report from january this year, it's as we found that military health care providers do not have a consistent understanding of their responsibilities. in care of sexual assault victims. fas.. >> those that are, those that actually perform the safe exam which is the forensic

examination are required to have very specific training to a national standard which is department of justice -- >> right. let me just ask you one quick, short question here. there's been some concern about people that have survived mst and their inability to stay on active duty because there's maybe not quite the treatment protocol of all of them to do that. is there some way that we're addressing that in the dod? >> i would have to, actually, go back and talk to people about that just to make sure that we've got something in place that's directly addressing that particular question, sir. >> all right. well, i'd appreciate you getting back to me about that. i want to thank you all for joining us this afternoon. i truly appreciate it, and i hope that, as i said earlier, that the testimony of the first panel affects you all and your zeal to make things better from

every aspect of the va and the dod. because i know it's certainly affecting us here on the committee. and we're going to, you know, work on improving it from our end. but i would hope that this would inspire you to work harder in making it happen. so with that, you're excused. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> i'll ask consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. without objection, so ordered. i would like to once again thank all the witnesses and the audience members for joining us here today for these important conversations. and this hearing is hereby adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> on capitol hill the house is in today for legislative work, this week working on defense appropriations. you can watch that live underway right now on our companion network, c-span x. the senate out today, back in tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern for general speeches.

they'll be working this week on transportation projects and housing programs as well as the student loan interest rate increase. you can watch the house live on our companion network, c-span, and the senate here on c-span2 when they gavel back in. going to take you life now for a discussion at the carnegie endowment for international peace about israeli/palestinian relations. the room filling up here to standing capacity only, and the discussion will be with a group called the elders, the elders were founded by former south african president nelson mandela, and they include former u.s. president jimmy carter, the former president of finland, martti ahtisaari, and also the former foreign minister to algeria and the special envoy to syria. they'll be carrying on a conversation about palestine and israel relations, and that should be getting started shortly here as we take a look at the room and wait for them to take their seats.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, and thank you all for coming. we're truly honored to have with us three distinguished members of the elders club. even though the elders club has been formed about six years ago by president nelson mandela of south africa, this is the first event, the first public event

for the elders club, and we're very honored that it takes place in washington. first public event in washington, i should say. [laughter] so, of course, we have with us president carter, a nobel laureate and ex-president. i don't need to go through the introduction. president martti ahtisaari of finland and lakhdar brahimi, the u.n. envoy to syria. president ahtisaari also is a nobel laureate and, hopefully, dr. bra him will be a future -- bra brahimi will be a future nobel laureate. [laughter] the chosen focus for this meeting is the israeli/palestine conflict. this event, actually, could not have been more opportune given secretary kerry's announcement friday that bilateral talks will

resume in washington shortly. the elders' delegation is visiting washington at the start of the planned engagement over the coming year or so with the p5 members to explore how they can be helpful. from washington they will go directly to london for meetings with foreign minister hague, and at a later date they plan to visit moscow. visits to beijing and paris will then follow. today they had talks with secretary kerry and susan rice mainly on the middle east, and while, you know, they are not in a position to tell us what they, what they told them exactly, we will be hearing from them about matters regarding the peace process and what needs to be done. and i thought i would turn first

to president carter to ask you of your impression, sir, of where matters stand, what can we expect from kerry's latest initiative and upcoming negotiations? a lot of people in this town are still skeptical whether negotiations are going to lead this time to a breakthrough or whether we are going to see another endless process. you've been, you know, a peace negotiator, a leader who has been able to bring the two sides together. what can you tell us about this latest round, and what can we look for that might offer us more hope? this time an agreement might be reached? >> thank you, first of all, for letting us come and thank you, audience, for coming to be can with us. i think it's accurate to say that the elders have taken it upon ourselves the

responsibility of probing for progress in the middle east since our very first day of meeting. this is one of the primary charges that we got from nelson mandela when we were organized, and we pursued this with numerous visits to the middle east to israel, to the west bank and also to gaza as well as to jordan and to lebanon and to egypt. and so i think we have been able to keep a close contact with all those countries and their leaders as best we can and, of course, as you may know lakhdar brahimi on my left has been responsible under the united nations and african union for the peace process in syria. and before that kofi annan who's now the chairperson of the elders was the envoy for peace in syria. so in many ways the elders have remained quite deeply involved in the struggle for peace. we have a few characteristics,

first of all, none of us are involved in politics directly. many people have described us as has-been politicians. [laughter] we have had important positions in the past, but one of our requisites for membership is that we don't hold any public office. for instance, often sang sushi in myanmar was one of our members, but she stepped down when she was elected to the parliament. so that's one of our, i'd say, openings to freedom. we go where we wish, we meet with whom we choose, and we say what we really believe. and we're not constrained by whether or not we'll be reelected or put back in positions of authority. so that has given us a chance to meet not only with -- [inaudible] , for instance, but we meet regularly with the leadership in the hamas. and we also go to north korea to try to bring some better resolution, relationships with

north korea. i need not go down the list of things that we do, but we go where we wish. so we have an insight which we always share at the end of our sessions with leaders who are directly involved and still holding public office. and that includes the president and the secretary of state and quite often the secretary general of the united nations. i'll issue a personal report very soon after we get back from any trip which i'm involved with the elders. so all the elders have our own organizations to pursue. mayor robinson is one of our group, the former president of ireland, as you may know, and was the united nations high commissioner on human rights. and she has now been given a choice by the united nations security council to deal with the great lakes region which includes, as you know, rwanda, burundi and tanzania, congo and also uganda. so she's working on that. she was with us today. she had to leave and go for another meeting.

and kofi annan and -- [inaudible] would be with us today, but they've been in russia meeting with the foreign minister of russia to talk about some of the same subjects. and to make arrangements in a way for our next visit to a member of the permanent members of the security council that'll be going to moscow. so that's what the elders do in general. we have seen with great pleasure and excitement the intense effort that john kerry has made to recommence the peace process in the middle east after you might say five years of an acquiesce sent state. no one has known what he was doing exactly because his mission has been very quiet. we do know also from the news media, i'm not quoting anything that john kerry has told us, but we have known that netanyahu has a coalition inl th is

ent on extreme right-wing groups who are not in favor of a two-state solution, but have wanting to move toward one state with israel controlling all the area from the jordan river to the mediterranean sea. so he's quite dependent in his government for their support. be and that opens up a very good chance that if he should conclude a peace agreement based on the '67 borders or based on anything concerning settlements, he'll probably lose his support and have to form a new coalition which is a possibility. on the other hand, as you know, mahmoud abbas is the head of the plo, but he has very little support politically speaking from his own people and certainly not from hamas who now are concentrated their presence at least in gaza. so both leaders in the two i'd say adversarial worlds in the holy land are framed by their

own constituency s. and i think be and when they do come to the peace talks, they will have shown a great deal of courage litically and personally -- politically and personally in bringing about this chance that they might be embarrassed later when they have to make some concessions. we've been very much impressed by things we have heard indirectly about the massive effort that is being made not just to bring them to the peace table, but also to try to correct some of the devastating blows that have been done against the palestinian community economically. and as so many things that can be done and i'll say palestine to abbreviate to improve their economy and make sure they have some assurance that no matter what they do, they can at least survive and have a, and have a, i'd say, an economic life of their own. so this is what's been going on so far. we also met with j street ceo

this morning, and he explained what he thought were some of the attitudes of the american jewish community and others with whom he's familiar. and i believe from my own experience and from what we've learned today that if and when progress is being made which we pray will happen toward a two-state solution with an independent and free and safe israel living next door to a palestinian state that they will have support not only on a worldwide basis, but also overwhelmingly in america even from some of those who might in the past might not have thought this was possible or feasible or even advisable. so i think we'll reserve my time later to any questions specifically that you might have. so thank you very much for giving me this chance, and i've outlined things i'm sure most of the audience already know. >> thank you, mr. president. i'd like to turn now to mr. brahimi to give us an update

of the latest efforts to bring negotiators into an extremely difficult problem in syria. >> thank you very much, indeed. it's a pleasure and an honor to be here and to see many friends and many distinguished people. it's always a pleasure to meet. i'm sure that everybody here familiar with the situation in syria. i don't need to recite the depressing numbers that characterize this situation. 100,000 dead, two million at least refugees, maybe three, four, maybe five million, the destruction which you see on your screen every night that makes cities in syria look like

pictures of berlin in 1945. so to say that the situation is bad would be an understatement. the situation is bad and getting worse, and it has been bad and has been getting worse for now two years. the important thing to mention, i think, here is that at long last the russians and the americans have got together, and and they have said a little bit of what i've just told you. the situation in syria is bad, it is extremely dangerous not only for the or syrian people, but -- not only for the syrian people, but also for the region. we believe, we americans and russians, believe that there is no military solution. but a political solution is necessary and possible. and we, americans andiae going k

together and with others to see that this political process happens. we saluted this development with a great deal of hope when it happened on the 7th of may of this year, and the the foreign minister and secretary kerry have met several times since. i think they will meet again here in maybe a couple of weeks because lavarov is visiting new york and washington. we, united nations have met with both of them in u.s. and russia twice, and we've been trying to see how, what are the conditions that are necessary to bring about that will make a

conference, an international conference, a u.n. conference on syria possible with good chance of success. we, i don't think we have those conditions already there, but i think even's -- everybody's working to create those conditions. the elements of a solution are already there. they have been there for exactly one year, one year and a few weeks. on the 30th of june last year, there was a conference that was organized thanks to my predecessor, kofi annan, and the result of that conference had, was a detailed sketch of what the solution for syria, what the

solution for syria should be. the idea now is to organize another conference that is called, that is referred to as geneva ii, but it's not going to be a repeat of the past geneva because this time we hope that there will be -- we hope, there must be a syrian delegation because geneva i had said that what is needed is to bring the syrian president's regime and the opposition together so that they can put together a plan and process to implement the decisions of geneva i. so this is what we are trying to, these are the conditions that we are trying to create. we are not there yet. we are discussing with the --

directly or indirectly with the government of syria in damascus, with the opposition, with the neighbors of syria because i think it's not a vet that the crisis is dangerously mutating into regional conflict. ask the lebanese and the jordanians, they will tell you that these two countries are really, i don't know what word to use, sinking under the weight of the ref pew gees -- refugees. i think you have one million in lebanon, more than one million in jordan. somebody was telling me the other day that tripoli in lebanon, the second city of importance in the country, is

now inhabited by almost 60% of its inhabitants are syrian. so if you're one of the few refugees that went to italy from libya three years ago, the whole of europe was up in arms that they cannot receive these about 20,000 people. so little jordan and little lebanon having already more than one million refugees and i think that the flow of refugees is more or less, you know, what every day is still continuing 3, 4, 5, up to 6,000 refugees going into lebanon and jordan mainly. a little bit, also, elsewhere. of -- so, you know, the situation once again is extremely bad. it is, you know, the country is

being destroyed. i was, you know, heavily criticized by both sides a few months ago when i said what they are doing is cooperating to destroy their country. and, therefore, you know, the -- [inaudible] that is addressed to both the op to decision and the government -- opposition and the government is to show some kindness to their, to their people. to their country. and also to their history. you know, i think if any -- i mean, i'm sure there are many of you who know syria, know how rich culturally this country is. now, in homs there is a church that goes back to the year 57. it has been destroyed already by the damage. there is a mosque i think also

in homs, it has been destroyed. the mosque in bela has been destroyed. the market in the, the covered market in aleppo has been burned. and, of course, you know, in situations like this you have a lot of artifacts that are stolen and taken out of the country. so it's not, it's not only the present and future of syria that is under threat, it's also their past. and our common history really that is being destroyed. >> thank you. how far are we that the solution will be found? >> we're very hopeful. there is no other way but to hope and to work for a solution. but also one shouldn't lie to

others. it's not going to be easy. >> thank you. thank you very much, sir. president ahtisaari, i thought we can ask you about the linkages between syria, iran and us legal-palestine -- israel-palestine including the role iran potentially plays. is there an opportunity here for iran to be a more constructive player? what do you make of all these interlinkages in the region? >> perhaps you allow me to start from last year. i was asked by my elders colleagues to come to and talk to the permanent members of the security council. and to find out what their attitudes in the case of syria were. and i did come. i was -- [inaudible] february last year. >> [inaudible] >> you're not micked.

