin, Mark E.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2011-03-24
-
U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry [January 16, 2013]
"Increasing U.S. energy supply diversity has been the goal of many Presidents and Congresses. This commitment has been prompted by concerns about national security, the environment, and the U.S. balance of payments. Investments in new energy sources also have been seen as a way to expand domestic manufacturing. For all of these reasons, the federal government has a variety of policies to promote wind power. Expanding the use of wind energy requires installation of wind turbines. These are complex machines composed of some 8,000 components, created from basic industrial materials such as steel, aluminum, concrete, and fiberglass. […] The outlook for wind turbine manufacturing in the United States is more uncertain now than in recent years. For the past two decades, a variety of federal laws and state policies have encouraged both wind energy production and the use of U.S.-made equipment to generate that energy. A continuing challenge for the industry is uncertainty about one main federal policy tool in the deployment of wind power, the production tax credit (PTC), which Congress has extended eight times and let lapse on four occasions. Most recently, the PTC expired at the end of 2012, but a few days later, Congress extended it through year-end 2013. At least a dozen wind turbine manufacturers announced layoffs or hiring freezes at U.S. facilities in 2012, citing concern about the PTC's future as one reason. Other factors affecting the health of the U.S. wind industry are intense price competition from natural gas, an oversupply in wind turbines, and softening demand for renewable electricity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2013-01-16
-
EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States [January 5, 2011]
"On October 6, 2010, the 27 member European Union (EU) and South Korea signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). The agreement is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2011, pending approval by the European Parliament and the South Korean National Assembly. If enacted, the South Korea-EU FTA (KOREU FTA) would be the largest FTA in terms of market size that South Korea has entered into. The KOREU FTA reflects the EU and South Korean trade strategies to use FTAs to strengthen economic ties outside their home regions. It also builds upon the surge in trade and investment flows between South Korea and the EU over the past decade. This agreement has possible implications for U.S. trade with South Korea and congressional action on the proposed U.S.-South Korea FTA (KORUS FTA). The proposed KOREU FTA is very comprehensive. It would reduce and eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services and would also cover such trade-related activities as government procurement, intellectual property rights, labor rights and environmental issues. […] U.S. and European firms are close competitors in a number of sectors and industries, particularly autos. Some business representatives argue that enactment of the KOREU FTA before enactment of the KORUS FTA would give European competitors commercial first mover advantages, since EU firms, such as those in the auto industry or the services sector, could gain greater market opportunities in South Korea not afforded to U.S. firms. On the other hand, other factors could also mitigate such advantages. For example, U.S. multinational firms operating in the EU could benefit from the KOREU FTA. Nevertheless, the content and fate of the KOREU FTA could influence the pace and tone of any debate in the United States on the KORUS FTA in the 112th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Jurenas, Remy; Platzer, Michaela D. . . .
