Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  April 7, 2014 10:30am-12:31pm EDT

10:30 am
negotiation and, ultimately, what procedures congress will use to approve or disapprove any trade agreement we bring back. and we very much think that having that authority over time helps open markets and increase exports which helps drive job creation here in the united states. >> i appreciate that. and you and i have previously discussed this. it's very important for congress and particularly this committee to know the details of negotiations so that we can consult in a meaningful way. and we can provide our guidance and views to the administration as we move forward. because consultation without the appropriate information really cannot with consultation. our level of access to information with the prior administration's -- with prior administrations halls always been complete and thorough. do you commit to providing us the most updated information including access to all the text in a timely and complete way? >> i do. >> well, thank you very, very much for that. you know, i very much appreciate your tireless efforts on the
10:31 am
hill and meeting with both republicans and democrats to talk about trade and tpa. we do need strong support from the white house and the president, ask as i said in my opening statement, we need to be really all hands on deck. what is the administration doing to build congressional support? >> well, we have a whole-of-government approach to this. as you know, the president talked about this in the state of the union. the vice president has talked about it, they have met with members of the democratic party as well as with the republican leadership on this issue. we've had the chief of staff of the president up here talking about it as well as the secretary of treasury, secretary of commerce, secretary of agriculture, secretary of state, secretary of defense has been writing op eds on the importance of our rebalancing towards asia including tpp as a critical component of that. so we work with all of our interagency partners at the cabinet and white house level on down to build support up here
10:32 am
for our overall trade agenda can. agenda. as you noted, we're all up here a great deal as we've had, as i mentioned, more than 1200 consultations on tpp alone, over 450 of those have been with this committee and its staff. so we're very much involved in making sure that members of congress know what it is we're working on, give us feedback, and we're answering their questions and building support, getting them comfortable with our trade agenda so that we can move it ahead. >> well, thank you. and with regard to tpp, i'm committed to working with you to complete tpp, and i think, clearly, a robust agreement would have significant benefits for the u.s. economy, support job creation and better paying jobs. but i'm concerned that japan is significantly holding up progress on tpp. and while japan has been helpful in many of the rules areas, the limit of the inclusion of a significant number of agricultural products from the scope of tpp has become a
10:33 am
serious impediment, and japan stands as contrary to the commitment, frankly, that japan made when it joined tpp to put all issues on the table. it's also giving countries like canada an excuse not to meaningfully open up their markets. so adequately addressing our bilateral auto issues with japan is critical for my support. and if a country is not ready to make the commitments to join t prks p as an ambitious high standards agreement, then in my view, we should complete tpp without that country and allow it to join later if and when it's ready to make the necessary commitments. but first, what's your strategy for insuring that japan adequately opens up its agricultural and auto markets, and do you agree that the country should not be in tpp if it can't make sufficiently ambitious commitments? and el, mr. chairman -- well, mr. chairman, at this juncture in the negotiation, all eyes are on japan. not just the u.s., but all of the tpp countries are focused and are looking at japan to make sure that they provide
10:34 am
comprehensive access to their market, both the agricultural side and other parking lots of its market. and we're reminding japan what it and all tpp members agreed to when they joined tpp, that this is intended to be a high-standard, ambitious, comprehensive agreement. we can't have one country feeling entitled to take off the table and exclude vast areas of market access while the other countries are all putting on the table more ambitious offers. japan's not the only country that has sensitivities. we all have sensitivity, and we're working together to create an ambitious agreement in that context. we're also reminding japan of the benefits of a successful tpp agreement and what that can bring to its economy, particularly at this critical time in its economic recovery. how its future prosperity could be tied to the structural reforms that tpp can help incentivize. and how completing tpp can help enhance its leadership role in the asia-pacific region. we're well aware of the political sensitivities that somewhere pan has on a number of -- japan has on a number of
10:35 am
issues. this isn't an issue of us being more flexible. we're being plenty creative in coming up with ways to insure comprehensive market access to japan that addresses sensibilities as well. it's time for japan to step up to the plate. and as i said, that's the view of all the tpp countries. we're pressing them on the automotive front as you suggested, we had agreements before they came into tpp on tariffs and on access to their market and sort of expedited approval of our imports into their market, but we have a series of other issues dealing with their financial incentives, their standards, their distribution, the transparency of the regulatory process that we're pursuing at a parallel negotiation. we're making some progress in that, but the gaps still remain both on the agricultural side and on the auto side. and we're very much focused on trying to bridge those gaps. ultimately, it's japan's decision as it looks to its own future as to whether it's prepared to take the bold steps necessary to be part of this ground breaking agreementment
10:36 am