[inaudible conversations] >> how did i manage to do this? [laughter] so i met the permanent representatives already because both the american and chinese -- [inaudible] were in the capitals. and kofi annan was offered to take up the special envoy's task. while i was if new york. while i was in new york. i was extremely disappointed

that the permanent members were so incapable of starting to talk. because they are permanent members, and i'm an old u.n. hand, as many of you know. i always say that permanent members have an important and responsible task which they have to follow. they have more responsibility than ordinary members of the security council. and talks with the permanent members, i didn't feel that it would have been impossible to find a common position. without going any further on the details. you heard lakhdar brahimi say that what has happened and how the situation has deteriorated, but the day when i thought about these interlinkages, i'm today

much more optimistic than perhaps a few months earlier for various reasons. some have nothing to do with these three countries that our chairman mentioned. if i look at how i see that the permanent members are getting their act together on other issues as well, i mentioned that north korea, it's today i see that we may have a situation developing where the americans, chinese and russians can actually cooperate in the denuclearization. every opening that leads to positive cooperation will help in the other areas as well. there's now a serious effort starting hopefully this week on

israel-palestine, and that is an important element here as well. and lately not only here in washington, but in general that finally we start hearing that it's seriously looking for political solution in syria. ..

this is a moment we have to talk to everybody and stop the dialogue not only on the nuclear issues, but on other issues as well. and therefore, i hope that these developments that i have mentioned now will actual -- it will take time, but that we will find looking for solutions. i think we should have -- i was disappointed a year ago because i thought there would have been opening. but as a special envoy of secretary -- there were a number in the past i know how -- if they don't have at main support they can't do it. that's something that is very

important for you to understand. , and i don't think that -- started he didn't have the support. i mean, support that would have actually lead to a concrete result. it took a long time before the united states and russia are talking now. we hopefully are ended up in geneva and seeing how we go from there. >> thank you very much. we'll open it up to questions. there's a lot of people in the room, so please make your questions short. we have about twenty or twenty five minutes of question time. yes, please. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. president.

[inaudible] i'm an journalist. i want to ask you, sir, after meeting with secretary kerry today, what gives you hope this time around there's a push forward and not a day have deja vu to previous negotiations? >> i'm not referring to anything that the secretary said, but it seems to us having met with him and been involved for a long time that this is certainly a time. it's been almost a five-year absence of any real effort to bring the two parties together, and they have been a very resistance to any move toward accommodation. enough to sit down in the same room with each other. so that in itself is an encouraging sign. i mentioned earlier, which i need not repeat how terrible it is on the leaders not 0 to go to

the negotiating table if it involves the emotional crucial single element that's borders. the question is whether the united states insist on 1967 borders with modifications based on land swaps? that -- has been the crucial unanswered question for a long time. as you know, the arab peace initiative which began in 2002, has now been modified to include the phrase with land swap. so to some degree, both sides know it might be on the table. the -- gnat -- he's been promised the two major supporters on the right-wing will abandon his government if he does. he's going stay mute, i understand. and of course, the united states is going to be asked by the palestinians to repeat our position, which is long-term, and compatible with

international law in the 1967 borders only to be changed with good faith negotiations by land swap. that's the key issue. i think if they can address that in a substantiative way, then the other things are like symbolic right of return and whether they will or not be resolved. the other thing that is difficult that is jeer russ loom. -- jerries there's been kind of a negative reaction one of the breakthroughs that the -- israels and others and european members are dedicated to helping the palestinians survive even if the israelis cut off the income

from customers and so forth. it will put the israels -- , i mean, the palestinians back on the basis of being self-sporting during the troublesome time when they might be make concessions that are not popular back home. i think those two things are the most important, for me. nobody knows what is going to happen. they might meet the first time and adjourn. i don't know about that. i think also there's been pressure from the palestinian people and the israeli people to have a resolution of this issue. the opposing any sort of peace talks. they are willing to receive a peace agreement that has been negotiated between the plo and israel. if those terms will be submitted to the palestinians for referendum. and that can be a major step if

the peace terms are concluded at the negotiated table. so that is at least a chance to bring homas on board. those are my reasons being much more hopeful than i was. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> you may remember at camp david, the israelis agreed to abide by 242, the key portion of which is not acquisition of territory by force. that meant they were going to withdrawal from the west bank and other territories. and the camp david from 1978 which was ratified by the

egyptian parliament. that commitment by the israelis early has been violated. so i think if the 67 borders prevail as we just hope for, that's still to come, i think that would indicate honor -- of 2412. if the israelis wrawl and live in peace side by side. thing would take care of 242, which can be modified to some degree. >> a question from the back. yes, sir. >> hello. president carter, -- everyone, my name is minl lo. we have a domestic attention receiving international attention. do we think we have a form of two state or apartheid in the united states? [laughter] >> no. we don't have two states in the united states. we have separation between the

red and blue states and polarization the twept constituencies bought up on the massive institution of money. most of which is spent on negative advertisement. they create divisions and the two parties that carries to washington. the thing i'm most concerned the growing separation in america between the richest americans and the poorest americans. and also a basic negative attitude toward people who are different from us. one example, and that is that the number of prisoners now incarcerated in america is 700% more than it was when i left office. so we are now putting people in prison and keeping them there. so i think there is a difference in our country, but i have confidence that our country will survive. we'll overcome the problem even if it takes a new majority in the supreme court who made the stupid decision, in my opinion,

on citizens united. i don't think the congress will change that. if we see a more enlightened, wise, supreme court we'll see it reversed and returned to a new policy. i don't think we have apartheid. but we have divisions brought about by the things i just mentioned. >> i can? please. i have -- during the last year i have read three books -- [inaudible] equality is good for everybody. the price of civilization the price of inequality. nowadays when i speak in my own country, i very often say we

don't in today's world don't need capitalism -- we don't need socialism. we need responsible market economic. which the minority countries represent best. i -- one of the subtitle that said if you want to experience the american dream, go sweden. [laughter] [laughter] they could have mentioned any of us in the nordic country. [laughter] >> i have couple of questions for mr. brahimi. what is the holdup on russia? is it the u.s. trying to help shift the balance to saver the -- do you envision any coalition to

syria with assad staying in power. [laughter] [inaudible] [laughter] >> what is holding the country is, i think, frankly, the opposition is divided. that's not a secret. and they are trying to get their act together. work their way to a truly in a representative delegation to represent the opposition in the con conference. that's one of the problems. there's no doubt that, i think, it is fair to say that the americans have gone very, very long way to where they are now. it's really great that they have said the things i said --

very problem. it's not military solution. there can be, mr. must be and there can be political solution. they are going to work together. i think there are still working there -- differences and talking to us and i think that we are moving forward a little bit. that the the opposition is working each way slowly. i think it may get there. there is no doubt that there are differences about -- [inaudible] it hasn't been worked out yet. there are problems that are holding out -- holding.

if you look at the 30th of june, 2012, geneva convention, you will see a very detailed agenda for -- to get from where we are now in syria, to what i call the new republican in syria. one of the things that clearly states is that, you know, the idea of getting these two delegations together is that they will agree on the creation of what this in question -- agree geneva the governing body with the executive power. i think this is very clear you're going have an executive body. it i i think, which is another way for the transition in

government. that transition in government is going to have full executive power, and that it will govern the country until the time comes for an electrician to take -- election to take place. there's a lot of -- in the details there. i think it is geneva did not speak about -- mr. president, the assad in one world. i think they have indicate to the world that we lead to a new syria and i think i have been saying all along, and hasn't been popular with a lot of people that the time for cosmetic change in syria and elsewhere in the region is passed. and people are demanding real change, transformation and syria is no exception.

>> okay. [inaudible] >> if you don't mind on syria. -- [inaudible] >> yes. [inaudible conversation] if you look at the now -- it looks like they are making progress on -- [inaudible] how do you think they are -- [inaudible] to have transition to a regime that going to undermine the -- government and my other question is i think for years now solution and 100,000 people have been -- [inaudible] and you said -- what is that?

is it a solution? thank you. when i briefed them in november, people were extremely critical of me because i refused to say that the opposition was winning and that the regime was the last few days. i think most people in november of last year were convinced that the regime had lost and the opposition was winning. it was question of months, perhaps weeks. i think that was not correct. now you have a lot of people that are saying that the government is winning. the regime is winning. the regime is doing much better than it did in november of last year.

that's true. they are making progress, but in situations like this, making progress and winning are two different things. there are -- look at the -- how long it takes them to regain -- it took them weeks and weeks before they took effect. look at the -- [inaudible] in the hands of the opposition. i think there is -- they said 2,500 people in there. and that it has been four or five or six weeks. they haven't gotten anywhere. that is why and a lot of people

including now the united states of america and the russian federation we say there is no military victory for anybody. there is a level of destruction, you know, you can one day the opposition that have the upper happened. the next day the government is going to have it. but the war is going on. the killing is going on. and you need to get out of these vicious sickle -- circles to a political process that can end this. >> maybe we need to take several questions at one -- >> can i please? >> when the fighting goes on for a conflict a long time we have seen in syria with the rebels, it becomes really difficult for

those who have -- to accept they those organize these. and to negotiate the sort of transition of government, it's extremelily complicated as we have seen in many, many situations. so i hope that one does not keep up -- the pocket if it can be used. i mean, can't be always used. you are inescapable of doing that. then -- even if -- it should be monitor them properly. there's enough people. [inaudible] [laughter] that i taked for granted. i haven't seen an election yet in the world where there would not be --

