U.S. Travel and Tourism: Industry Trends and Policy Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] The travel and tourism industry is an amalgam of business activities including transportation, lodging, entertainment, meals, and retail trade. Collectively, this mature sector of the U.S. economy accounts for 2.8% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employs 5.7 million Americans. While they have increased in recent years, employment and real output in travel and tourism have not fully recovered from the 2007-2009 recession. It is in this context that Congress will consider whether to reauthorize or extend the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA; P.L. 111-145), which established a national advertising and marketing effort to encourage international visitors to spend time in the United States. The law is scheduled to expire at the end of FY2015. A number of other bills intended to make travel to the United States less complicated for foreign visitors also await action in Congress. action in Congress

U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry

[Excerpt] 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

Retirement Benefits for Federal Law Enforcement Personnel

Federal law enforcement officers, as defined in statute, and a few related occupations—such as federal firefighters and air traffic controllers—are eligible for enhanced retirement benefits. Congress decided that these occupations should be composed of young men and women who possess the strength and endurance necessary to perform the required duties. Enhanced retirement benefits help to maintain this type of workforce by permitting employees in these positions to retire earlier and accrue pension benefits faster during earlier years of service than regular civilian federal employees. Many individuals and employee groups who work in law enforcement-related positions, but who have not qualified as law enforcement officers for retirement purposes, have sought enhanced benefits through legislation in recent Congresses. Incorporating additional occupations may address problems of attrition and perceived inequity across law enforcement-related positions. However, expanding access to enhanced retirement benefits also generates concerns over additional expenditures on federal retirement benefits

Pending U.S. and EU Free Trade Agreements with South Korea: Possible Implications for Automobile and Other Manufacturing Industries

[Excerpt] South Korea has negotiated free trade agreements (FTAs) with the United States and the European Union (EU), but neither agreement has yet been approved. The U.S. Congress must approve the United States and South Korea free trade agreement (KORUS FTA) and the European Parliament must vote on the European Union and South Korea free trade agreement (KOREU FTA) before the FTAs can take effect. If the FTAs are ratified, it is possible there could be a “first mover” advantage for either the United States or the European Union, depending on which FTA is approved first. Some argue that both agreements have shortcomings and should not be approved. This report provides U.S. lawmakers with a comparison of the manufacturing components in the KORUS and KOREU FTAs. Congressional interest in an FTA between the European Union and South Korea mostly centers on those U.S. industries competing with European industrial sectors, especially motor vehicles. The two pending FTAs raise questions about what it could mean for U.S. manufacturers if the United States takes longer, or fails altogether, to implement the KORUS FTA, while the European Union and South Korea possibly move ahead to approve and implement their outstanding FTA. In such a case, the possibility exists that the removal of tariff and nontariff barriers between the European Union and South Korean markets could result in U.S. manufacturers losing South Korean market share to European competitors. On balance, most U.S. and European manufacturing sectors, with some auto manufacturers in particular among notable dissenters, argue that the pending FTAs will be beneficial and are largely supportive. On the other side, labor unions in the United States and the European Union are considerably more skeptical, claiming that South Korean companies could be the biggest beneficiaries, since they could gain even greater access to the significantly larger U.S. and EU markets. Labor union leaders say the FTA will result in further job losses as their respective manufacturing workforces compete for market share with competitive South Korean manufacturers in their own domestic markets

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

[Excerpt] The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation among 12 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 TPP agreement, if one is reached, for the U.S. textile manufacturing industry

U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry Restructuring and Dealership Terminations