and let me assure you, we are remaining very focused on assuring they open their agricultural markets and automotive markets in meaningful and substantive ways consistent with the high ambition of tpp. >> well, thank you. and i've raised with you before the pressing need to include currency disciplines in tpp, and are you considering including provisions on currency in the agreement, and what would those provisions look like, and what factors should be taken into account in determining the u.s. position? >> well, currency is a serious issue, and we certainly have heard from members up here, and it's a serious issue for the administration itself. the treasury department, of course, has the lead on this issue for the administration, but from the president to the secretary of treasury to the rest of the administration, it has been a high priority from day one to press our trading partners to move towards more market-oriented exchange rates. for example, with china whether it's through the imf or the g20 or where appropriate with other countries through the g7, we
10:37 am
have been pressing countries towards market liberalization and market-determined exchange rates. with china we've had, we've made some progress. in june 2010 they began to liberalize their exchange rate again, and it has moved 18% in real terms since then. not far enough, it's not fast enough. we need to continue to press them at every occasion as we do. and we are continuing to consult the secretary of the treasury, myself, we're consulting with members of congress, with stakeholders to determine how best to address the underlying issue. >> all right, thank you. mr. levin. >> thank you. mr. chairman, you raised japan, and i think it illustrates the work yet to be done. i think it illustrates the need for continuing and major congressional involvement. it's often said that congress
10:38 am
sets the terms of negotiations, and that's been done in tpa. there is no tpa. tpp is in the middle of its negotiations, and i think that means that there has to be a way found to be sure that this congress, this committee and broader are deeply involved in the negotiations, this the discussions. i think that's the only way an agreement can be passed here, and i think our involvement will send a signal to our trading competitors and those we're negotiating with that as you proceed, there will be support from this congress. it's only that intimate relationship between the congress and the administration that will really work here. and i think japan is a good
10:39 am
example, because -- and we've talked about this -- much of the work remains to be done. what was agreed to was kind of conceptual. japan, this is the first one-on-one negotiation the u.s. has had with a country the size of japan. and it has the most closed market in the automotive sector of any country surely of its size. and the same is true of agriculture. so let me just ask you, and you raised, mr. chairman, currency. that's another example of why there needs to be the most active involvement of congress in these discussions. so far currency hasn't really been put put on the table, and there's a letter from the clear majority of senators insisting that this be addressed as well
10:40 am
as a letter are a majority of members of the house. so let me cite another example, vietnam. a command economy, we've had difficulty enforcing our trade agreements. i'd just say a few words about how you think it's possible to work out an agreement with a very closed, what has been a closed economy in terms of its basic markets as well as its labor markets. and be sure before we were asked to act that there would be very effective change with vietnam to make their commitments real. if you would comment on that. >> well, thank you, congressman levin. you know, with regard to vietnam, and this is true of the other countries too, but you
10:41 am
pointed out correctly that vietnam poses particular challenges within tpp given the level of its development, the structure of its economy. we have made clear throughout the negotiations and before vietnam joined tpp the kinds of standard that we would be expecting through tpp and the kind of changes and reforms that would be necessary to bring them into conformity with those standards. so, for example, on state-owned enterprises which play a significant role this the vietnamese economy, we have been working with them on a path towards them reforming their soe consistent with the obligations that we're negotiating in tpp. and the same is true on labor issues and on environmental issues. they see tpp as a potential mechanism for helping to support what they have determined is their own domestic reform agenda. >> and changes would be in place before the final negotiation or at least before we were asked to act? >> well, i think in each of
10:42 am
these cases we have to work through what the stages of the changes are and how it relates to when we submit it to congress for approval, when it goes into force, etc. vietnam is not going to transform be itself overnight, but we need to make sure we've got mechanisms for assuring that they meet their obligations consistent with the standards of the agreement. be. >> thank you. >> all right. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate youing with here. you know -- appreciate you being here. you know, the expansion of information technology to include additional products would have significant benefit for u.s. manufacturers and consumers. by one estimate, updating the ita would reduce global gdp by $190 billion and increase u.s. exports by three billion, creating 60,000 american jobs. ita expansion has strong bipartisan support in congress, and i hope you will continue to
10:43 am
press for a robust and ambitious agreement as soon as possible. i'm a little frustrated by china's refusal to engage productively in these negotiations, and i understand the top priority this year for u.s. high-tech companies including the semiconductor industry is the resumption and successful conclusion of an ita expansion negotiation. what opportunity do you see to move that agreement forward this year? >> well, thank you, congressman johnson. and, first of all, we agree completely with your assessment of the importance of the information technology agreement and the implications for the u.s. economy and share the frustration that you expressed about the position of china in the negotiations. we've got countries around the table representing about 90% of the global market for information technology products, and the other countries around the table have put on the table pretty ambitious offers in terms of opening their markets.