2011-01-05
-
EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States [May 3, 2011]
"On October 6, 2010, the 27 member European Union (EU) and South Korea signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). The South Korean National Assembly and the EU Parliament have ratified the agreement. The agreement is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2011. The South Korea-EU FTA (KOREU FTA) is the largest FTA in terms of market size that South Korea has entered into. The KOREU FTA reflects the EU and South Korean trade strategies to use FTAs to strengthen economic ties outside their home regions. […] This agreement has possible implications for U.S. trade with South Korea and congressional action on the proposed U.S.-South Korea FTA (KORUS FTA). The KOREU FTA is very comprehensive. It would reduce and eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services and would also cover such trade-related activities as government procurement, intellectual property rights, labor rights and environmental issues. […] U.S. and European firms are close competitors in a number of sectors and industries, particularly autos. Some business representatives argue that enactment of the KOREU FTA before enactment of the KORUS FTA would give European competitors commercial first mover advantages, since EU firms, such as those in the auto industry or the services sector, could gain greater market opportunities in South Korea not afforded to U.S. firms. On the other hand, other factors could also mitigate such advantages. [...] Nevertheless, the content and fate of the KOREU FTA could influence the pace and tone of any debate in the United States on the KORUS FTA in the 112th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Manyin, Mark E.; Platzer, Michaela D.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2011-05-03
-
U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry [December 18, 2012]
"This report discusses the U.S. wind turbine manufacturing industry, its supply chain, employment and international trade trends, major federal policy efforts aimed at supporting the industry, and issues affecting its future. The wind industry's national trade group, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), reported an estimated 30,000 Americans were employed directly and indirectly in wind turbine manufacturing in 2011, compared to 2,500 in 2004. Another 45,000 U.S. workers reportedly were employed in other parts of the wind industry in 2011, including construction and services. Wind turbine equipment and component manufacturing jobs range in pay from about $30,000 to around $90,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Following an unprecedented period of growth in the U.S. wind power market between 2005 and 2009, about half as many new wind turbines were installed in 2011 (some 3,500) as in 2009."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2012-12-18
-
EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States [December 17, 2010]
"On October 6, 2010, the 27 member European Union (EU) and South Korea signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). The agreement is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2011, pending approval by the European Parliament and the South Korean National Assembly. If enacted, the South Korea-EU FTA (KOREU FTA) would be the largest FTA in terms of market size that South Korea has entered into. The KOREU FTA reflects the EU and South Korean trade strategies to use FTAs to strengthen economic ties outside their home regions. It also builds upon the surge in trade and investment flows between South Korea and the EU over the past decade. This agreement has possible implications for U.S. trade with South Korea and congressional action on the proposed U.S.-South Korea FTA (KORUS FTA). The proposed KOREU FTA is very comprehensive. It would reduce and eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services and would also cover such trade-related activities as government procurement, intellectual property rights, labor rights and environmental issues. Most studies done on the potential impact of the KOREU FTA estimate that the agreement will have a small but positive effect on the economies of the EU and South Korea as a whole and that the larger relative impact would be on the South Korean economy. [...] U.S. and European firms are close competitors in a number of sectors and industries, particularly autos. Some business representatives argue that enactment of the KOREU FTA before enactment of the KORUS FTA would give European competitors commercial first mover advantages, since EU firms, such as those in the auto industry or the services sector, could gain greater market opportunities in South Korea not afforded to U.S. firms. On the other hand, other factors could also mitigate such advantages. For example, U.S. multinational firms operating in the EU could benefit from the KOREU FTA. Nevertheless, the content and fate of the KOREU FTA could influence the pace and tone of any debate in the United States on the KORUS FTA in the 112th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Jurenas, Remy; Cooper, William H., 1949-; Platzer, Michaela D.
2010-12-17
-
U.S. Solar Photocoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support [January 27, 2015]