[inaudible] [laughter] and i want to complicate them. >> we won't get involved in the u.s. elections. [laughter] the united states is not qualified to -- [laughter] >> hi, good evening, gentlemen. thank you for being here. i have a quick question for mr. brahimi and president carter. like many people i have been following the conflict closely and your work on the common flict closely too. you mentioned the issue with question knee have geneva -- convince everybody to the come to the table. who do you think would be a crucial member at the table. if the transitional government is created, how do you convince the people on the ground who have a problem communicating with the outside world that

these are legitimate representatives. president carter, you have been a strong advocate for a peaceful solution in palestinian and india for years. i was wondering if it was easier today than when you were president. [laughter] >> let's take one more question. in the back somewhere, yes. please. gentleman with the class -- glasses. >> president carter, i would like to ask you -- i'm mitchell from enterprise service. i would like to ask you my sense from speaking with palestinian civic leaders that there's a lot of resistance to things that have been understood in the past; for example, an extended israel military presence in the jordan valley, to militarize palestinian state. token return of refugee. there's more resistance among the palestinian people than perhaps years ago. do you think that's true?

if so, do you think it will be too big of aning obstacle to overcome especially in light of the homas referendum. >> i don't think it was easier -- you have to remember when i became president there was no demand to be engaged in peace talks. they had been four terrible wars during the previous 25 years. we felt when it was elected. it was the end of any possibility of for a peace talk. i found that they were both strong and courageous and wise enough to reach an agreement. and so we just proceeded to make an effort. i think that what john kerry faces now is even more formable than it was in those days. i can't say that for sure. it's hard to judge.

most times very difficult. but the key issue as well as the palestinian people and israeli people want peace enough to prevail on the leaders whoever they are that makes them comprise for peace. i think as far as a palestinians are concerned, the jordan river valley was never mentioned as being part of israel or controlled by israel. i believe until bill clinton was in office and went to camp dap david and so forth. i never dreamed when i was negotiating back in the earlier times that israel would control the jordan valley. we anticipated then israel will be all of palestinian from east jerusalem and gaza and the banks. that's a difference now. i'm not sure that the palestinians will ever accept israel controlling the jordan

river valley as well as a major portion of the rest of the west bank. what they're talking about now is some land swap. that's been an interesting thing because i met with one of the most conservative leaders that israel ever had. he pointed out a land swap that i thought was intriguing that the audience might find interesting. that's that the palestinian would grant to israel the settlement around jerusalem let them have it. and it would be grant to the palestinian to form a land corridor between gaza and the west bank which is about 36 miles. and on that land corridor would be built a railroad and a highway whose security would be guaranteed by israel but owned and operated by the palestinian. it looks like a wonderful future possibility that might occurred. so i think the things that you

mentioned are very effective. the last thing you mention was a right of return. i don't think there's going to be any amount of refugee returning to israel except for a few families israel might grant, like, a handful or a dozen a token response. i think they the return might be just in the west bank or just in gaza and nowhere else. so that's -- those are the three things that you mentioned. they are all difficult, and i think that the referendum is good because, as you know, netanyahu isn't going to agree to anything even in the latest kerry proposal unless he submits to the israel people to approve in the referendum. that's exactly the position homa has had since i've been meeting with them for the last ten or twelve years. whatever peace agreement is reached, they will accept it,

basically it, if the palestinian people and the referendum approve it. i think that's a good way. eventually if the leader at the negotiating table accept a peace agreement, i believe that almost guarantees that the people back home would accept the same thing. >> you know, the -- the syrians do not deny the fact that their society is breaking up. they are divided in so many ways and so many dpircht way -- different ways. what is really wanted is that the main groups that oppose the opposition agree on politic -- and on fairly well representative delegation. i think that the syrian people

and also the opposition they understand that it is impossible to represent everybody in the process like this. and i don't know any process is complicated conflict where, you know, the people only negotiate well accept it as -- representative by all the people. when we were in afghanistan, when we concluded the meeting, i told the afghans over there, you are not fully representative of your people. but you have come to an agreement among you. there are just -- yawns you have come to an agreement. if we go back to afghanistan, and implement this properly and the business for this process nobody will remember that you are not representative. but if we fail, of course, then

people will say of course the agreement was -- [inaudible] so, you know, this is a similar situation. if we get to geneva and we have a fairly representative delegation, and there will be a hell of a lot of work to do. it may be do able. [inaudible] would you like to say anything? okay. well, i am afraid that's all the time we have. let me first just say a few words. you're all invited to a reception which takes place on the first floor, on the grand floor. all of our guests will have media interviews for ten minutes, then after that they will join the reception. i would like to ask you to; one, remain seated until they are able to leave the room. i hope you join me in thanking what has been truly great.

[applause] [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

he made a ceremonial visit to a museum dedicated to began i did. according to report he wrote in the visitor book at the site where ghandi was assassinated in 1948 saying, quote, what a great honor to be here memorializing one man who changed the world. end quote. it's the vice president's first trip to india as a vice president. he visited in 2008 as a senator. tomorrow they will meet to discuss bays to expand bilateral trade. he'll meet for a meeting before heading to singapore on thursday. >> i think of it as a really new

way of how people are going consume television in the future. it's an online platform which is direct to consumers and people can get access today to live broadcast television along with the dvr on any device without a cable connection using the internet. the key element, the foundational piece that is an microantenna. think about of has our the antenna the past. >> tonight on ""the communicators." at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. u.s. trade representative michael free throw man testified on president obama's trade

agenda. topics included ongoing negotiation with the european union and investment treaty. testifying for the house ways & means community. this is about two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i want to welcome you here today and extend a special welcome to the mike fauxman, first 77 all let me graduate you on -- you are leading one of the most professional agencies in the united government. we wish you very well in the

responsibilities. you take the helm of u.s. gr in a critical juncture. we are in the mist of three you held the first round of negotiations for a u.s. e.u. trade investment agreement which hold enormous potential economic benefit. and negotiations for a trade and service agreement have begun promising huge commercial gains and attracting new participates. we initially seen some encouraging movement at the wto trade facility agreement. it seem to stalled. particularly with the announcement about china forcing us to suspend the negotiations. we need to find a way around the obstacles. each of these negotiations will support more, better paying jobed in the united states, by

dismantling barriers -- to prevent future barriers from the emerging. these agreements will tackle tariff and nontariff barriers as well as new 21st century issues like state-owned enterprises, regulatory coherence, and trade facilitation. in addition the agreements help more deeply integrate u.s. companies to the global supply chains. quick movement on the negotiations is important because other countries are assigning agreementings that open market and increase the competitiveness at our expense. i look forward to continuing to work with you on each of these negotiations to ensure that each ambitious, comprehensive, and concluded as soon as possible. however, finishing the negotiations will not be easy, for example, in the tpp, i serious concern about the japanese nontariff barrier in the auto, insurance, and agricultural sector. must be resolved particularly in agricultural. i look forward to hearing your

testimony on these issues and working together to ensure that these barriers and others are fully addressed before any negotiations is completed. and other critical issues that has raised concern is how to deal with currency and the trade agreement. i believe that currency misalignment is a serious problem and i look forward to hearing more from you how the administration plans to address the issue. and last congress we passed in the presence signed in to law seven bipartisan trade bills including legislation implementing trade agreement. i hope to build on the bipartisan cooperation to move a bipartisan trade promotion authority bill. considering implementing legislation. it's no overstatement to say that the success of your work as a negotiating table absolutely depends on passing tpa, and we simply will not be able to enjoy the benefits of what we negotiate unless we have it --

unless we have tpa authority. i look forward to hearing from you today, ambassador, how the administration plans to engage on the issue as well. in addition to negotiations, we must also pay attention to the challenges and opportunities presented by trading partners around the world. take, for example, the major emerging economy's china, india, and brazil. each provides enormous opportunity. we must seek ways to engage the countries constructively and address trade and investment issues. we should use our by lateral as one tool to address the concerns and also to seek to expand our agenda to new parter ins. i note we'll continue our work on congress on siferlt important initiative. i'll continue to seek a path forward to pass the tariff bill which ranking member levin and i introduced yesterday.

duties increased for over 600 products last year. we introduced legislation yet to renew the generalized system of preference and find a path forward for the senate that ensures they can move it without amendment. i hope to move a bipartisan customs reauthorization bill convictly. it puts u.s. job creators on offense. let us seize the opportunity and yield to ranking member levin to make an opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and ambassador. on behalf of all of us, if i might say so, a warm welcome. with negotiations spanning the atlanta atlantic and the pacific illustrating the globalization is accelerating. we face major opportunities and

challenges. i believe this administration, in which you have played a key role has on some important occasions demonstrated a broader vision of international trade. it's helped to create jobs through exports. while also looking actively at the impact of imports. it is working to incorporate enforceable work and environmental standards in trade agreements. it is been more active in enforcement from initiating wto cases to applying the china safe guard on tires to creating the itec. it is responding to a series of factories in bangladesh. tragedies that have shake conventional resistance to building some basic standard to shape the human impact of the heightened flow of international trade.

as you face many challenges. force continued concerns about labor rights in colombia, innovation of antidumping duties even the future success of the wto. tpp can expand our imports in many sectors, including services which are also under negotiations in japan. while there are many outstanding issue, japan's engagement raises a broader policy question whether and how to address one way trade, a very unlevel playing field. the u.s. has had massive trade deficit with japan for decades. the vast majority in the ak tow sector where japan has taken advantage of a completely open u.s. market while japan has been tightly locked tofrom

us and anywhere else. if the principle of two-way trade really matters, and i believe it does, we need to chart a course to achieve it. what the u.s. negotiates with japan could have important impacts on the u.s. economy and also how tpp would be received in congress. i am working with stakeholders to develop a proposal and hope to share it next week. the transatlantic negotiations also provided an opportunity to expand our exports and strengthen our economy. just as important, they can establish new rules for global trade. promoting an equitable and market-base economic moagdz over the emerging model of state capitalism. these negotiations won't be easy. but our relationship with europe is unlike any other. we should build upon the strength of the relationship and

should reflect and it should reflect our many common objectives and values. while also respecting our differences. the discussion on tpa has begun. there is widely shared interest in getting it right. first, tpa sets the rules for engagement between congress and the administration. a significant sustained role for congress is critical. today trade agreements address a broad and growing range of policy areas. so members of congress must play an active role in the development. there's also a chance that more effective broader congressional involvement, i would like to emphasis this, help to establish more common ground in congress for trade agreements. second, the tpa process must be a vehicle in crafting a broader strategy as we did in 1988 to

tackle the increasing challenges and potential benefits globalization and enhance u.s. competitiveness. since we last considered tpa, the u.s. has experienced the largest trade deficit in our history contributing to lost jobs. these imbalances have more than one ingredient. one source often stems from trading partners refusing to play by the rules. as the chairman mentioned, currency manipulation is a vivid example. there's precedent for pairing tpa with currency legislation. we did so with the very first tpa bill in 1974, and we did it again in the 1988 act. the house and senate have both passed currency legislation. this issue needs to be part of the tpa, tpp, and ttip. we're going 0 have trouble keeping these three things