10:44 am
china's offer did not meet that standard and, as a result, it wasn't just the u.s., it was the u.s., e.u., japan and the rest of countries around the table decided to suspend negotiations until china would return to the table with a more appropriate offer. we have together made proposals to china to try and get them back to the table with what we think is a reasonable path forward. they have et yet to respond positively to that, and we continue to raise this at every one of our high-level meetings, again, from the most senior leadership to the joint committee on commerce and trade meeting that we had in december, secretary pritzker and i cochaired with our counterpart in china, and we will continue to try to get them back to the table so that we can complete that agreement. >> do you anticipate them talking to us? do you? >> well -- >> do you think china will talk to us? >> we certainly hope so. we have a lot op our agenda with china, but we've made clear that their constructive engagement in
10:45 am
ita is one of our highest priorities and is a litmus test for other negotiations. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. rangel. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome once again, ambassador. i join with those people that congratulate you for your tenacity and the ability to bring people together. if you can bring republicans and democrats together on this bill, that would be fantastic. when you say trade to a lot of americans, it means jobs. throughout your testimony you talk about not only creating jobs through exports, but providing incentives for manufacturing. many people, including those in the congress, believes that trade means we're losing jobs.
10:46 am
so it seems to me that in an agreement, an international agreement, everyone should walk away from the table believing that they did the best they could for their country. my question to you is, do you have any idea as to geographically or industry wide or service wide where these new jobs are going to be created, and since we also have to deal with the retraining of workers that lose their job as results of trade, could you give us some ideas of the areas that we expect to lose jobs as a result of this agreement? >> well, let me start by saying
10:47 am
that, as you say, increasing exports supports more jobs here in the u.s. but these trade agreements are also a key part of driving investments in manufacturing and other sectors in the u.s. i've been visited by several pezs, particularly from europe -- businesses, particularly from europe, who have come and said the u.s. is a great market. you've got the rule of law. you're entrepreneurial. you have a skilled work force. now you have acone cant sources of -- abundant sources of clean, renewable energy which are giving the united states an advantage. when you complete these trade agreements, the u.s. will have free trade, we'll have unfettered access to two-thirds of the global economy. that makes the u.s. the production platform of choice. it makes the u.s. the place where manufacturers want to put their next investment and produce stuff not just for this market, but to send to asia, to latin america, the europe. and so part of our trade policy
10:48 am
is also to make the u.s. an even more attractive lace to locate businesses -- place to locate businesses, to manufacture, to use as an export platform for the rest of the country, and we do that by how we use rules of origin, etc., to really drive manufacturing here. our market, as you know, is already quite open. our average applied tariff is 1.3%. we don't use regulations as a disguise barrier to trade. we don't discriminate against formers through our regulations. but that's not through around the -- true around the world. we have a lot of major markets that have higher tariffs and use nonner rave bier year -- tariff barriers to keep out our products. so the purpose is to lower those disproportionately so we can ip in essex ports from here. the question is whether our firms will have access to theirs. qualify specific data for you on which industries here or there will gain or lose, but we can
10:49 am
certainly work on that with you as we conclude the agreement. i think your point, though, underscores that we need to headache sure we are providing our workers with the support that they need and the skills they need to transition as necessary, and that's one reason why in the president's budget we have of a comprehensive worker retraining program and why we think it's important that the trade adjustment assistance be renewed as well. >> it's my understanding that the trade union leaders or representatives are in some way involved not in direct negotiations, but say as observers. have they shared any of the things that you just said in terms of the dramatic increase in exports and, therefore, the increase in jobs so that they can increase their membership? >> well, labor is a critical group of stakeholders for us in these negotiations. we have labor advisory committee
10:50 am
where 23 union presidents serve on that advisory committee, four of them serve on the president's advisory committee on trade policy negotiations, and as i mentioned in my testimony, we're now inviting applications for the other industry trade advisory committees. and they've had tremendous input from the beginning not only on the labor chapter, but on other chapters. state-owned enterprise chapter, rules of origin, market access issues. and we're still in the midst of negotiating many of those issues, but we have tried very hard to take into serious consideration and to negotiate successfully on the behalf of those issues. >> all right. thank you, time's expired. >> thank you. >> mr. nunez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, welcome. great to see you again. could you give us a quick update on your negotiations with the solving or dealing with sps issues, specifically dispute resolution in both the tpp and e.u. negotiations? >> well, in the tpp negotiations which are further along, we are negotiating a strong sps
10:51 am