"Every President since Richard Nixon has sought to increase U.S. energy supply diversity. Job creation and the development of a domestic renewable energy manufacturing base have joined national security and environmental concerns as reasons for promoting the manufacturing of solar power equipment in the United States. The federal government maintains a variety of tax credits and targeted research and development programs to encourage the solar manufacturing sector, and state-level mandates that utilities obtain specified percentages of their electricity from renewable sources have bolstered demand for large solar projects. The most widely used solar technology involves photovoltaic (PV) solar modules, which draw on semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity. By year-end 2013, the total number of grid-connected PV systems nationwide reached more than 445,000. Domestic demand is met both by imports and by about 75 U.S. manufacturing facilities employing upwards of 30,000 U.S. workers in 2014. […] While these duties may help U.S. production become more competitive with imports, the cost of installing solar systems might rise. Domestic demand for solar products may also be depressed by the end of various federal incentives. Unless extended, the commercial Investment Tax Credit for PV systems will revert to 10% from its current 30% rate after 2016, while the 30% credit for residential investments will expire. Looking ahead, the competitiveness of solar PV as a source of electric generation in the United States will likely be adversely affected by the rapid development of shale gas, which has lowered the cost of gas-fired power generation and made it harder for solar to compete as an energy source for utilities. In light of these developments, the ability to sustain a significant U.S. production base for PV equipment is in question."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2015-01-27
-
U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications [March 7, 2013]
"On October 3, 2011, President Obama submitted draft legislation (H.R. 3080/S. 1642) to implement the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) to both houses of Congress. […] In South Korea, after a contentious battle, the Korean National Assembly passed the agreement on November 22. On March 15, 2012, the KORUS FTA entered into force. The KORUS FTA is the second-largest U.S. FTA (next to NAFTA). South Korea is the seventh largest trading partner of the United States, and the United States is South Korea's third-largest trading partner. […] On December 3, 2010, after a series of arduous negotiations, President Obama and President Lee announced that they had reached an agreement on addressing the outstanding issues related to the KORUS FTA. As a result, U.S. and South Korean negotiators agreed, in the form of an exchange of letters and agreed minutes, to modifications to the commitments made in the 2007 agreement. These modifications included changes in phase-out periods for tariffs on autos and pork, a new safeguard provision on autos, and concessions by South Korea on allowing a larger number of U.S. cars into South Korea under U.S. safety standards than was the case under the original KORUS FTA provisions. […] A broad swath of the U.S. business community supported the KORUS FTA. With the modifications in the commitments reached in December 2010, this group also included the three Detroit-based auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. It still faced opposition from some labor unions and other groups, including Public Citizen. Many U.S. supporters view the KORUS FTA as important to secure new opportunities in the South Korean market, while opponents claimed that the KORUS FTA does not go far enough to break down South Korean trade barriers or that the agreement will encourage U.S. companies to move their production offshore at the expense of U.S. workers. Other observers suggested the KORUS FTA could have implications for the U.S.-South Korean alliance as a whole, as well as on U.S. Asia policy and U.S. trade policy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Manyin, Mark E.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2013-03-07
-
U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations [October 5, 2012]
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation among 11 Pacific Rim countries. Initiated under President George W. Bush, the TPP concept has wide bipartisan support. As the negotiations progress, provisions concerning textile trade have become a major point of contention, attracting considerable congressional attention and debate. This report examines the potential implications of a prospective TPP agreement on the U.S. textile manufacturing industry. In 2011, the United States exported nearly $14 billion in yarns and fabrics worldwide. Almost two-thirds of this output was sold to Western Hemisphere nations that are members of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). Both FTAs provide that certain exports from member countries may enter the U.S. market duty-free only if they are made from textiles produced in the region. This has encouraged manufacturers in Mexico and Central America to use U.S.-made yarns and fabrics in apparel, home furnishings, and other products. Exports to the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries contributed to a U.S. trade surplus of $2.5 billion in yarns and fabrics in 2011. The TPP marks the first FTA negotiation for the United States after the complete end of quotas on textile and apparel trade. Duty-free access to the U.S. market under TPP could be of considerable benefit to Asian manufacturers, which now face U.S. import duties on textiles and apparel of up to 32%. Textile industry trade groups have warned that, if approved, the TPP could lead to domestic job loss if it results in apparel producers in the Western Hemisphere, which often use U.S.-made textiles, losing U.S. market share to producers in Vietnam and other TPP countries. Aligned against them are retailers and apparel companies that want to be able to import apparel from the lowest-cost producer, regardless of whether U.S. textiles are used; they urge full inclusion of textiles and apparel in any TPP agreement and favor preferential access for apparel cut and sewn from fabric made in countries not included in the TPP, such as China."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2012-10-05
-
Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications [November 12, 2010]
"On June 30, 2007, U.S. and South Korean trade officials signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the second largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date, after the agreement with the European Union (EU). It would be the second largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea's third largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have substantial economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that the Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-210). The authority allows the President to enter into trade agreements that receive expedited congressional consideration (no amendments and limited debate)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Manyin, Mark E.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2010-11-12