separate, aren't? i close to mention this in interest to you. with sequestration, u.s. gr like many other agencies is working urnt difficult personnel con trains. we need to help ensure that the administration can continue to devote the needed resources not only to negotiating new trade rules, but to enforcing those that exist. so, mr. ambassador, it's nice to call you that, we look forward to working with you. >> all right. thank you. we'll turn to the. i want to welcome ambassador mike froman to the committee. thank you for being with us. you have five minutes to present your testimony and full written statement has been submitted for the record. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member levin, members of the committee. thank you for having me here today. there's a long tradition of partnership between the ways & means committee and the

representative. that's tradition i plan to continue. as president obama's adviser on international i've had the opportunity to work with many of you on a number of initiatives including now that are my full time focus. opening market for american goods and services and doing so supporting jobs at home. we have made important progress over the past four years. exports are at the all time high. increases have supported more than 1.3 million additional american jobs and counted for more than one-third of u.s. gdp growth over the period. i'm pleased you invited me here today. there's so much more we need to do together. as president obama made clear the focuses must be promote growth, create american jobs and strengthen our middle class. they can contribute to the effort in three ways. first, by opening markets around the world so we can expand our exports. second, by leveling the playing field so our people can compete and win in the global economy. and third, bier ensuring that

the right and trade rules we fought hard for are fully implemented and enforced. trade policy enforced vigorously give our workers, farmers, average ranchers, manufacturers, innovators, creators, investors and businesses of all sizes our best chance to compete around the world. the president laid out one of the most ambitious trade things ever. last week we completed the first round of transatlantic trade and investment imoasheses. the enhancing the world's largest trading relationship. as we speak, u.s. gar are hard at work negotiating the transpacific partnership. the 21st century agreement that raises standards and introduces new trade disciplines. we are working on fresh credible ways to energize multilateral

trade liberalization. we are working to negotiate a trade facilitation agreement and hope to make progress on information technology agreement. our services negotiators are hard at work and negotiating a high standard trade and service agreement that will allow our already competitive services providers to compete for global business on a more level playing field. if we're able to complete these agreements. and i say, if, let me be clear it's better to have no agreement than a bad agreement. we have created free trade with 65% of the global economy. they hold real job supporting export potential for manufacturers in michigan and pennsylvania, farmers an researchers in wisconsin and california, and service providers in new york and massachusetts. trade policy can only work, however if it's fair. american workers at the most productive in the world. they deserve a level playing field to compete on. this administration is taking a tough approach to trade

enforcement filing 18 cays to enforce our trade rights. the interagency trade enforcement certainly has further enhanced the complexity, depth, and reach of the administration's enhorsement efforts. the obama administration is committed to pursuing freer trade. i from working with the new generation of reform minded leaders and some of the poorest countries in the world who are focused on pursuing policy of trade not just aid investment, not just assistance as the key to sustainable economic development. in that regard, i have encouraged by the introduction yesterday by the leader of the committee of a bipartisan bill to extend it. i look forward to working with you to ensure the seamless rule

before it expires in 2015. trade policy fulfills the greatest potential when it's the product of close consultation between the administration, congress, and a wide range of stakeholders. transparent collaboration leads to better policy and better outcomes. and while u.s. gar has done to touch advance it. in my view we can do better. i look forward to consulting with you as we explore what further step should be taken. let me say a word about the issue i know importance to many of you trade promotion authority. as i said in the conformation hearing, tpa is a critical tool. z the leadership of our committee undertake a process and develop the bill we stand ready to work with you to craft bill that achieves our shared interests. finally, all of these things i mentioned, all of our shared goals are con ting end upon u.s. gar we are managing our resources aggressively and do our best to achieve ourioties wr

resources we have. sequestration and other budget cuts are comprising the ability to conduct trade negotiation and other market opening efforts as well as initiate new enforcement actions. financial constraint are forcing us make difficult decisions everyday and the opportunity we miss have real effect on whether or not the constituents are getding the full benefit of a robust trade policy and the jobs and growth promised by our trade agreements. with that, let me thank you again for inviting me to testify today. i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. ambassador, i have been working with mr. levin and our counter part in the senate on a bipartisan basis to develop tpa legislation as i mentioned. and i believe you need this authority to bring tpp to a close. as well as the other things you mentioned.

the e.u. agreement, services, and other negotiations. as i said, it gives the administration the backing of the congress and a clear sense what our negotiating objectives are. while we're making progress we won't be able to do it with the full administration's involvement. i welcome your statement today and at your conformation hear that the administration is asking for tpa you believe it's a critical tool. but we really do need to be full partner in the venture for it to seed. what are you and the president doing to help build the case for tp a -- tpa? >> i think the president and the rest of the administration has been very much discussing the importance of our trade agenda, the implication of our trade agenda for the larger economic policy and are fully committed to moving forward with what is necessary to get the trade agenda done. with regard to tpa specifically, the bipartisan leadership of

this committee and the senate finance committee, i know are beginning a process working on a process to develop a bipartisan bill. we stand ready to engage and help in that process as requested. >> regarding tpp, as i said, i'm committed to working with you on that. i think a robust agreement will have significant benefit for the u.s. economy and support job creation and better paying jobs here. japan's scheduled entry next week, i think raises some significant concern. japan's entry to the negotiations i don't think should be allowed to undo the work that has been completed. age robust package fully addressing japan's nontariff and tariff barriers that have been long standing as mr. levin mentioned particularly as they relate to auto, and insurance expo. ic what steps are you taking to

ensure that japan will resolve these? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's important issue to us. we appreciate your leadership and lao -- leadership of ranking member levin. we extensive consultation with japan prior to agreeing to allow them to join tpp precisely on the issues you mentioned. agricultural, insurance, and auto sector. we insisted on making progress on the issue before they were allowed to come in. we reached some agreement on the area. but reached agreement on term of refer for ongoing negotiation in the area that will be linked to and part of tpp. for example, in the agricultural area, they moved forward with their agreement to allow american beef in to their market and 30 months and under. on the insurance area, there's a stand still for introduction of new product through the postal system and the agreement to negotiate in term of reference

for the negotiation for further open of the market. on auto, very importantly reached upfront agreement both on measures to allow greater access to the japanese market by more than doubling what they call the php program which allows expedited entry of u.s. veement. we reached agreement how the staging of the tariff will be done in the overall tpp negotiation. we laid out a negotiation on the nontariff bare jeers that you refer to and knead clear that the negotiation of an agreement an adequate and acceptable agreement on those nontariff barrier will be in key part of the tpp agreement. it will be binding and dispute resolution. we share very much share your concern and your focus on the importance of opening up japan's market as part of the entry in to tpp. we believe we have structured an engagement with them through tpp and per let --

parallel. >> as a followup, i've heard a lot from various stake hold and member of congress about the currency practices and past practices you raised serious concern. it's uncoordinated intervention in 2011 and treasury flag concerned about the intire vengeses and semiannual currency report. and i raised the issue before. are you considering include progress vision on currency in the tpp? what are the provisions look like? what factors shown taken in to account determining the u.s. position with regard to those? >> mr. chairman, we share the concerns about currency. clearly, obviously a treasury has the lead on the issues. but these issues have been very much the top of our agenda engagement with country of concern. china, for long standing dialogue with china about the currency policy and whether through the g7 in the case of japan or the g20 and the imf and elsewhere with regard to china

we have made very clear the importance of exchange rates being based on market determined forces, and our opposition to and the g20, for example, making it not just our opposition opposition of the bulk of the international economy to manipulate it. so we see it as an important issue. and we explore and pursue it in a way we think most effective at each jenture. >> i think it's a concern that we not allow the agreement to slip that it needs to be concluded this year. and i think the acted engagement of the administration on the issue is critical if we're to conclude tpp this year. thank you very your responses, mr. levin is recognized. >> thank you. let me just say, mr. chairman, on currency, i think the administration needs to face up very directly to the question of

inclusion of currency issues in both tpp and the discussions with you. i don't think there's been the satisfaction here with progress today. and so we just have to confront the formal introduction of this issue in tpp as well as with erp. let me just say as to tpp in japan, there's immense pressure on japan and they really haven't been very unequivocal about addressing rice and other agricultural issues. as a number of us said before, i'll spell out more of this in the coming days, i don't think what has been put forth so far on autos is likely to change

decades of the same situation. mr. cam joined us in addressing this issue in korea. the agreement was changed and strengthen. japan is an even sterner case. nothing today has ever worked. where today in term of our access to japan's auto motive the part as well as assembly vehicles essentially where we were 30, 40 years ago. so we need to have a very emphatic dialogue on this. i'm sure we will. so let me just say a word and ask you about tpa. i think it's important, mr. chairman, that all of us work together on tpa to determine what kind of a tpa, and not simply say let's just do it.

we have been through this before in the '80s we had a fast track which worked out. it had rather strong bipartisan support. that fell apart in 2002. it passed by, i think, three votes. keeping, as i remember the vote opened for awhile to see if those votes can be secured. with the globalization, i think we need to sit down on a bipartisan basis with the administration to determine issues like what will be the role of congress? what will the objectives stated in a tpa? what will be the role of congress in seeing these objectives are kept? related to it, the whole issue

much transparent sincerity -- transparency. ..

. >> so we will look forward to that. on transparency, in particular, rethink that is very important a very important issue and we think it is critically important that either the congress or the advisors, be it the public were others that we have a robust policy that it is important we explain what we are doing and how we are doing it and it is work. we are looking at all these different procedures that we have to determine how best to take that forward. we have done a lot of that last for years and i will mention one example. we now have, had her negotiations started this, we just did it again and we reorganized an event for stakeholders to come and be able to present this.

to be able to present ideas and i think we can always do better. >> today's hearing has ended at 11:00 o'clock. in order to accommodate every individual, we decided to limit the questions to three minutes. mr. johnson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to thank you for being here with us. it is a delight to see you. i was to see my good friend, mr. kirk, moveon, i am sure that you will be equally up to the task because you know that this is very important in the home state of texas. recent data shows that the dallas and fort worth area was responsible over one quarter of all manufacturing workers in texas depend on exports. that is why think it is critically important that

congress development pass the bipartisan trade objectives. you have already outlined these in your negotiations can be concluded that any agreement implemented without trade promotion and.raises the question is the administration prepared actively engage for the to be a? >> thank you, congressman. we think that tva is a critical tool. we stand ready to work with the committee's as they develop the bill. it is part of our shared interests and shared goals. we are continuing to pursue them aggressively and we can solve very actively with this committee and other committees of jurisdiction shall ensure that we have how those

objectives are translated into actual proposals so we feel confident confident that as we negotiate we are taken into account what we have received from our committees of jurisdiction. and ultimately to get through congress, we think it will be very useful for the ultimate agreement and congress and in the meantime we will operate according to the long-standing procedures that we have of consulting with you all in the colleagues in the senate and making sure that what we are doing is consistent with the input that we have to a new. >> thank you, sir. welcome aboard. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we are looking forward to one bipartisan effort that congress can participate in.

we do have a lesson of sorts and working together and with your help we look forward to improving or not. i would like to report that our staff feels very comfortable with the relationship that we have with your office and as you coinue that, because many times we have to depend on this and it makes it a lot easierr us to get an agreement before something is presented to us than to try to convince each other otherwise. you have answered many of the questions that i have had and i would be interested in seeing how america and his trip to africa, exactly what he has to be competitive with places like china and the economic growth that has taken place and also we talk about jobs and it is very

important that to a person that is unemployed, some people automatically think that that means losing jobs. you have to help us and working with the education department and the department of labor so we can present new job opportunities are going to be involved country by country and where are we going to lose because we cannot complete this. we have to talk about training and retraining and not to import importers and exporters and because we are all looking towards this for the same goal. again, i don't have to tell you that we must be competitive with

the automobile industry and what we have been through. i do not think it should be a hard sell when we are competing and there were changes that we had to make during the crisis that make those changes. we look forward to working with you and when you think of trade, as some of us have to talk about this, it comes down to jobs, jobs, jobs. >> thank you, congressman. this is all about jobs in the united states and we need to do a better job of talking about what we're doing with negotiations or through enforcement, it leads to better jobs, higher wages and allows us in global supply chains rather than being on the outside of them and i look forward to working with you on africa in

the auto sector as well. >> mr. brady is recognized. and congratulations on your new role. thank you for the critical role that you played in reaching sales agreements and our local business workers are looking for new workers. so it is creating both new jobs in our reason and more secure jobs as well. so we thank you for that role and we look forward to that going forward. so asking about critical regions were those new customers in the role of the bilateral investment treaty going forward. on the timetable, dc that completing by the end of the year and being submitted to congress shortly thereafter?

