한미 FTA 관련 미국 동향 분석

한미FTA 관련 미국 동향 분석 (2007년 5월 9일)

범국본/정책기획단, 의정대책단

정책자문단/의정대책단 (작성일: 2007년 5월 9일)

분석 기간: 4월 30일 ~ 5월 9일

1. Inside US Trade (World Trade Online) 기사 (www.wtonewsstand.com)

2. TheHill 기사 (www.thehill.com)

3. USTR 홈페이지(www.ustr.gov)

4. 하원 세입세출위원회 (waysandmeans.house.gov)

5. 상원 재무위원회 (finance.senate.gov)

6. CRS (www.opencrs.com)

7. Public Citizen Trade Watch (www.citizen.org/trade/)

8. 기타

1. Inside US Trade 기사

1-1. 요약

- 미무역대표부 한미 FTA 협정문과 보고서를 수 주 동안 비밀 유지하기로(USTR May Keep U.S.-Korea FTA Text, Reports Secret For Weeks) (May 4, 2007) : USTR은 자문위원회의 보고서를 5월 1일 미의회에 제출했으나, 공개는 협정문과 함께 몇 주 후에 할 것이라고 함. 공개시점은 한국과 협의. 하원 세입세출위원회 대변인은 공개 시점을 늦추는 것은 이해관계인들의 논의 참여를 방해하는 것이라고 비판(특히, 한국의 쌀 수입 금지, 미국의 자동차 무역 불균형 관련 이해관계인). 하원 농업위원회 위원장은 한국 정부가 이달 말의 OIE 권고를 따를 준비가 되어 있지 않아 보이므로 FTA 협정을 좌절시킬 수 있다고 전망. 한국이 OIE 권고를 따르지 않으면 한미 FTA는 미의회를 통과하지 못할 것이라고 함. 한국 농림부 장관 박홍수는 한국이 수입 쇠고기에 대한 OIE 기준을 따라야 할 필요는 없다고 함.

- 주의원들 GATS 규제와 게임, 투자가-국가 소송에 대해 랭걸 의원에 압력(State Legislators Press Rangel On GATS Domestic Regulation, Gaming, Investor-State) (05/01/2007) : 주의회연합(NCSL) 소속 주의원 2명이 랭걸에게 보낸 서한. NSCL은 미-호주 FTA에서 그랬던 것처럼 한미 FTA에서도 투자자-국가 소송제도를 제외하도록 USTR에게 요청했다. 투자가-국가 소송 사건에서 미국이 패소하지 않았다 하더라도 NAFTA 하에서 제기된 여러 분쟁 사건들은 주정부의 법률과 규칙을 위축하고, 분쟁 제기 가능성으로 인한 주 정책 개혁에 위축을 준다. 현행 TPA의 “no grater rights” 조항을 제대로 적용하는 가장 좋은 방법은 투자가-국가 소송 제도를 FTA에서 삭제하는 것임을 강조.

- 한미 FTA 합의 내용에 대한 CRS의 분석 (Analyzes Compromises In U.S.-Korea FTA Negotiations (04/23/2007) -> (아래 전문 없음) http://www.opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=57410 참조.

- FTA로 인해 한국의 농업과 미국의 섬유산업 피해 (Study Predicts U.S. Textile Producers, Korean Farmers Would Suffer From FTA) (05/02/2007) -> (아래 전문 없음)

http://menwchen.cafe24.com/files/Study%20Predicts%20Farmers.pdf 참조.

- 무역위원회(ITC)에서 한미 FTA 경제적 효과 평가 작업 시작 (ITC Launches Assessment Of Economic Effects Of U.S.-Korea FTA) (04/30/2007) : 미국 통상법 제2104(f)조에 따라 USTR이 요청. FTA 협정문에 조인한 후 90일 내에 공개(연기 가능). 일정은 다음과 같음. April 1, 2007: Receipt of request. May 24, 2007: Deadline for receipt of requests to appear at hearing. May 24, 2007: Deadline for filing pre-hearing briefs and statements. June 7, 2007, 9:30 am: Public hearing. June 21, 2007: Deadline for filing post-hearing briefs and statements and all other written submissions. September 20, 2007: Anticipated date for transmitting report to USTR and the Congress. 6월 7일 공청회 있음.