-
U.S. Aerospace Manufacturing: Industry Overview and Prospects [December 3, 2009]
"Aircraft and automobile manufacturing are considered by many to be the technological backbones of the U.S. manufacturing base. As the Obama Administration and Congress debate how to strengthen American manufacturing, aerospace is likely to receive considerable attention. Like other manufacturing industries, the worldwide recession has affected aerospace manufacturing, with both the defense and commercial sides of the industry facing difficult business conditions for the near and medium term. This report primarily provides a snapshot of the U.S. commercial (non-defense, non-space) aerospace manufacturing industry and a discussion of major trends affecting the future of this industry."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2009-12-03
-
Effects of U.S. Tariff Action on U.S. Aluminum Manufacturing [October 9, 2018]
"Since March 2018, the United States has assessed duties of 10% or more on certain imports of aluminum on national security grounds. The duties are controversial, with some Members of Congress questioning whether the duties will encourage domestic aluminum production and whether they could adversely affect U.S. industries that use aluminum. Acting under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (19 U.S.C.§1862, as amended), which allows the President to levy tariffs and quotas on imports found to threaten or impair U.S. national security, President Trump signed a proclamation that imposed a 10% tariff on foreign-made primary unwrought aluminum and certain semifinished aluminum products effective March 23, 2018. Although aluminum manufactured in certain countries was initially exempted, most exemptions expired on June 1, 2018, thereby extending the tariff to key sources of aluminum imports, including Canada, the leading import source of primary unwrought aluminum in to the United States. Argentina, which agreed to a quota,and Australia are the only two countries that have been permanently exempted. The tariff has no set expiration date; it can be removed at any time. On August 10, 2018, the President announced in a tweet he had authorized an increase of the tariff on aluminum from Turkey to 20%, but he has not yet signed a Section 232 proclamation putting the higher duty into effect. The United States has also imposed sanctions on Rusal, a Russian aluminum company and the world's largest producer outside China."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2018-10-09
-
U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [September 1, 2016]
"Textiles are a sensitive sector in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an agreement that would establish a free-trade zone across the Pacific if it is approved by Congress and foreign governments. Because the TPP includes Vietnam, a major apparel producer that now mainly sources yarns and fabrics from China and other Asian nations, the agreement could shift global trading patterns for textiles and demand for U.S. textile exports. Canada and Mexico, both significant regional textile markets for the United States, and Japan, a major manufacturer of high-end textiles and industrial fabrics, are also TPP members. […]The proposed TPP would eliminate some tariffs on textiles and apparel immediately, and phase out others over a decade or more. The agreement has the potential to affect U.S. textile exporters in at least three ways: […] Responding to concerns from domestic textile manufacturers, the proposed TPP agreement includes a "yarn-forward" rule of origin that would allow a garment to enter the United States duty-free only if yarn production, fabric production, and cutting and sewing of the finished garment all occur within the TPP region. However, nearly 190 fibers, yarns, and fabrics in short supply in TPP-member countries could be sourced from outside the region, including China. This provision was a concession to U.S. retailers and apparel brands that wanted maximum flexibility to source yarns and fabrics from non-TPP countries."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2016-09-01
-
U.S. Semiconductor Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Policy [June 27, 2016]
"Invented and pioneered in the United States shortly after World War II, semiconductors are the enabling technology of the information age. Because of semiconductors new industries have emerged and existing ones, such as aerospace and automotive, have been transformed. Semiconductors have contributed in powerful and unique ways to nearly all fields of science and engineering, and semiconductors' economic and military importance has made the industry's health a focus of congressional interest for nearly 70 years. In July 2015, Congress formed the Semiconductor Caucus, a group that seeks to advance policies that support the U.S. semiconductor industry. […] An ongoing issue of congressional interest is the retention of high-value semiconductor manufacturing in the United States. In 2015, semiconductor manufacturers directly employed 181,000 workers, who earned an average wage of $138,100, more than twice the average wage for all U.S. manufacturing workers. Increasingly, however, U.S. firms are building semiconductor fabrication plans (fabs) abroad, primarily in Asia. In addition, some semiconductor firms are going 'fab-less,' focusing corporate resources on chip design and relying on contract fabs abroad to manufacture their products. At year-end 2015, there were 94 advanced fabs in operation worldwide, of which 17 were in the United States, 71 in Asia (including 9 in China), and 6 in Europe. […] Semiconductor manufacturing also raises national security concerns, including secure access to trusted suppliers of advanced semiconductors and other critical technology components that are important for certain defense and national security applications. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on this issue in October 2015."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.; Sargent, John F.