>> we have stated that our objective is to finish it this year. our negotiators are hard at work as we speak in malaysia and we are going to work very hard with japan to bring them up to speed and not allow them to reopen. so our focus is trying to get this done this year. >> you think there is a good chance we can do that? cover issues always come at the end. a little bit more unpredictable. are you optimistic that we can finish within the timetable? >> on the bilateral investment, do you think it is important will to take a big step towards a level playing field and protections for americans and we're chasing those customers around the world? we took a look at the bilateral investment treaty and sort of pulled the truck to the side of the road and we made some adjustments and now it is time

to get back down the road. it is important as a tool. so is so as we look at china and india and other areas -- dc bilateral investment treaties that are important and are you going to use them to balance the trade agenda? >> yes, it is an important tool and we will use them as appropriate. last week we had the strategic and economic dialogue here in -- it was china agreeing on the basis of one of the key principles, including the basis of coming up with a negative list rather than a positive western list anonymously the devil is in the details and we have not begun to negotiate. it is very important to make sure that those things are implemented. but it is a very positive

development. also it is part of domestication. >> i agree, that's an important role in china and in other regions as well. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know this is an abbreviated opportunity to ask about this. we are down to new balance, small operations after that, ensuring their success, allowing them to do athletic footwear, a very important part of our economy. certainly interested in what the administration's position is going to be with competition. the issues and did it come up in the first round. an opportunity for you to hold forth on the president's goal is to whether or not we have been able to double exports or are we on a path to doubling exports

during the five years of the that the president has outlined. understanding that really is part of the fastest part of american economic growth to trade related issues. the opportunity is yours, mr. congressman. >> there is always leaking sensitive sector and we are looking at the domestic producers in our importers and retailers to come up with a proposal that mass maximizes job creation and job supported in the united states. but we are well aware of the sensitivities there and indeed i will be visiting and planning to visit the new balance factory later this summer. a financial regulation, yes, we have a sense of discussions with the europeans about it her interview is the following. the financial services after is a key part in it cannot be left outside altogether.

we think that financial services market access, since the financial crisis of 2000 and eight and 2009, it has been an explosion of bilateral and the dis and the isp and we think that those processes should be encouraged to make progress in parallel alongside trade agreements are going through treatment is done we can look back and see we have managed to bring the two markets closer together. >> lastly the president laid out a goal of governing exports and supporting exports by 2 million. we have increase them by one point and 10 million i think we are probably on track. we are at or above this. but to be frank with the headwinds in europe over the

last couple of years, that has been a drag on our overall export growth and we need to do everything we can do this with the past was doubling exports. >> all right. thank you. mr. nunes? >> i want to echo the gentleman's comments. we also enjoy this long-term relationship with your staff and we hope that that continues and we would like for you to quickly address enforcement mechanisms, is specifically the resolution as it relates and then we have a short time, so i will leave it at that. i have another question. >> okay. this is a critical part -- it's a critical part of our negotiation. we want to make sure that we have mechanisms for ensuring that those disciplines are fully

implemented. this is really rooted in the wto commitments. the other things are procedural elements under this. so we think that the bulk of the commitments that were likely to be achieved in this in this chapter will be subject to enforcement through this consultative mechanism leading to dispute resolution on the elements. >> we look forward to continue working with you. as you know, american agriculture is strongly behind some type of enforcement mechanism in this negotiation. i would like the remaining time for you to address our ongoing relationship with brazil.

we are looking at legislation and possibly redoubling our efforts our trade relationship with brazil. and i know you have met with him recently. and i know that there has not been a delegation in the fall. you know, what can we do in the congress to improve relations. >> thank you. brazil is an incredibly important country in the hemisphere and we believe that we have a closer economic partner going forward. we have a lot of dialogue with the business community and also energy, trade issues, we are trying to make progress through this dialogue are outstanding issues. as you know couple of years ago we talked about the strategic energy partner developing new energy resources and we have had discussions with them about just doing a bilateral investment treaty and if that would be our

last next step towards deepening our relationship they have not yet responded positively to that, but we will continue to have those discussions. >> we are looking at possibly consolidating the dialogue and having a structure to get high dialogue and also the congress? >> i am happy to talk further with you about that. we have a commercial dialogue as well. we're trying to make progress on each of these on the respective agendas. the two presidents have an ongoing dialogue and we expect to see that in the future as well. >> thank you, ambassador, thank you for your testimony with the stated objectives of the agreement by the end of this year. what do you do or think is the

deadline for president obama? >> thank you, congressman. i don't think we need to give it a deadline to congress just at. >> well, we look forward to working with you all on this process. i think that it proceeds apace as we speak. having this before we bring an agreement to congress is very important. >> sometime next year? >> i think that getting it right is important. i think that getting it in time before the trade agreement is ready would be the goal. >> and the thinking is that the obama administration cannot get the specific partnership agreement approved in a fashion that would like to have it

approved with without that authority? >> i think all but one trade agreement history, i believe, since the 80s, it has been approved under some form of trade promotion authority and i think that that is likely to be the most productive way of moving forward as well. >> so you're not saying that you couldn't do without it and during the time you have been on this committee, i think most of the legislation has been approved without fast-track authority. but you would view it as essential to your work? or are you saying you can do without a? >> i think that between trade agreements and trade legislation, with the exception of this, all other entities have been approved under under a fast-track authority. i haven't thought through what it would mean without that kind of authority, but i'm happy to work with the committee and of course we stand ready to work with you. >> in your work, has there been

a request to undertake any studies concerning the economic subsectors where we will see job growth? >> i think there has been a lot of work done by various things and other research centers and i am not aware what has been done 2.5 years ago. oftentimes there is a study done and i'm not sure that was done in this case or not. but we could look into that and get back to you. >> isn't that a factor in your negotiation? >> we are certainly looking to open markets for all of our sectors and we consult very closely with stakeholders to get their perspective on the opportunities for expanded exports and job creation and that helps to inform our priorities as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to see you again.

i would like to echo some of the comments made by the members here. the working relationship that we have with ambassador and his team, i hope that continues and i know that that is continuous conversation and we hope that that continues and i just want to make a quick comment about the tpa. we know that you don't have to make a formal request for that authority. but i think there is a perception that goes back to the green agreements and the ascension of russia and that the administration is not actively involved in that process as we'd like to see. so i think that there is the perception today that the administration may not be as aggressively involved in helping us promote the idea of the tremendous need for tpa.

i encourage you to be active in that regard. but i also want to ask a question on this. you mentioned that you have a focus to get this done by the end of the year. i would like to get a little bit more pacific. what is your strategy and is there anything we can do to help you get this accomplished? >> well, the strategy is to work very hard. we are working around the to the best of our ability. i am happy to go through more details with you. but we are doing a phenomenal job, it 11 soon-to-be 12 countries in the negotiation and we have 29 chapters. many of the issues we are dealing with her new issues, issues that none of the countries around the table have negotiated before any agreement, and that is an ongoing mutual learning process. we have done a lot of work over

the last two years to close out chapters and closeout issues, the issues are engaged as we speak right now in trying to move that agenda forward. we are meeting with the japanese at the end of this round to welcome them into the discussion and bring them up to speed on the negotiations and our strategy is to work country by country an issue by issue and to get a sense as we enter the endgame on how best to come up with the deal. it raises the overall standard and achieves the level of ambition that we set out for. >> we know that this hack works hard. he can count on them at the end of the year. >> that is our objective. it is doable. we will do everything we can at all levels of government to try to make that happen. >> thank you, mr. ambassador.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. the trade services agreement has massive potential, commercial potential and could be a major source of job creation of u.s. firms. if you look at our economy we have a competitive advantage in this area. 75% of the gdp being and services. 85% of the employment. and 70% of the world market is represented with those countries. yet several high-profile events have come and gone and you mentioned this in your testimony today. in previous occasions we have not heard the white house or the administration put the kind of emphasis needs to be put on this agreement. i think that he should be given as much emphasis with the

negotiations. earlier this week we were talking about some of us and we just want to get your assurances that this will be given the priority that it really deserves going forward. because i think the potential is there. >> congressman, i totally agree and think this is one of the most promising areas going on in the world right now. we have michael leading these investigations and we think that it is a very significant market and we may join this over time. so we are very much with you on the importance of our economy and job in the united states in promoting growth here in the united states. and we are optimistic that we will continue to make progress. >> my home state of louisiana is an energy producing state. in the energy sector, this can be really beneficial.