chapter. and we anticipate making sure that that chapter is subject to dispute settlement either at the wto or in tpp itself. >> do you feel comfortable with what where we're -- do you think we're making progress? because several members of this committee and several members of congress have expressed a strong interest in making sure we do have dispute resolution. do you feel -- >> it's not a fully-resolved issue, but i think we're making progress, and we're doing so in a way that insures that our regulatory agencies, the food and drug administration and others, can do what they need to do as necessary this terms of risk assessments and equivalency determinations to implement their mandate or their obligations to provide for food safety and to implement the food safety modernization act. >> and i know if there's anything that we can do to ease this process here in the united states to make it easier for you to negotiate, we're willing to help. so we'll make ourselves
10:52 am
available. the status of the president's proposal for consolidating our trade agencies, there's quite a bit of concern over this of, you know, moving ustr under some secretary level. we've had this longstanding arrangement with ustr. it's worked very well. can you update us on the president's proposal? >> well, i think any such reorganization requires reorganization authority to be granted to the president by congress, and obviously, that would require a great deal of consultation and coordination with congress in terms of how to the proceed. >> i know you know that would be quite controversial, i think, for many of us here in the congress. but appreciate your keeping us updated on it. just briefly, the dispute with brazil, could you talk to us about where that's at? >> well, with the passage of the farm bill, the brazilian government, as i understand it, is assessing what was done in
10:53 am
the farm bill on cotton to determine whether they believe that meets our obligations under the wto okays. we're in dialogue -- case. we're in dialogue with them now to see whether we can settle the case based on the changes in the farm bill or whether they are going to seek a compliance proceeding at the wto, and those discussions are ongoing. >> and as you know, i think those of us in congress that worked on the farm bill specifically with the cotton provision, we do feel like it does meet wto so, hopefully, our brazilian friends put this to bed so that we can move on with our relationship with the brazilians. just briefly on ukraine and as it relates to lng exports from the united states, we're going the hold a hearing next week on this issue. have you put much effort into, you know, looking at the long-term fundamentals of having a strong export policy as it relates to lng? >> well, there's nothing
10:54 am
specifically that we're currently doing in ttip or tpp that directly bears on the export of natural gas. that's governed by, as you know, the natural gas act which determines how the department of energy should make its findings with regard to public interest for free trade countries and non-free trade countries. >> thank you. we'll have a hearing next week, and we'll be glad to share some of that information that we glean from the hearing, and i just want to thank you for your continued efforts to keep the congress informed, and i hope that -- we've had a great working relationship, and i hope that that continues. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. mcdermott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add to my voice to those who will miss you. mr. froman, it's good to see you. and as you know, there's -- five minutes isn't very much time to talk about a lot of issues. i could talk about rebarb dumping in the united states out of mexico and a few other things that might be interesting, but i
10:55 am
want to focus on agriculture. white noodles in asia, the host highly-prized white -- most highly-prized white noodles are made from white wheat that grows in washington and oregon and is shipped through the northwest ports. the it's been going on through the '30s. the canes co-owned by cargil and chs have employed long shoremen for 30 years under a union agreement. and recently two japanese company, conglomerates have come in, bought the places, are now operating in and oregon and have demanded a concessionary agreement from the labor unions. now, at the same time, cargill and chs have been negotiating, and they came up with an agreement that was approved by 75% of the union members. the japanese con conglomerates, their concessionary agreement
10:56 am
that they forced on the people was rejected by 95% of the people in the, in these unions. and it seems to me that when companies are coming in too old business our labor unions and they are now demanding concessionary agreements and have locked the members out, they're running with scab labor and with their administrative people. that's how they're running the granaries. it seems like a strange time for them to want to come and negotiate labor agreements in a tpp. and i understand that ustr has been working with the japanese on this issue, and i would like if you could give us some idea of what the status is of the resolution of this kind of issue. because it's a pr problem for them to come in to do union wassing at the same time
10:57 am
they're -- busting at the same time they're talking about negotiating a trade agreement. >> well, thank you, congressman mcdermott, and thank you for raising this earlier. i think last year you and and some other members of the washington delegation raised this, and we engaged with the government of japan on this issue, head it clear exactly the point that you made, that it was important for in this issue to get resolved. my understanding is that it has not yet been resolved, and we're encouraging the parties to come together and get it resolved as a labor management issue. but we're going to continue to monitor that. >> do you see that as being an impediment to getting the votes in the congress if these kinds of issues are out there? i mean, we've already heard from the chairman talking about automobiles, and then you're talking about the docks where you've got dock workers. is -- how are you going to get around that in your negotiations?