2016-06-27
-
Renegotiating NAFTA and U.S. Textile Manufacturing [October 30, 2017]
"When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated more than two decades ago, textiles and apparel were among the industrial sectors most sensitive to the agreement's terms. NAFTA, which was implemented on January 1, 1994, has encouraged the integration of textile and apparel production in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. For example, under NAFTA's 'yarn-forward' rule of origin, textiles and apparel benefit from tarifffree treatment in all three countries if the production of yarn, fabric, and apparel, with some exceptions, is done within North America. The United States maintains a bilateral trade surplus in yarns and fabrics with its NAFTA partners. In 2016, the United States had a $4.1 billion surplus in yarns and fabrics and a positive balance of around $720 million in made-up textile products (such as home textiles and furnishings) with Canada and Mexico. U.S. exports of yarns and fabrics shipped to Mexico and Canada were valued at close to $6 billion last year. In apparel, the United States had a trade surplus with Canada of $1.4 billion and a trade deficit with Mexico of $2.7 billion in 2016."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2017-10-30
-
U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations [November 20, 2013]
"The TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] has the potential to affect U.S. textile exporters in at least two ways. First, it could enable Asian apparel producers, principally Vietnam, to export clothing to the United States duty-free. This would eliminate much of the advantage now enjoyed by Western Hemisphere apparel producers in the U.S. market and, because Vietnamese manufacturers make little use of U.S.-made textiles, could reduce demand for U.S. textile exports. Second, if the TPP were to allow Western Hemisphere apparel manufacturers to use yarn and fabric made anywhere in the TPP region and still enjoy preferential access to the U.S. market, an enlarged Vietnamese textile industry could, at some future time, compete with U.S. exporters in Mexico and Central America. Textile industry trade groups have urged the United States to insist on a strict 'yarn forward' rule that allows a garment to enter the United States duty-free only if yarn production, fabric production, and cutting and sewing of the finished garment all occur within the TPP region. U.S. negotiators have also proposed that certain textile inputs 'not commercially available' in TPP-member countries could be sourced from outside the region, including China. On the other side, retailers and apparel companies with extensive global supply chains want maximum flexibility for sourcing and are less concerned about whether textiles manufactured in the United States are used; they urge textiles and apparel to be treated like other products in any TPP agreement, and want any apparel cut and sewn within the TPP area regardless of where the fabric originates to be eligible for duty-free entry. Members of Congress have voiced their support for both sides. The TPP seems likely to have less impact on those segments of the U.S. textile industry that do not supply apparel manufacturing. U.S. manufacturers of household and technical textiles appear to be internationally competitive, and it is not evident that lower-wage countries would have comparative advantage in these highly capital-intensive sectors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.
2013-11-20
-
Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications [June 17, 2009]
"On June 30, 2007, U.S. and South Korean trade officials signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date and would be the second largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea's third largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have substantial economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that the Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-210). The authority allows the President to enter into trade agreements that receive expedited congressional consideration (no amendments and limited debate). The Bush Administration did not send draft implementing legislation to Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Manyin, Mark E.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2009-06-17
-
Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications [March 24, 2009]
"On June 30, 2007, U.S. and South Korean trade officials signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date and would be the second largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea's third largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have substantial economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that the Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-210). The authority allows the President to enter into trade agreements that receive expedited congressional consideration (no amendments and limited debate). The Bush Administration did not send draft implementing legislation to Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cooper, William H., 1949-; Manyin, Mark E.; Jurenas, Remy . . .
2009-03-24