i was with the chairman in brazil and they are struggling with the right kind of expertise and technology and other countries have the same concerns and we have the expertise and engineering services and so forth so we will go forward. >> thanks. >> thank you, mr. thompson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having the hearing. thank you for being here, congratulations, we look forward to working with you. the chairman started off talking about tariff and nontariff areas. i would like to pick up on an agricultural opponent. we have some of the most wonderful wines in the world. we have some pretty good barriers for our product due to tpa. so i would like to be able to get a good commitment that we

work together to make sure that we lower these barriers and work to protect this important agricultural product that we have. the bilateral wine trade agreement is a good start, and i would like to make sure that we continue that. along the same lines, counterfeit and imitation ones that are made by other countries -- they try to capitalize on our brand and they are a real problem and are a geographical indicator that the system works well and i like to make sure that we work to protect that as well. another agricultural product that is important in california is our rice. recently the president and japan's prime minister said a joint statement that said, and i will paraphrase, all terrorists are on the table and the u.s. rice industry, i would like to

make sure that this holds true in that we don't exempt rights in the agreements that are coming in. and we include them and we work with them as we work towards facilitating this particular market. lastly you had sent this to some of our senate colleague talking about textiles and i just said appropriate balance between diversion views was important. and i hope that we can find more opportunity for trade liberalization other than just short supply issues and i look forward to working with you on all of these issues. >> thank you, congressman heard with regard to the agricultural issues, agricultural trade is at an all-time high. exports last year where that $140 billion. it's a tremendous opportunity as

we work very closely with the usda to ensure that we are doing everything we can to promote our cultural trade. that is why does the congressman mentioned, this is important. >> some of our tariff and nontariff barriers are at an all-time high. if you look at china, we are paying 56% combined taxes and tariffs. and it's terrible at times. >> okay, thank you. mr. buchanan? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really look forward to working with you and i am sure that the committee does in a bipartisan basis as well. i am from florida. these trade agreements are very important. and i can see what the trade means to florida with 550,000 jobs, i also grew up in

michigan. so i'm just curious from your standpoint as we look at the cultural community, huge benefits in terms of trade. 95% of the market place outside, then we will see different parts of the country, the midwest and other areas that don't benefit as much. many times the coastal community. what can we do more to help more states feel like it is a win-win for them as well? >> thank you, congressman. from our perspective, trade is part of the broader economic strategy and it has to work across the country. but it is one reason that we put so much emphasis on our manufacturing policy and administration administration in making sure their trade policies supportive of our manufacturing policy. you want to make sure that even as we export traditional services and agriculture

products that we are also building a stronger manufacturing capability in the united states. >> another quick question. i was in beijing in january and they have u.s. businesses in a chamber and of course you have heard this a lot about intellectual property is still being the biggest issue. an article in the times said it is costing the u.s. i think $40 billion and in 2009, i could've been proved their ip protection, means $87 billion for the u.s. to create 2 million jobs in another you have worked on i ended is something that is a big issue, and that is a very big issue to our country in terms of job creation and additional economic opportunities for companies in the u.s. where we had on our? >> is a very high priority. especially when we have the strategic and economic dialogue,

trade secrets, all feature very prominently in this discussion. we need to keep on pressing china to make progress there. we have made some progress there. >> it's a very good agreement. then we are trying to get something implemented. >> yes, we want to see more legal software, agencies and others, and they stepped up in certain respects and it hasn't gone faster. the one thing that i would say is that they are beginning to see in their own country inflation all property and if that happens there is a constituency within china that wants to see better enforcement of property rights. further benchmarks, ensuring that they are not just doing it in this way. >> okay, mr. thompson. we are reminding you that there

is actually a letter that was sent to secretary vilsack on the measures and i just meant that to the record. >> without objection. ms. jenkins is recognized. >> and you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. strong intellectual property rights are essential to this success of the u.s. and the eu economy. the united states alone accounts for over 50 million jobs. it is coming down to a couple of questions. what barriers in goods and services to the u.s. companies face, and what area is there potential for greater convergence between the u.s. and the eu practices and how can the united states and the eu try high levels of protection in those areas unless it is not

pursued. i would be interested in hearing about not only trademarks and copyrights, but also about protections and trade secrets from disclosure by government. >> well, it is a critical part of our economy and our relationships with the eu as well. and we both have high levels though they are somewhat different and that is how they are implemented. we see the negotiations is giving us another opportunity to work together with the eu and raise the standards overall for the global economy. this includes helping to strengthen intellectual property rights and enforcement. on a bilateral basis we have geographical indications and we want to make sure that we protect the trademarks and the common themes of our product and

we see more commonalities in terms of the overall level of protections with the eu and in a number of other markets. as a result this gives us the ability to work together with high standards around the world. >> okay, thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. we have appreciated the professionalism and hard work and skill and we look forward to working with you in leading other committee members. i appreciated our earlier conversation about the importance of labor and environmental protections, which i think working with you, it makes it even better for everybody all the way around. my friend referenced the footwear industry and i think that that is terrific. i would ask unanimous consent to enter in the record a letter that we had submitted with my friend and almost 50 members of

the house that talk about this. i hope that you would be able to visit and look at part of that supply chain and people who manufacture shoes in the united states. we have a range of others, however. less than 1% of footwear is manufactured in the united states and the vast amount of the value chain is here. companies like nike and new balance and others, they are designed with intellectual property in mind. the sales and marketing. a huge amount of the value is here. we are trapped in the past with a terrace structure that has outvoted long ago even though it

ceases to have rational bearing on the market place and translates into a very substantial sales tax, particularly on the lower end product. and it would be exciting if we could have meaningful work with the treaty negotiations that you are underway with to do something meaningful and be able to promote that entire value chain. do you have any thoughts or observations. we will be happy to put this into the mix as well. >> thank you, congressman. you know, i would say on the footwear issue in particular, this goes to other products as well, we have multiple interests at stake. domestic producers, those who are assembling products that are being imported, the retailers, the consumers. one thing we have to do is weigh all of those interests and one

in particular that supports the most jobs in the united states. we are looking at all those issues and we recognize sensitivities. we hope to be able to strike a balance that addresses the multiplicity of interests that are at stake. >> i appreciate that. as i say, we would be able to show you and our community the design in the production and engineering. thousands of very high pay jobs right here in the united states that support that mechanism that we talked about. >> mr. paulsen? >> thank you. i want to shift gears and talk about india quay. you are aware that many investors are facing the issue that is significantly impeding their ability. congressman larson and myself as part of the u.s. india strategic dialogue to make india's environment a focus of that

dialogue. last week india announced the reveal of its market, access policy requires information technology products. that is a policy that would violate fundamental global trade rules. but that review does not solve the problems facing the information technology sector. it doesn't do anything to address serious concerns, including this industry or tax treatment or stop blatant theft of american intellectual property. the primary form to discuss this is the trade policy which we cochaired. the one you expect hold the next trade policy form and what can we do to support the union's efforts and what is the administration doing to ensure that this is on a positive trajectory?

>> thank you, congressman. this is very much at the center of the agenda last week when we had the finance minister, the trade minister, deputy chairman of the commission in town for a series of meetings, besides the issue and how it is affecting our bilateral economic relationship and how we might be able to address it. i had very good conversations with my counterpart, the trade minister and we have agreed our staffs are closer together to tee up and try to resolve a number of the outstanding issues so that we can have a ministerial level of trade policy for sometime in the future and we want to make sure the that the groundwork is laid in that we are making progress in the run up to that meeting. >> what can we do to help support you in that effort? knowing that this is -- the congressman has talked about having a great conversation to keep the dialogue going.

what else can we do not. >> i think it has been very important for india to understand the breath of concern in the business community, the bipartisan basis of that concern. i think it helps to focus the attention on what needs to be done. if the hearing is from a variety of other sources, i think that is very positive. i encourage you to continue at. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. martin? >> welcome, ambassador. i represent 700,000 people that live and work within 30 minutes of one of the great trade hubs in the united states. trade agreements equal high quality and high paying jobs. it isn't just an equation. it is a direct equation. we are very interested in your

success and we want to let you know that we are more than willing to help in this way. my question is about tpa. it is meant to be a living agreement that could be the basis for free trade areas for the asia pacific. such an area with further integrate the united states into the supply chain that cost the asia pacific region, benefiting our exports and increasing competitive. understanding that now the focus is properly on high standard agreement. however we need to lay the groundwork so the pacific rim countries from latin america to asia that meet the high standards will eventually join an increased value of this. what is the strategy for ensuring that this can happen?

>> thank you, and has we said, our focus is trying to complete this agreement is here with the 12 countries that will be part of it. this has always been introduced as a platform to which other countries a seat if they wish. we have heard expressions of interest formal and informal from another of other countries that are following the progress with great interest to we expect me want to join sometime in the future and our focus for now is just bringing this first set to close. >> mr. chairman, i would like unanimous consent to submit a question for the record concerning our relationship. >> without objection. >> i yield back. >> okay, mr. davis? to thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me add my congratulations. you know, as we have experienced

globally and globalization, there seems to be more and more small and moderate minority owned businesses and we are trying to get them into the pipeline and make use of opportunity to do the business we need to do abroad. how hopeful does your office expect to be to help these individuals make these acts and get movement? >> thank you very much for answering a question. because getting small and medium-sized businesses into the export business has been a major focus of the administration. we would like to do more on that. a couple of years ago ambassador kirk launched an initiative and more probably through the national export initiative we

made increasing the number of businesses a major objective. we went by that reasoning availability of trade finance and working with community banks to bring them in to the trade finance business. and this includes what the government has banned the commerce office around the country to ensure that they were trained and capable and how to begin to export and how to evaluate the market and how to navigate their way to the various procedures that we need to navigate and this has been a major stories of ours in itself. we have a small and medium-sized business chapter and that is to be able to ensure that the

benefits are also going to small and medium-sized businesses and this is a high priority for us. we agree that these are the drivers of jobs in the united states and there is much more we can do to help these companies become part of the global economy. >> thank you very much. we have a great relationship and we look forward to work with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i offer my congratulations. also the hard work on korea the were involved with. i represent upstate new york and we have companies and i am very concerned about making sure that we are enforcing our trade provisions to make sure that we have that level playing field for american manufacturing in

particular. this making sure that enforcing this is something that protects american jobs and is good for american jobs. >> when it comes to intellectual property and trade secrets, would you agree with me that being able to point is critical in negotiations in regards to the trade agenda across the world? >> it is certainly of great concern to us and this is one of the sophistication that we have advocated aggressively with china to see if we can help resolve that case. i don't know enough about the criminal logic between that and what we are doing on the trade side other to say that we -underscore this

unacceptable and also the broader message from the chinese leadership that this won't be tolerated and it has to be a critical part of moving forward. >> i appreciate that because that is very important. but obviously, is there anything you would recommend to us from a legislative perspective to champion and put you in the best position to accomplish your job in regard to this initiative? >> well, i would say the following and i mentioned it in my opening statement that my biggest worry of the moment is really about resources. ustr is lean and nimble in highly constrained at the moment for all of the reasons that we know between sequestration, budget cuts, fortunate enough to make hard decisions between one negotiations we can engage in and how this is something that we want to pursue and i am quite concerned that we will manage

our resources to the best of our ability and the best we can to meet her various priorities and i think the ustr is the biggest bang for the buck. and i think that making sure that we are fully resourced to be able to achieve this, but it's very important. >> if there is anything you need from our office, i look forward to working with you. good luck. >> mr. griffin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i want to talk to you about the enforceability and i believe my colleague talked a little bit about this. i believe that you discussed the current arrangement, which is to go through the procedures as opposed to having something in the agreement itself. is that a fair characterization? >> as we seek to negotiate, of

course we are in the midst of negotiation, as we seek to negotiations, we want to make sure that these are fully implemented. many of the disciplines go to further elaborating how countries and commitments are to be implemented. the regulations be based on science, for example, it describes how that science should be applied, what kinds of science there are two apply and how that should be discussed. those underlying commitments to applied science are subject to this. >> correct. the process is laid out in the agreement. not in the agreement that is being negotiated here. >> well, what we have with tpa at the wto on the substance of the commitments and also separate dispute settlements and

the procedural enhancements. >> i look at this and talk about constituents and i'm concerned that there is not enough efficiency in using this wto resolution process as opposed to elevating this and creating a more effective mechanism in the agreement itself. and this is something that i think we should pursue. if there are voices in the administration in the federal government to disagree with me. where these come from? the fda? are they worried about their science being under scrutiny? i mean, the fda has already signed to this space. >> we approach this by trying to

figure out what is most quick way to resolve issues as they arise. that is a little bit what is behind a complicated mechanism that we have proposed. because we think by being able to raise these issues through a process horsing parties come to america will help to expedite the revolution. leveraging this really is a very heavy set of issues and at the same time, we have procedure elements that need to be addressed. >> thank you. mr. mcdermott? >> welcome. >> i don't know if you got promoted or demoted. [laughter] leaving the white house and going over there.