1-2. 기사 전문

- 미무역대표부 한미 FTA 협정문과 보고서를 수 주 동안 비밀 유지하기로(USTR May Keep U.S.-Korea FTA Text, Reports Secret For Weeks) (May 4, 2007)

USTR May Keep U.S.-Korea FTA Text, Reports Secret For Weeks

Date: May 4, 2007

It may still be “another few weeks” before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative publicly releases the text of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and advisory reports, according to a USTR spokesman. The spokesman on May 2 said USTR submitted to Congress all the reports from cleared advisors on May 1, as required under the fast-track law, but that release to the public would be delayed.

He also said USTR will make the advisory reports public when the FTA text is made public. However, before releasing these documents, USTR plans to conclude its so-called legal scrub to verify the text, and agree on a release date with the Korean side, he said.

A spokesman for House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) this week said delaying the public release of the text is “hampering” the ability of interested parties to debate the FTA. “Failure to release the text prevents needed debate about many unresolved issues such as Korea’s continued ban on rice imports and America’s growing trade deficit with Korea in the automotive sector and other industrialized products,” Levin’s spokesman said.

On autos, a U.S. industry source said Detroit is still “working on assessing” its approach to the FTA, but that the big three auto makers “now have a fairly complete picture of the agreement.”

On the overall agreement, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) on May 3 said the FTA has “some good and some bad” aspects. While market access for U.S. beef is not part of the formal deal, he said Korea’s failure to fully open its market to U.S. beef is a likely political problem facing the FTA. He indicated he expects the agreement on beef access to thwart the deal because Korea does not appear ready to follow the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) recommendations due late this month on the U.S. risk status for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

“From what I can tell, [USTR officials are] still hanging their hat on the OIE classification. It doesn’t look to me like the Koreans are going to go along with it,” Peterson told reporters May 3. He indicated that if Korea did not follow the OIE guidelines, Congress would not pass the FTA. “I don’t know how you can pass it if that beef issue isn’t resolved,” Peterson said.

The U.S. and Korea are expected to meet late next week in Seoul to discuss Korea’s plans for further opening its border to U.S. beef after the OIE vote, and its protocol for handling boneless beef that is found to contain bone fragments, sources said. One of these sources said the meeting was expected to take place May 11.

The Korean government said the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s top livestock quarantine official, Kim Chang-seob, would head the discussions on the Korean side, and the U.S. will be represented either by Undersecretary of Agriculture Charles Lambert or Deputy Assistant USTR Cathy Enright. Sources said the U.S. requested the meeting, and one informed source said the U.S. side hopes to learn how much time Korea needs to implement a beef opening, as well as learn how Korea interprets OIE guidelines.

Korean Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Park Hong-soo has indicated he believes Korea “need not adhere” to OIE guidelines on imported beef (Inside U.S. Trade, April 20). The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures requires member countries to base their SPS measures on a risk assessment “taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations,” such as the OIE.

Korea on April 27 approved a shipment of U.S. beef for import, the first approval in roughly three years, sources said. Creekstone Farms sent the 6.4 tons of beef to Korea after the Korean government announced it would reject only individual packages of beef that contain bone fragments. Korea currently allows only boneless beef products from cattle 30 months of age or younger.

On Korea’s plans to use an eight-point checklist to evaluate the risk U.S. beef poses to human health, industry sources said the U.S. government is likely familiar with the points, which include risk assessment, regulatory changes and risk communication with consumers.

Separately, an economic study this week projected reduced U.S. employment in textiles, apparel, metal products, transportation equipment and services, despite overall gains, particularly in agriculture, food, beverages and tobacco. It also found Korea’s employment would decrease in manufactures, services and some agriculture sectors, though Korea’s employment would increase overall, namely in rice, livestock, textiles, apparel, leather and leather products and transportation equipment.