10:58 am
>> well, i think we'll make clear to our trading partners on a number of the issues that members of congress have that making progress on those issues, resolving those issues is part of creating the environment this which this agreement is going to be considered and considered favorably. and so it certainly contributes to the overall atmosphere around this agreement. >> i have a major steel plant. people think of washington state, and they think of boeing and starbucks and microsoft. that is not all of washington. there are our major export is agricultural goods, but i've actually got a steel plant right in the middle of seattle that makes the best rebar, the cleanest rebar plant in the whole world, i thinkment -- i think. but they are being flooded by mexican rebar. what kind of -- or at least they feel they are. what kind of situation do you have? because the pension cans are in this as well -- mexicans are in this as well as the japanese. you know, the problems you have are all over the place.
10:59 am
>> my understanding is on steel issues and the rebar issues that there are cases that are working their way through or pending at the department of commerce and the itc as part of our trade remedies laws, antidumping and countervailing duty cases. those are quasiadjudicatory processes run by the commerce department and the be itc. it's something we're monitoring, but we're not directly involved because there are quasiadjudicatory and under the territory of the commerce department and itc. but we will monitor that. >> another time i'll talk to you about drug prices. >> happy to. >> glad to see you here. >> thank you. >> all right, mr. brady. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. trade is economic freedom, it's the ability to buy and sell around the world with as little government interference as possible, and what it means is when mom walks into a grocery store or that college student goes online, the choices they see and the prices they pay are determined by them rather than some government somewhere.
11:00 am
and so the work you're doing, ambassador, is just critical and results not just in new jobs here in america, but in new choices and families being able to stretch their pocketbook farther. so this has a real impact on our families. that's why i hope our trading partners understand this congress is pro-trade. we support an aggressive trade agenda, and the work that you're doing in asia-pacific, in europe, in international services and facilitation technology are exactly what we think are important to get this economy going. and you've got a great team behind you. so i want to commend you just for your overall approach. i think it's exactly the right tone, exactly the right substance at exactly the right time, especially in a world whose economy is, frankly, struggling a bit. and you can play a role in doing that. so i want to ask you about asia-pacific region. you know, by some estimates 80% of all the new economic growth in the world will occur in the
11:01 am
asia-pacific region. we want to be as americans where those new customers are at. the trans-pacific partnership is really a 23st century -- 21st century trade agreement unlike others this the past and, i think, will have tremendous value. so what's your strategy? i know the goal has been to complete that by the end of the year. you know, what do you see -- what is your strategy toward that end? what are some of the challenges that you face in trying to close that out in a timely way? >> well, thank you, and thank you for your support and for the support of my team, congressman braidty. brady. as you said, tpp and this region so critically important to our economy here. right now there are 500 million middle class consumers in asia-pacific region. that number is expected to grow to 2.7 billion between now and 2030. and the question is, who's going to serve that market? >> yeah. >> are they going to be buying
11:02 am
american goods and taking american services? or are they going to be getting their goods and services provided by somebody else? what are going to be the rules defining trade in the region? are they going to be the high standards that we're pressing for on labor and environment, on intellectual property rights? are there going to be disciplines around state-owned enterprise so that there's a leveling playing field with private companies, or we be taking the digital economy into the future and making sure the internet is free, that we avoid restrictions on the flow of information? that's what's at stake with tpp because we're not the only party out there. there are other parties with very different versions and visions of trade who are also out there negotiating 2k3wr50e789s. and if we sit on the sidelines and don't fulfill our leadership role, others will help define it for us, and that will put our workers and firms at a disadvantage. we're well down the road in tease negotiations. we are in the end game.
11:03 am
we have a reasonable number of outstanding issues of rules and we have some critical outstanding issues on access. as the chairman talked about earlier, the critical issue right now is japan, market access on agriculture and on autoings. it's then bringing canada to the table because i think canada is waiting to see if, what happens with japan. >> yeah. >> once the market access piece falls into place and all the other countries are waiting for japan to play its appropriate role in this negotiation, once the market access piece falls into place, we expect to be able to resolve the other issues around a the rules. the difficult issues that are left, there's a reasonable number of them. our negotiators are working around the clock here andaround the world to narrow those differences and close them out. >> well, i'd like to ceja pan included in this, but we've got to hit the standards that we're insisting among all our trading partners. do you expect to be able to complete in this year? >> oh, very much so.