[applause] >> for the last two years as you have worked on this issue of access, it has been central to some of our concerns it seems like the language you're putting is what mr. levin talked about in the white house in terms of trade agreement. the proposal did away with the word guarantee. and i think that that is what poor countries really want. a guarantee of access to medicine within five years of their induction into the united states. we have a lot of negative feedback it first came out. since that time, he said that you are in a period of reflection. where are you at in that process? >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. this is critically important.

we are committed to finding the right balance to strike between protecting innovation and also access to medicine. we are in the process of engaging with our partners to educate them within u.s. law and we took this very seriously. we received a wide range of feedback and we are in the process of how to take this forward with some of the principles that you laid out that strikes a balance. >> is there any language written that we can look at? >> we have not had the text on this issue where we have dialogue with what the principles might look like. >> so the only stable proposal is the one of february or whatever? >> we have briefed the committee here and stakeholders.

>> rett. >> is committee does a lot of things here. but most of them are relevant. to me that we ought to be dealing with gst if we are serious about our relationship with the rest of the world. could you talk about the path we are on for the next two weeks and how this expired? >> yes, gst has much of its development and dynamic to it and also very importantly it helps importers of products who cannot access those products or bring the men and provide them to the american consumer at lower cost. it is also good for development. we welcome the bipartisan bill to renew this and we believe

that that is important. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. i want to turn to the issue of data. one of the most important point is the protection of cross-border dataflow. including globalized companies in any sector. we are transferring sails back to their headquarters and many companies centralize the process. the emergence of the digital trade also depends on the free flow of data across the borders. in both the eu and the united states, data privacy is protected. so in regards to those privacy approaches, how can you assure a robust but protection for

cross-border data flows in the negotiations and the trade and services agreement and also in this. in what ways has this been part of a matter in these negotiations? >> thank you very much. clearly the impact of the digital economy or trade has played an increasing role in all of our trade agreements, has he said. and we have a particular focus on and we are also talking about it with our european colleagues and in the free flow of data that you see and the technology developed in the crowd develops and we want to make sure that these instances are able to structure operations that makes this work. we need is a privacy seriously.

so those are active issues to discuss. we become that dialogue with the eu as well. and this can become an increasing part of the trade agreement going forward. we are having to work with you and get your input as well. >> i appreciate that. i can appreciate the fact that the data must be protected and it's a very important part of this. so at this time there is a really good case model that you could say yes, this is going to work for us? >> i think that it is farthest along in terms of negotiation. i think that we need to demand flexible on how best to raise standards depending on the

partners we are working. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, mr. froman, thank you for being here in the service to our country and we look forward to working with you on the robust or trade agenda. you have a lot on your plate. let me just voice a couple of concerns and i'm happy to welcome us. i appreciate the report on the compliance and further action and we felt that it was important to get the sixth largest economy into a global rules-based trading system. ..

japan's a late entry in tpp negotiations. hate to see us go down the road of allowing them to unilaterally try to exclude certain products from negotiations and i'm sure we'll enjoy your support on that as we move forward as well. but, there's a lot that has to be addressed and as you know

already it's going to be important not only to keep this committee but other members in the congress informed as far as the state of negotiations especially the large new class that has joined the congress recently. two have never been through a trade debate or a trade discussion to try to get them information as well but i would be interested in your perspective on russia and where they are right now with their new-found wto obligations? >> thank you very much and we agree that it's very important to stay focused on insuring that russia implements the commitments it made when it asseeded to the wto and there was four or five areas that we asked them to take action on. they have taken action on a couple of them but a couple of them still remain. i noticed when we were talking about pncr for russia, we underscored the value of bringing them into wto they would be subject to certain disciplines and subject to dispute resolution when they

failed to reach those disciplines. there is case brought against the auto recycling fee with the the wto. we'll join that case. we would prefer for them to make their commitments assiduously but if they don't we'll go to dispute resolution if necessary. with regard to japan it, was very important that japan agree before we let them into the tpp that everything is on the table. there are no up front exclusion. every country has its sensitivities and those will all be subject to negotiation but we have not acceded to any exclusions with regard to japanese agriculture. >> thank you. >> mr. kelly. >> congratulations. on the tpp i'm really interested in this, i know if we will get the economy on back we have to go after the global market, there is no question about that in the district, we're all talking about our districts and how important the ability to sell things across the world to

each of our districts individually but on the tpp though, you've got a heavy, heavy load there and i'm wondering, we talk about this in this sense of urgency because i would just say that sooner of course is better than later and as you see us approaching that, the challenges that you're going to have trying to get there, and i wonder because geopolitically right now i don't think there is more important trade policy than we can get than in that part of the world especially with the influence of china and all the rest of member nations talking to us. so the biggest challenge you see. and thin on top of that what could we do to help you here? is there anything we can do to help you? i'm looking at what you're doing. i don't know how you will get it done as quickly as you want to get it done. i know you said you will work really hard but the biggest challenge that you see? >> well, thank you for underscoring. >> this is a big deal. >> the challenges ahead. this will be a complicated process to bring tpp to a close

as well as these other negotiations that we're working on but there is lot of political will among the countries around the table because they see this as an opportunity to set high standards, to introduce new disciplines, to have a positive impact on the multilateral trading system and i think that mobilized and motivated our trading partners to work with us to resolve these issues. they will be difficult issues at that will require tough tradeoffs by the end of the day to insure we get this done. i will add to what i said to congressman reed, i think our biggest challenge right now is the resource challenge. simply not having, we have open positions we can't fill. we have travel budgets that are constrained we can't send negotiators to all the round we would like to send them to. and we have meritorious enforcement cases we'd like to bring. we don't have the capability of necessarily bringing them all and so i think where you all can help i think in the short run is in trying to insure that we have

the necessary support to get our job done. >> i appreciate what you're doing. i think the closer relationship we have with these countries through economies the better we are as partners also in a world that is constantly now undergoing some changes. china to me, really scares that part of the world. when i've been over there in that talked to those folks, i have a pretty good relationship with south korea. i don't know how if we don't, of course there is a huge lift for us. in that part of the world if we're not biggest player and not the most influential then we're going to lose out. again people look to us to be the leaders. we need to be able to do that. thanks for what you're doing. any way we can help thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. pascrell. >> mr. chairman, thank you. ambassador froman, congratulations on your confirmation. i'm sure those of us, all of us on the ways and means look forward to having a great relationship with you. my other colleagues have mentioned today different policies that would improve our

competitiveness and hand in hand with the trade promotion authority. the legislation on currency manipulation, strong enforcement of our trade laws, trade adjustment assistance just to name a few. i would like to bring your attention to something that we worked on the last two years. bringing jobs home act would provide tax credit for companies that bring jobs back into the united states of america. these are the kinds of policies we need if we are to get the most out of our trading relationships. i want to zero in on the trans-pacific partnership if i may. like to talk about our domestic textile industry. that which is still a live that is. i was glad to learn of your support for this rule during your recent senate confirmation. i want to draw your attention to a bipartisan letter from representatives howard cobell, patrick mchenry and i sent to

you. which was signed by 167 house members including many of my colleagues who sit on this committee. i would like to ask, mr. chairman, unanimous consent to have this letter entered into the record. >> without objection. >> mr. froman, have you reviewed this letter? >> i'm not familiar with the specifics of the letter but i'm happy to discuss it with you. >> the letter supports the inclusion of strong rule of origin language which is really hampered us in other trade agreements. in this case the yarn forward rule. i understand that your negotiating strategy has yarn forward at its center. can you update this committee on your negotiations over the rule of origin? >> well, thank you very much and you are right that we have, we want to very much pursue a policy that addresses both our

domestic manufacturing interests in the textile and apparel sector as well as our other interests and strike the right balance. we think yarn forward at the center of that proposal makes a lot of sense and that's the proposal we're currently negotiating with. with regards to the rules of origin, more generally those are being discussed among our tpp partners and we're looking to make sure that across all sectors we're dealing ourselves into supply chains by making sure the rules of origin support that. having manufacturing and production here in the u.s. is made more attractive bit rules of origin and tpp so that companies can make their decisions in a way that enhances job creation, creates jobs here in the united states. >> so you're willing to work with the industry to find the proper trade tariff reduction arrangement that does allow for a reasonable approach, particularly during the transition period? >> yes.

no, we're very much in touch with stakeholders and obviously with the staff of the committees here as we try to work through these issues of yarn forward and rules of origin more generally. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. becerra. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you for being with us. a couple quick points and then one crucial question. enforcement, more and more that i've watched and been here my sense is that my vote on any trade deal will now hinge on enforcement because i find that a trade deal is a hollow agreement if our trading partner doesn't, or won't play by the rules. and so, the last thing we need is to tell american businesses or american workers that we struck a good deal with a trading partner and find that the other side doesn't follow the rules and we're losing jobs, hemorrhaging jobs and the rest. secondly i hope you will take a deep issue in the whole interest of currency manipulation. on a bipartisan basis more than

230 members of this house, republicans and democrats, sent a letter to the president last month saying, please, please consider language on currency manipulation when it comes to any future trade deal because what we find is that between somewhere between one million, to five million american jobs have been lost, shipped overseas because of currency manipulation by other countries where they artificially depress their currency so they can export more things to us. so i hope you will really take a crucial look at that and let us know that you will be defending the american interests of both work and business. intellectual property, i'm from los angeles. so to me if we can't protect intellectual property, again, enforcement provisions are crucial, we're going to lose some industries that have been net exporters of goods. finally the question to you as i

just mentioned i'm from the los angeles area. the los angeles area because of our two ports, los angeles and long beach port we account for some 10% of all u.s. trade in the u.s. and that's now five years running. we are the largest port in the nation and we are one of the largest ports in the world. lots of folks in los angeles depend on the ports for their jobs. lots of americans throughout the country do as well. i know you have to travel all over the place, all over the world, including the west coast. i would love it if the next time you fine yourself going through los angeles you will give me a chance to introduce you to some of those folks in los angeles who create american jobs, keep american business thriving. and can i ask you if you do have a chance to go to los angeles to speak with the county or perhaps spend time with folks in los angeles? >> absolutely. i would be happy to do that. let me just say on enforcement in particular we very much agree and our view, the administration's view has been it is not enough to negotiate an agreement and to implement it.