The Korea Economic Institute, Peterson Institute for International Economics and Korea-America Economic Association jointly released the study on May 1.

State Legislators Press Rangel On GATS Domestic Regulation, Gaming, Investor-State

May 1, 2007

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel

Chairman, Ways & Means Committee

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C.   20515

Dear Chairman Rangel:

On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), thank you for your thoughtful and candid presentation to state legislators and legislative staff attending our organization’s Spring Forum.  We are additionally pleased with your willingness to respond to numerous questions covering a wide array of subject matter.

The fact that so many of the questions related to international trade and global competitiveness should highlight the interest of state legislators in protecting state sovereignty while seeking the economic benefits of trade.  We appreciate your invitation to further this discussion with you by correspondence, but we also hope that we will have the opportunity to explore states’ interests in international trade again in person very soon.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is currently negotiating with our partners in the World Trade Organization to define a clause in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) relative to domestic regulation.  NCSL applauds USTR staff for the attention they have paid thus far to state concerns about the effect an expansive agreement on domestic regulation could have on state legislative, regulatory, and police authority and for the public release of their current negotiating principles for a wider discussion.  However, we are gravely concerned that any preamble or operational language creating a necessity test or an objectivity test will needlessly complicate states’ ability to legislate and regulate in the public interest.

We support USTR’s position calling for transparency but fear that discussions of necessity tests or objective criteria will actually create new standards that go well beyond transparency.  Most people would agree that objectivity in public policy is desirable.  But to turn objectivity into an international mandate runs counter to other capacities such as expert judgment and flexibility to balance competing interests.  To illustrate, some WTO documents define “objective” to mean not subjective or not open-ended discretion.  But state legislatures and the Congress often delegate broad discretion to administrative agencies such as health commissions, coastal commissions or public utility commissions (PUCs) to regulate in the “public interest.”  Legislatures often define “public interest” as a balancing act that serves consumers, the regulated company, employees of the regulated company, and the environment.  Often, these are competing interests that a PUC must balance in order to arrive at the “public interest.”  The value of such a broad delegation is flexible management of complexity; the PUCs’ delegated role requires plenary judgment.  To turn necessity or objectivity into an international mandate would promote mechanical standardization and harm the ability of legislators and regulators to deal with complex service industries.

We are further concerned with the recent WTO dispute settlement panel decision that the United States has not complied with the ruling on Antigua-Barbuda’s claim against the U.S. regarding Internet gaming.  NCSL has strongly encouraged USTR to withdraw the “recreational services” commitment, which has been found to include Internet gaming despite USTR’s assertions that the U.S. never intended to include that service under that commitment.  We want to ensure that any state may legislate and regulate the gaming industry in the way their residents wish.  While many aspects of Antigua’s claim were not upheld based on “public morals” or because sufficient arguments were not made, we fear that not withdrawing this commitment leaves the United States generally and state laws on gaming in particular open to future challenge at a time when the international value of this market is growing.

We are also concerned that the gaming industry is well positioned to bring investment claims against the United States, directly or as a surrogate for state laws.  This prospect is particularly troubling given that investment agreements or chapters typically do not have “public morals” exceptions as found in the GATS.

We would like to conclude by restating NCSL’s on-going concern about investor-state dispute mechanisms in the investment chapters of free trade agreements.  NCSL recently wrote to USTR encouraging that such a dispute mechanism be excluded from the South Korea FTA just as it was from the Australia FTA.  Even though the United States has not lost any investor-state cases, several cases have been brought under NAFTA challenging state laws or regulations and the prospect of challenges have had a chilling effect on state policy innovation.  We stress that investor-state dispute mechanisms should be excluded from investment chapters of FTAs as the best way of properly applying the “no greater rights” provision of the current Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).  As you and your Committee begin to consider any extension or renewal of TPA, we would welcome the opportunity to speak with you or your colleagues about investor-state dispute mechanisms.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for taking the time to speak to NCSL’s Spring Forum.  We appreciate this engagement and your attention to states’ trade interests.  We would welcome the opportunity to speak with you further at your convenience and look forward to working with you, your colleagues, and your staff.  Please do not hesitate to contact us directly or to contact NCSL’s Jeremy Meadows (202-624-8664; jeremy.meadows@ncsl.org) if any of us can be of any assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Leticia Van de Putte