[Exerpt] As Chrysler and General Motors (GM) moved toward and into bankruptcy, they sought and received permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to terminate about 2,000 contracts with auto dealers. Many of the dealers want their contracts reinstated and have sought relief from Congress to accomplish that goal. This report examines the changed economic landscape facing the auto sector, automaker arguments in favor of dealer reductions, and dealer counterpoints. It also highlights recent legislation introduced to address dealers\u27 concerns. Chrysler and GM have emerged from bankruptcy as significantly smaller companies, reflecting the end of a multiyear restructuring process for both companies. Chrysler is now controlled by the Italian carmaker, Fiat, while GM\u27s current majority owner is the U.S. Government. GM, which in 2008 operated 47 assembly, powertrain, and stamping facilities, is to operate 34 plants by the end of 2010 and 33 by 2012. The number of hourly employees will have declined from 78,000 onDecember 31, 2007 to 62,200 at end-2008, to an estimated 40,000 in 2010. By way of contrast, GM had 304,000 hourly workers in 1991. GM also discontinued one brand (Pontiac) and is to sell Hummer, Saab, and Saturn, and some percentage of its GM Europe operations, Opel and Vauxhall. The new Chrysler reduced its number of production facilities from 25 to 17 as part of its restructuring. The company employed 45,000 hourly U.S. employees in January 2008 and 27,000 in February 2009. For the first time, GM and Chrysler are not owned by private investors; rather, the UAW\u27s retiree health trust, the U.S. Treasury, and the Canadian government have taken ownership stakes in both companies. The auto dealership network, a critical intermediary between automakers and final consumers, has not escaped this turmoil. Auto dealers are independent businesses with contracts with the automakers Most of the approximately 20,000 U.S. auto dealers are family-owned and have been in business in their hometowns for decades. As with all stakeholders in GM and Chrysler, the dealer owners are faced with stark choices as the automakers downsize and seek a more competitive business model. As part of their restructuring, Chrysler cut 789 dealers immediately and GM is to eliminate more than 1,300 when the dealer\u27s contracts expire in October 2010. While dealer reductions of this magnitude would not have been possible in the normal course of business, the bankruptcy court approved both the Chrysler and GM requests to terminate dealerships as part of larger processes that have allowed a new GM and a new Chrysler to emerge from bankruptcy with many fewer assets and no liabilities. Of the roughly 2,000 dealers affected by these changes, many oppose the changes and have taken their battle against GM and Chrysler to Congress. Congressional hearings have been held and a number of bills to restore the dealer terminations have been introduced. On July 16, 2009, the House passed the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3170), which includes a committee-approved amendment offered by Representative LaTourette that would require automobile companies that receive federal funds and are partially owned by the federal government to reinstate agreements with franchise dealerships that had a valid dealer agreement prior to Chapter 11 proceedings. It would apply only to General Motors and Chrysler and would require them to reinstate the roughly 2,000 dealerships they have dropped or would like to drop as part of their cost cutting, downsizing, and overall restructuring. On July 17 the House Committee on Financial Services voted in support of H.Res. 591, requiring an Administration report on the work of the Auto Task Force, including decisions on dealerships. This report will be updated as necessary

The U.S. Automotive Industry: National and State Trends in Manufacturing Employment

[Excerpt] The U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing industry\u27 employs 880,000 workers, or approximately 6.6% of the U.S. manufacturing workforce, including those who work in the large motor vehicle parts manufacturing sector, as well as those who assemble motor vehicles. Since the beginning of the decade, the nation\u27s automotive manufacturing sector has eliminated more than 435,000 automotive manufacturing jobs (or an amount equal to about 3.3% of all manufacturing jobs in 2008). The employment level first dipped below one million in 2007 and fell to 880,000 workers last year. With the restructuring and bankruptcy of Chrysler and General Motors, and the ongoing recession in the auto sector, employment in the nation\u27s automotive manufacturing industry will most likely shrink in 2009 and 2010 as additional assembly, powertrain, and auto parts plants close. This report provides an analysis of automotive manufacturing employment, with a focus on national and state trends. The 111th Congress continues to be heavily engaged in oversight and legislative proposals in response to the unprecedented crisis of the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The Detroit-based automotive manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) have suffered a series of setbacks in recent years with their share of the domestic market dropping from 64.5% in 2001 to 47.5% in 2008. As a consequence, the traditional auto states of Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio have been—and will continue to be—heavily impacted by the changes taking place in the automotive sector. Together, there are now 152,000 fewer automotive manufacturing jobs in these three states than there were five years ago. Recent automotive sales and production data indicate the enormous changes taking place in today\u27s motor vehicle manufacturing sector. For instance, automotive sales fell to 13.2 million units in 2008, down by 18% from 2007, and forecasts indicate U.S. consumers are expected to purchase fewer than 10 million cars and light trucks in 2009. There has also been a loss of market share by the Detroit 3 producers which has created gains for foreign-owned domestic manufacturers and imports. Some recent Detroit 3 automotive manufacturing employment losses are partially offset by new investments by foreign-owned manufacturers in the United States as they have open, or will open, new plants in states like Indiana, Georgia, and Tennessee. Many Members of Congress, and especially those members from the traditional auto belt states of Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, have expressed their concerns about lost jobs in the automotive manufacturing sector. With the sale of GM assets to the U.S. government and Chrysler assets to Fiat, two new companies have emerged that will be substantially smaller than the companies that went into bankruptcy. As a consequence, the total level of motor vehicle manufacturing employment will be reduced, especially in locales where facilities have closed. The most recent automotive manufacturing employment data indicate that 42% of all persons in the industry work in one of the three traditional auto belt states, each of which at present employs more than 100,000 persons in the industry. Michigan alone has accounted for 40% of the net job loss in the industry since 2003. Losses in Ohio and Indiana have been less severe, offset somewhat by foreign investment. Alabama, with fewer total automotive manufacturing employees, has been the big job gainer, adding over 12,000 auto manufacturing jobs since 2003. Texas, now the eighth largest state by automotive employment, gained 5,200 jobs between 2003 and 2008. Auto industry states in the South including Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee have lost jobs in recent years, but far fewer than in the traditional auto belt states