you need to make sure that it is being fully enforced as well. that's why we brought 18 enforce happy actions over the course of this term. we brought the first super 301 case or 301 case in 15 years against china for subsidizing unlawfully their wind energy business. we brought the first 421 case on tires. we brought an aggressive agenda the at wto. we're continuing to focus on that including standing up the interagency enforcement center. we're very much alive with your perspective. >> look forward to that. yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. crowley. >> thank you, ambassador. great to have you before our committee. congratulations to you. look forward to working with you, continuing the relationship we've developed over the past few years and thank you for your endeavors and i want to point out a particular, we appreciate the time and the effort that you and the administration have

given and put on the enforcement of trade rules as had been mentioned. as america exports more, we need to be sure foreign barriers to trade are knot erected to prevent the flee flow of american good and services. because it is one thing to have trade but it's another thing to have trade deals that work for us and for our partners. so please keep up that focus on enforcement. i think is paying off. we will continue to do as well. one. major problems for service exporters like those from new york, my hometown, is having to compete with state-owned industries in other countries. what do you envision for the ustr in terms of how you view those enterprises and how do you see these issues coming into play in the deals that are being negotiated right now? japan post comes to mind for one pertains to tpp. >> thank you very much and i very much enjoyed working with you and look forward to doing so

going forward. certainly the role of state-owned enterprises is absolutely critical and that's why in tpp this is one of the areas of new disciplines that we are working to introduce into the agreement to ensure that state-owned enterprises focused on competing with commercial firms or engaging in commercial activity that they play by the same rules and are subject to the same kind of disciplines as private firms and we deal with their inherent subsidies and other inherent advantages in an appropriate way. equally with the bilateral investment treaties. i mentioned progress made last week in terms of china terms of their moving forward wanting to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty with us. we made clear that soes, will be a critical part, looking at seo section will be a critical part of that association. and we're leading with state department to very much engage with them on that.

>> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. i want to call on briefly, mr. paulson his referencing to india. i did not sign on to that letter of almost 150 members but that doesn't diminish my interest in the issue. i'm the co-chair of the india caucus here in the house and i am concerned about that level. you talked about in terms of maybe the unprecedented nature of the coming together of u.s. industries and the concern for their opportunity or diminished opportunities within india and appreciate your response as well and look forward to working with you and administration working on a positive growth agenda with the two nations. i do view india and the u.s., it is probably our most important ally in this century and we have to get this right. so thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this committee meeting today. >> thank you. mr. larsen and then mr. smith. mr. larsen is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for conducting this hearing. ambassador, welcome, and thank you for your outstanding service

to the nation. i want to thank you for your testimony today and i wanted to follow up and echo on the comments of my colleague, eric paulson. over the last few months i've become concerned on what we've heard regarding the environment for american businesses operating in india. whether it be patent violations and compulsory licensing in the pharmaceutical industries, piracy within the software and film industries, local content rules and in the technology sector or forced localization in green tech industries, the news coming out of india has not been good for american innovators. these challenges of our great concern to me because of what they mean for american businesses and american workers. america is at the heart of the nations of innovators and millions of american jobs

including thousands in my state of connecticut rely on this very important innovation. i know that both you and the president get it. and i appreciate the fact that you have stated recently at the u.s.-india business council that we must begin to address these challenges. could you please expand on those recent comments and detail for the committee what specific steps you will take over the next year to combat the increasing challenges that mr. paulson and myself outlined. >> well, thank you. and to build on what congressman crowley also said this is a very important relationship and we should, we shouldn't ignore the fact that our economic relationship has developed significantly over the last few years that there are vast areas of good cooperation. defense sector, counterterrorism and a number of other areas. it's a strong relationship. i think the frustration we're all hearing from the business

community and others is that this relationship is not nearly achieving its potential precisely because of the policies that you identified. and that's the message we conveyed to our indian government counterparts last week both from ourselves but also from the american business community and the american business community that it is interested in india, that wants india to succeed and wants to invest there. our hope is through these dialogues and including the trade policy forum, other high level dialogues, enconcluding at the vice president will be going there, i believe next week and will be conveying similar messages that we can help the indian government move towards addressing some of these concerns. we have seen movement this week. we lived some caps on certain sectors so they have taken some steps but the key for them is to convey india a place people want to do business and people can rely on to do business and that

is in our mutual interest. we look very much working through all these mechanisms to address these issues. >> thank you. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, ambassador, for your presence here today. i want to add emphasis some. issues and colleagues talking about sps and how important it is most specifically obviously to agriculture. we know there's more to u.s. pork sent to a central american country of 7.7 million population compared to the 28 european countries that make up 500 million population. i think that there needs to be some dispute resolution contained in the agreements moving forward and can you, i guess respond to that and add anything you might have had to say previously? >> well, great. thank you. and we agree that agricultural

opportunities for export are significant. we're exporting at an all-time high now but there is much more we can do and that is a essential part of ttp and t tip as well. i will say with regard to ttip we worked closely with our european colleagues before negotiations the importance resolving many so of these sps issues and work with them resolving other disputes, lactic acid, life swine and variety of other areas. we've underscored that will be important moving forward to address these outstanding issues. on the issue of dispute resolution itself, as i mentioned, most of what we're seeking in tpp is, what we call the sps plus chapter. the underlying disciplines are subject to dispute resolution either in the wto or under the consultative mechanism we're proposing in nttp. we think that is the appropriate way of moving forward to insure there are efficient ways as

issues arise on getting them resolved on an expedited basis of the we very much agree this is critical area of our trade. this is a critical area of our negotiations. we want to make sure we have mechanisms that they are fully implemented. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, miss sanchez is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ambassador froman, congratulations on your confirmation and thank you for being here to discuss the administration's trade agenda. you're obviously stepping into the u.s. trade representative as a very exciting time. the administration is negotiating agreements with the european union, the pacific rim countries and working on a new international services agreement. we also have the issue of congressional action on trade promotion authority, or fast track authority and the expiring generalized system of preferences program and hopefully tougher trade enforcement rules.

i guess the main point that i want to express to you is that in the past i've been highly critical of past u.s. trade representatives because all too often i think that our trade deals that are negotiated are unfair to american workers and that they erode our u.s. manufacturing base. so i just want to share with you a few of the priorities that i think we should keep in mind as you continue your work in that office. first of all, transit and customs enforcement to create a level playing field for american industries is something i'm very interested in seeing. aggressively trying to crack down on currency manipulators. one of my colleagues mentioned that results in huge job losses for american businesses. insuring high levels of labor and environmental standards in our trade negotiations and specifically trying to build on the bipartisan may 10th agreement and also promoting

u.s. manufacturing and opening up access to foreign markets. so i look forward to hopefully working with you and my colleagues to assure that our trade agenda keeps in mind those priorities. you've been asked questions about aggressively cracking down on antidumping and countervailing duty violators that is an area that i'm pleased to see progress on with this administration but i think we can be doing more there. so i'm going to ask you a question, specifically about the trans-pacific partnership because i do have some concerns there. clearly japan's late entry into the trans-pacific partnership has created concerns for us as u.s. automotive industry. and for instance, the japanese automotive countries control more than 94% of the domestic japanese market, making japan one of the most closed auto markets in the world. and that's despite the fact that the japanese auto tariffs are at

zero percent. so with the tpp negotiations, how does the ustr hope to effectively address japanese non-tariff barriers? >> thank you very much. obviously japan's auto sector has been an area of concern for, as ranking member levin said, for decade and it is still very much a concern today and that's why prior to allowing japan to come into tpp we insisted on negotiating certain up front commitments in terms of reduction of tariffs in the u.s. and in terms of access to their market, more than doubling of the php program which provide for expedited entry of imports into the japan but also, agreed on the terms of reference for a specific parallel negotiation on the auto sector that will be part of t bp. it will be binding, will be subject to dispute resolution. those negotiations are focused directly at those nontariff

barriers that you mentioned. we're looking forward to working with the auto industry here and auto workers here to get a best, our best understanding of their priorities for that negotiation this is a high priority for us and we want to mick sure we achieve concrete results through this negotiation. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. shock. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, ambassador. we're all excited you're in your new post and confident we'll do even more on trade in the coming years with you at the helm. i want to bring up two specific concerns that i've had. one of them that i brought up repeatedly to the previous trade ambassador, in my opinion really haven't gotten a clear answer on, u.s. biologics is an important industry in our country. from my home state of illinois we have several big pharmaceutical companies based there. current u.s. law basically guaranties them 12 years to be able to recapture their investment in u.s. biologic medicines and pharmaceuticals.

on several occasions the administration in its budget and we've heard in some of the discussions has opened the door if you will on the potential to roll back 12 years protection to perhaps a seven-year protection as was put in the president's budget. obviously that concerns that industry. certainly concerns me as their representative. if we're going to change current u.s. law which protects them up to 12 years to seven years, which would be, you know, about more than a 50% reduction in how many years they can recapture their earnings, or their investment, can we get some answer from you, whether or not that is still a position the administration holds or is the administration's position going forward that they're going to negotiate trade agreements like they did in korea, in t purchase p that upholds current u.s. law, i.e., the 12 years? >> well, thank you. >> let me just, why the

non-clarity? words, unless you're adamant you're going to seven years, all this is doing is creating uncertainty within the pharmaceutical industry and making them not want to invest. if we stick to current law which is what we did with korea and moving forward, and it is current u.s. law i don't know how we agree to a trade agreement that is consistent with u.s. law. let's just say that and we remove the doubt an we can move on to other important things? >> thank you for that. obviously this is an very important issue obviously protecting innovation in the u.s. which is a high priority. we're currently engaged with our tpp partners in discussing how u.s. law works. the distinction between small molecules and biologics, the time frames that are in u.s. law for each and beginning that process of consultation with them about why u.s. law breaks the way it does. we've not tabled text yet in this particular area but we're in the process of socializing

the issues around current u.s. law with our trading partners and obviously this will be subject to negotiation but for, at the current time our focus is on educating our trading partners as to what's in u.s. law, why it operates the way it does and how it operates. >> do you believe you can negotiate a free-trade agreement and agree with text that is inconsistent with current u.s. law? >> well, think what we need to do is achieve the highest level of protection possible for our innovative industries and, and the first step in that process is educating our trading partners about what's in u.s. law and why it operates the way it does. >> thank you. thank you very much, ambassador problem nan, with your -- froman with your testimony and with that this hear something adjourned. >> thank you.

>> jackie was raised as her mother was raised. she was the same kind of wife and hostess. the home, the children, entertaining with style and panache. that was her heritage and she did it again in the white house, right after her administration, during the johnson years, the whole world erupted like volcanoes. we had the women who went to work and got divorces and demanded equal rights. we had flower children and we had free love and free sex. boy, oh, boy, was great for the young. i missed all that. [laughter] but the whole world changed. and it became a whole new concept of women. and i think mrs. clinton today represents the new woman. . .

>> welcome to the communicators. we want to introduce you to the ceo and founder as aerial productions. >> guest: we think about it as a new way of how to view television in the future. it is an online platform which is addressed to consumers and people can get