Chair, Texas Senate Democratic Caucus

President, NCSL

Sheryl Allen

Representative, Utah

Vice Chair, NCSL Steering Committee

April 30, 2007

News Release 07-049

Inv. No. TA-2104-24

Contact: Peg O'Laughlin, 202-205-1819

ITC BEGINS ASSESSMENT OF U.S.-KOREA FTA

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has instituted an investigation to assess the likely impact of a comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) that the President has proposed to establish with Korea.

The investigation, U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, was requested by the U.S. Trade Representative in a letter received on April 1, 2007.

The Trade Act of 2002 requires the ITC to prepare a report that assesses the likely impact of proposed free trade agreements on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers. The ITC's report, which will be public, is due to the President and the Congress no more than 90 days after the President actually signs the agreement, which he can do 90 days after he notifies the Congress of his intent to do so. The President notified the Congress on April 1, 2007, of his intent to enter into the FTA with Korea.

The ITC will hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation on June 7, 2007. Requests to appear at the hearing (one original and 14 copies) should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m. on May 24, 2007, with the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. For further information, call 202-205-2000.

The ITC also welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions (one original and 14 copies) should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission at the above address and should be submitted at the earliest practical date but no later than 5:15 p.m. on June 21, 2007. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection.

Further information on the scope of the investigation and the procedures for written submissions is available in the ITC's notice of investigation, dated April 30, 2007, which can be obtained from the ITC Internet site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Office of the Secretary at the above address or at 202-205-2000.

2. The Hill 기사

- 주목할 내용 없음.

- 4월 3일자 기사 “미시건 출신 의원들 자유무역 정책에 반대” (Michigan lawmakers battle free-trade plan) (아래 참조)

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/michigan-lawmakers-battle-free-trade-plan-2007-04-03.html

Michigan lawmakers battle free-trade plan

By Ian Swanson

April 04, 2007

Michigan lawmakers are threatening to block a South Korean trade agreement completed last weekend by the administration because of opposition from the auto industry, which contends the deal will not balance auto trade between the countries.

“We haven’t counted the votes yet, but I can say this will be a very hard fight,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said in an interview with The Hill. In a prepared statement, Stabenow said she would do “everything in my power” to defeat the Korea free-trade agreement (FTA).

Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Ways and Means trade subcommittee, also said he would oppose the deal unless it is changed in the 90 days before the administration signs it.

The agreement introduces a new battleground for the struggling U.S. auto industry, which is facing calls for increased fuel efficiency standards and attempting to address rising healthcare costs.

The deal could impact presidential politics in Michigan, which is among the states that may move up its primary to Feb. 5. Stabenow told The Hill that trade would be a big issue in the primary, and that candidates will have to demonstrate they understand the impact increased imports will have on the middle class in the state.

Ford and DaimlerChrysler released separate statements objecting to the Korean deal, and Ford Vice President Steve Biegun said Congress should not approve the deal in its current form. The AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers also called on Congress to reject the deal.

Separately, Automotive Trade Policy Council President Steve Collins criticized the administration for shifting its position in the talks. Specifically, he said the auto industry last week rejected a deal that would have eliminated U.S. tariffs on Korean vehicles within three years. The final deal would eliminate tariffs on most of the cars Korea currently exports to the U.S. immediately, Collins said.

“This is a very discouraging sequence of events,” according to Collins, who said the deal went from disappointing to discouraging and from bad to worse.

The deal also would eliminate the 25 percent truck tariff, although it would be phased out over 10 years. The auto industry and its supporters had called for this tariff to be excluded from the talks, but the only tariff that officials highlighted as being excluded was rice, an important commodity in Korea, which it sought to keep out of the deal.