11:04 am
we're focused on, as i said, working around the clock to get this done as soon as possible. >> and, obviously, we appreciate the work, bipartisan way we continue to build support for the trade priorities act so that we can really direct the white house toward our negotiating objectives, make sure there's strong consultation, and we can assure others of a timely up and down vote. i think that's critical as well. so thank you, ambassador, for the work you're doing. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. lewis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. will ambassador, welcome. thank you for all your good and great work, and thank you forking here today. you know, mr. ambassador, in our own country we believe in certain basic rights, certain basic freedoms. freedom of the press, freedom of
11:05 am
assembly, freedom of worship, open and free elections. you said a moment or so ago in your statement that a trade policy should be a reflection of our values. how do you square this with a country like vietnam? several people from my district came here to washington last week, vietnamese-americans, who fled vietnam because of communism, because of suppression. and they asked, and they're raising the question how can we trade with vietnam? how can we do it? >> well, mr.-- >> or with china? >> and we very much -- >> and vietnam has such a strong relationship with china. how can we go down this road? how can we get in bed with them? >> well, through our negotiation with them we are working to address some of the issues that
11:06 am
you mentioned. for example, on labor rights cans a key issue in vietnam. we want to make sure that there's a meaningful right the association, a meaningful right to collective bargaining, meaningful disciplines on forced labor, child labor, meaningful disciplines and commitments on acceptable conditions of work, all consistent with the ilo standards and a work program that can achieve that objective. in all of our meetings with the seat that please government from president on down, when the president met with the president and prime minister of vietnam all the way on down, human rights are very much part of our agenda. and we talk about the importance not only of what we're doing in the agreement on labor rights, but also the importance of vietnam making progress on outstanding human rights issues as being an important part of creating the environment in which there would be support for this agreement. also when you look at the agreement more generally, if you lack at what we're trying to do on the -- look at what we're trying to do with the internet about the free flow of
11:07 am
information, that, too, is supportive of some of those values, about freedom of speech. making sure that people have access to information, that government withs are not putting restrictions around the internet. so it's not that we can transform a country completely or solve every problem through a trade agreement, but through the trade agreement we can engage in such a way as to make meaningful progress on these sorts of issues beyond the status quo. i think the question is you take a cup like vietnam which has well known challenges, what's the best way, the most effective way of improving the situation there for workers, for minorities, for people who want to worship? and our view is engagement with them through this trade negotiation is the most effective way of making progress on those issues. >> all right. do you have any assurance that five years there now, ten years from now that we're going to see radical changes in vietnam? people receiving starvation
11:08 am
wages there? >> well, that's exactly why, for example, in the labor chapter creating some fundamental labor standards about right of association, right to collective bargain, restrictions on forced and child labor, decent conditions of work, that's one reason -- and having those be enforceable, having them be binding and enforceable and our ability to continue and over time insure that those are upheld is a central part of what we're trying to negotiate. i, too, met with a group of vietnamese emigres as well as human rights activists around vietnam before i went to vietnam last time precisely to to make sure we understood what their priorities were, and we're working with the state department, the state department is having a human rights dialogue, i believe, next month with vietnam as part of our ongoing engagement with them, as part of tpp and our overall engagement to try and address these issues. so it is high on our agenda, and we think it's very important that vietnam make progress on
11:09 am
these issues as part of our ongoing engagement with them. >> mr. ambassador, let me just ask you this last question. do you believe it's fair to keep the text of this important, historic negotiation hidden from the american people? >> well, we are always looking for ways to improve the transparency and the input that we get from stakeholder, from congress and from the american public. you know, i would say first and foremost, we engage with congress, and congress is the people's representatives we look to, and particularly in our committees of jurisdiction to provide input on every proposal we table. and to give us feedback throughout that process. we have a group of cleared advisers that represent not just different businesses, but every major labor union, environmental groups, consumer groups. and as i mentioned in my testimony, we're launching a new advisory committee to be able to bring this other public interest up intos into the process. we want to make sure we've got their input.