The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States

[Excerpt] 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. The greatest economic impact of the KOREU FTA would be on specific sectors in each economy. EU services providers would be expected to experience gains from the agreement, especially in the areas of retail and wholesale trade, transportation services, financial services, and business services. In terms of trade in goods, EU exporters of pharmaceuticals, auto parts, industrial machinery, electronics parts, and some agricultural goods and processed foods would be expected to gain from the KOREU FTA\u27s implementation. At the same time, South Korean manufacturers of cars, ships, wireless telecommunications devices, chemical products, and imaging equipment would be expected to increase their exports to the EU market. The KOREU FTA is similar to the proposed KORUS FTA in many respects. Both agreements are comprehensive and both would eliminate tariffs on most trade in goods soon after they enter into force. However, they differ in other respects. Phase-out periods for tariffs on some manufactured goods differ. In addition, the KOREU FTA does not cover foreign direct investment. Unlike the KORUS FTA, the KOREU FTA would not allow trade sanctions to be applied where violations of the workers\u27 rights, and environment provisions have been deemed to occur. In addition, the KORUS FTA would cover a broader range of trade in services than would the KOREU FTA. It is not clear whether these differences in the structures of the FTAs would result in appreciable differences in outcomes in terms of economic gains and losses. 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 US. 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

The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications

[Excerpt] 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 seventhlargest 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. 107-210). Under TPA the President has the discretion on when to submit the implementing legislation to Congress. President Bush did not submit the legislation because of differences with the Democratic leadership over treatment of autos and beef, among other issues. Early in his Administration, President Obama indicated the need to resolve those issues before he would submit the implementing legislation. On December 3, 2010, after a series of arduous negotiations and missed deadlines, President Obama and President Lee announced that their negotiators reached agreement on modifications in the KORUS FTA, and that they were prepared to move ahead to getting the agreement approved by the respective legislatures. The White House is expected to send implementing legislation to the 112th Congress and that it would like to see Congress approve the agreement by July 1 of this year. The modifications are in the form of changes in phase-out periods for tariffs on autos, 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. The issue of full U.S. beef access was not resolved because of the political sensitivity of the issue in South Korea. In 2008, when President Lee reached a separate agreement with the United States to lift South Korea’s ban on U.S. beef imports, massive anti-South Korean government protests forced the two governments to renegotiate its terms. The U.S. beef sector has largely supported the KORUS FTA. A broad swath of the U.S. business community supports the KORUS FTA . With the modifications in the agreement reached in December, this group also includes the three Detroit-based auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. It still faces opposition from some labor unions and other groups, including Public Citizen. Many U.S. supporters view passage of the KORUS FTA as important to secure new opportunities in the South Korean market, while opponents claim 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 have suggested the outcome of 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, particularly in light of an FTA signed in by South Korea and the EU that is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2011