Stabenow charged that Korea out-negotiated the administration, which she said was too desperate to conclude a deal under fast track, which allows deals to come to Congress for up-or-down votes. “They were playing beat the clock, and the Koreans knew that,” she said.

She also criticized U.S. officials for not paying sufficient attention to the demands of members of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signed a letter to the administration last week expressing disappointment with the U.S. negotiating position on automobiles.

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Karan Bhatia in an April 2 conference call emphasized the deal would do much to address non-tariff barriers that hamper U.S. exports. He also highlighted a provision that would allow U.S. tariffs on Korean vehicles to snap back into place if Korea violates the terms of the deal on automobiles.

Korea sold more than 700,000 cars in the U.S. last year, while U.S. auto companies sold about 4,000 vehicles in Korea. Brian Pomper, a former congressional trade counsel to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), said it will be tough to move the Korean FTA over auto-industry opposition. While it is essentially a local industry, Parven said the auto sector remains an icon of U.S. manufacturing.

A key will be whether members hear strong calls from other constituents to support the deal. “I expect you’ll have significant businesses pushing for it, and not just because the White House is asking them to,” said Pomper, who is now a partner in the Parven Pomper Schuyler government-relations firm.

Agriculture could be the big winner from the FTA, but the deal will lack the full support of agriculture groups until Korea allows U.S. beef to enter its market. Korea has blocked most U.S. beef exports since the first case of mad-cow disease was found in the U.S., and the issue was left out of the Korean agreement.

However, Bhatia said the Koreans understand this issue will have to be addressed to secure congressional passage. Baucus in a statement said he would oppose the deal until Korea lifts its restrictions on beef.

3. USTR 홈 페이지

한미 FTA를 지지하는 미국 산업계의 목소리를 정리하여 USTR이 보도자료로 배포함(5월 1일). http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2007/asset_upload_file130_11053.pdf

4. 하원 세입세출위원회

- 5월 4일 : 민주당의 새통상정책에 관한 협상 상황에 대해 공동성명서 발표.

Trade Policy Negotiations Continue Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and Ranking Member Jim McCrery (R-LA) issued the following joint statement on the status of negotiations over a new trade policy for America: “We are still actively negotiating on trade policy with all parties and at all levels. While there may have been rumors of misunderstandings about language on both sides, there has not been any mistrust. We will continue working into the foreseeable future to resolve any remaining differences.”

Chairman Rangel issued the following additional statement on the talks:

“Just this morning I spoke with both USTR Schwab and Treasury Secretary Paulson, and we reaffirmed that the talks are still wide open,” said Chairman Rangel.

- 4월 20일: Rangel and Levin Call on USTR to Release Korea FTA Text

(http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News.asp?FormMode=release&ID=508 참조)

5. 상원 재무위원회

- 보커스(Baucus) 위원장이 노무현 대통령에게 보낸 서신 (4월 24일자, 미국산 쇠고기 수입을 완전히 개방하지 않고 OIE 기준을 따르지 않으면 한미 FTA가 깨진다는 내용)

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2007press/prb042507d.pdf 참조.

- Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit 관련 공청회

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing050807.htm 및

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing041207b.htm 참조.

6. CRS (Congressional Research Service)

The Proposed South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) Updated April 23, 2007

http://www.opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=57410 참조.

7. Public Citizen Trade Watch

- 세계무역 질서를 바꾸고 ‘바닥을 향한 경주’를 중단시키려는 캠페인 (부시행정부의 신속협상권한 관련) http://action.citizen.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=2362&t=BlankTemplate.dwt

- 부시 행정부가 도박 서비스를 WTO 적용에서 제외시키기로 결정함(GATS 제21조(양허표의 수정)에 따른 요청서를 USTR이 제출). 이렇게 하려면 미국이 다른 회원국과 보상에 대한 협상을 해야 함. http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2429 참조.

[끝]