11:10 am
we've exapartmented with putting out -- experimented with putting out to the public summaries of our ttpi objectives to try and be as transparent as possible while at the same time insuring we can negotiate the best deal for the american people. >> all right, thank you. time's expired. >> thank you for being here, ambassador. japan's unwillingness to meaningfully open up its market to agriculture products like pork, beef, dairy as well as processed products containing these products, i believe, is unacceptable. i met with a group of farmers, p producers there my district in ohio yesterday, and they're very concerned about this particularrish shaw. issue. as you know, the united states has sought in past trade negotiations liberalization with respect to agriculture products. this is true for agreements with both developed and developing
11:11 am
countries. so if japan's allowed to continue to remove entire categories like agriculture products from liberalization, i know the agriculture sector's pork producers in particular support for tpp will be jeopardized. so as you continue down this road in negotiating with the japanese, will you commit to us today not to allow the japanese to exclude agriculture markets from the tpp? >> yes. i mean, our goal in tpp and the goal when it joined tpp is exactly what it said, which is comprehensive market access. and that's exactly what we're going to achieve. we're working to achieve in this negotiation. it is a difficult negotiation. they have not yet come to the table with a position that allows us to privilege our remaining gaps on a series of commodity issues. not just pork, but other issues
11:12 am
as well. but we are continuing to press them with the goal of achieving come prehenceoff market access, and we agree there shouldn't be exclusions of commodity groups from this agreement. >> and don't you agree that if you exclude a thurm of things in this agreement -- a number of things in this agreement that that just sets us up for further exclusions down the road in other agreements? and well, we think the tpp was intended to be a high standard agreement, a 21st century agreement, that's the condition under which all 12 of us joined the negotiation, and we think it's important that japan come to the table to achieve that objective, absolutely. >> so i can tell the pork producers this ohio that you're committed to not rowing exclusions -- not allowing exclusions of products like pork, beef -- >> we think everything should be included. that's what a comprehensive agreement is. >> i appreciate that. a number of manufacturers in ohio have told me they've seen a surge in steel coming from
11:13 am
outside the united states. and some of that comes from countries that, obviously, have some government subsidies with respect to their industries, and obviously, department of commerce is involved in this as well. is this something that your office is aware of and sees and is concerned about? >> yes. i mean, it is something we are aware of. i meet with the steel industry on a regular basis as with the steel workers on a regular basis. and it's exactly one of the reasons why in tpp we're trying to get at issues like state-owned enterprises. state-owned enterprises that benefit from subsidies or regulatory forbearance, they may back home have cheap land and cheap energy and all sorts of benefits, and then they compete against our firms on an unfair playing field. and through tpp for the first time, we're creating disciplines to try and level the playing field between state-owned enterprises and private firms.
11:14 am
it's one of the most important, new issuing with dealt with by t,pp. it would affect other industries as well, but the stale industry is -- steel industry is one where there's a lot of state-owned enterprises. >> i'd like to the send you a letter going deep or on this, if you could just be alert to the that. i yield back. >> look toward to it. >> thank you. mr. neil, you're recognized. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to thank you, mr. ambassador, for the work that you've done outside of committee hearings across new england, you've been very helpful with your time, and you've tried really hard to speak to the specific questions understanding there is a footwear industry that's still alive in new england, and we certainly want to keep it that way. one of the biggest issues that surround surround the question of trade agreements, obviously, is enfobs forcement, and there's a suspicion that geopolitics
11:15 am
sometimes gets in the way of enforcement. and i think it's particularly acute when it comes to intellectual property rightings, and clearly i think currency manipulation as it related to china. but let me follow up specifically on something mr. ting iberi said because i think it bears noting, and that is the suspicion that one of our trading partners is in the midst of dumping steel. and we these to be mindful of that as part of then forcement agreements that i spoke of just a couple of moments ago. and i think specifically there is some concern that south korea is illegally preparing to dump into the u.s. market. and i know that the commerce department is considering filing a complaint. and maybe you could bring us up-to-date on that. the last comment i want to make to give you some time just to talk about these issues, when it comes to trade adjustment assistance, there's a hodge
11:16 am
possible of programs -- hodgepodge of programs across the country, and the truth is the jury's kind of out still. some work,some don't work. might i suggest that we adjust more to community colleges? i think that would be the atmosphere which would be more conducive to preparing people for the skill set they're going to need if they're dislocated because of changes that trade may have created. so give you some time on both points. >> okay. well, thank you, mr. neal, and certainly we agree depletely on the -- completely on the importance of enforcement, and we've had a very robust enforcement agenda throughout this administration. we've brought more case toss the wto than ever before, we've doubled the rate on cases against china. we've created the interagency trade enforcement center based at ustr with a lot of support from congress but also from a number of other agencies which has allowed us to put together her complicated, complex cases
11:17 am
to be able to bring to the wto under our trade laws. we think that's vitally important. part of the bargain is we fully enforce the rights we fought so hard for, ask we're always looking for additional cases to bring in putting together the positive cases. the particular anti-dutching or countervailing cases you mentioned are the province of the commerce department, and we're not directly involved in those. we're not involved in those unless they're challenged at the wto, and then we defend our trade laws in front of the wto. but we do monitor issues like steel very closely. on the trade adjustment assistance and worker retraining, we'll certainly take, i'll certainly take those views back to the department of labor and the domestic policy council and others who are involved in this. as you know, the president has a proposal for comprehensive skills development, and we also have the trade adjustment assistance program which expires
11:18 am
in december, and we very much support making sure that american workers have the supportive skills that they need to compete in the global economy. >> thank you. mr. reichert. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. good to see you again. i want to add my compliments as almost every other member has to you and your team for your efforts, and i know they are excruciateing long days. if i could pronounce that, that would be good. i know you are putting forth major effort here. you mentioned your 1200 meetings, and we're, we're reaching out too. just yesterday mr. boustany and i met with some of the ambassadors from six countries represented, representative of the 12 countries that you're negotiating with.
11:19 am
and they have mentioned to us that, you know, the united states has the big pen in this, that was the term that they used over and over, and that they're holding on to the pen with us, and they want to work and be a part of the team. i'm proud to be a member of the export council and have met you there many times along with the president, and at the last meeting the president mentioned to us how much he appreciated our efforts and how much he wanted to work with us. and in that vein, four of us who are cochairs of the friends of tpp sent the president a letter on january 15th of this year. and we have yet to have a response from the president on requesting to meet with him. we feel that we can be helpful because of the meetings that we're holding here with our republican friends and the interaction we have with the other side of the aisle with mr. kind and mr. meeks as
11:20 am
cochairs along with mr. boustany and myself. if you could relay our message to the president, we'd like to see a response to that letter. that would be very helpful. and i especially appreciate your repeated comments about high standards, comprehensive, your strategy you laid out for the year. but i i just want to mention to you how important it is for washington state to get this agreement completed. and i know you see, you know, the whole united states and how important this is. but in my home state there's a recognition that over 40% of jobs are tried to trade and we need high standards trade agreements to grow these jobs. and i though you agree with that that. as a result, i consistently hear from are businesses, local chambers of commerce and farmers in my home state about the need to renew and update tpa, and this is why i support chairman camp's tpa legislation. this is not just the sentiment
11:21 am
in washington state. and recently we've seen polling data showing that american public has become more supportive of a trade agenda that keeps the united states competitive and increases jobs. so is i'm interested in your discussions around the country, are you seeing this recognition of how trade and potential agreements like tpp, ttip can help the united states? are you hearing more and more encouraging words, i'm hoping, from folks across the country as you and your team reach out? >> well, thank you, mr. reichert, thank you for your leadership on the tpp caucus as well. yes. as we travel around and meet with small, medium size businesses and their workers who see the benefit of opening markets, being able to expand their production, expand their exports, grow their work force, we are, we are seeing that. i think it's incumbent on all of us to continuously make case to
11:22 am
the american people about what's at stake and what the potential opportunities are. as i think the chairman said in his remarks, 95% of the world's consumers are outside the united states. 80 of the purchasing power is outside the united states. the growing middle classes that are going to buy made in america products are growing fastest outside the united states. we need to be there. we need to be on the field, opening those markets for our products, making sure that the rules of the game for that system allow us to compete on a level playing field, and that's exactly what we're trying to do through tpp and what we're trying to do through ttip. but we need to be continuously out there and making that case. there's a lot of misinformation out there about trade and trade agreement, and we need to make clear exactly what the benefits of trade are, the benefits of exports and how it relates back to jobs and income here in the united states. >> thank you for your time and your answer and, again, appreciate it if you could pass on the message to the president. we'd like to see a response.
11:23 am
thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. bus terra. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you for being here. mr. chairman, by the way, i think all of us echo the remarks made earlier about your service to our country and to this committee. >> that means a lot from a fellow survivor of the supercommittee. [laughter] >> you're welcome to stay with us if you like, mr. chairman. it's not too late. ambassador, let me -- actually, the chairman hit on the this point, and i'd like to get back to it a little bit. the whole issue of currency. over the last few years, it's been tough on occasion for members in this body to come together and speak with one voice as american legislators versus our particular political philosophies. i think on currency you find that whatever part of this dais, i think a number of us are very concerned about the role currency manipulation has played in making it harder for some of
11:24 am
our businesses to compete, in making it hard for some of our businesses to keep jobs in america and, quite honkly, hard for a -- honestly, hard for a lot of americans who are still unemployed to find another good-paying job. and for many of us the issue of currency manipulation must be addressed because the fact is, if a country can keep its, the value of its currency lower than what it really is, it makes the products it produces look tar more inexpossessive than -- inexpensive than they really are. and if you can take over a market, at some point you're able to lift the value of that product and extract extra dollars from folks. and i think for many of us it would with very important to see currency manipulation addressed moving forward in these agreements we have with our competitors, our foreign competitors whether it's these trade agreements or otherwise really dealing with it. i know that the peterson
11:25 am
institute for international economics has estimated that half of the excess unemployment in the u.s. today is attributable to currency manipulation by our foreign competitors. give us a little bit her of a sense of -- more of a sense of how ustr is doing in trying to get our partners and competitors who we're working these deals out with to abide by currency standards that avoid the manipulation that we see in the markets. >> well, thank you, mr. becerra. first of all, i suppose i should say the treasury is the agency that has the lead on currency issues, but this administration also believes that currency is an issue. and from the very start of the administration, has made clear with countries like china, in its engagement with the g20 where there were agreement by all the g20 including by china to move towards market-oriented exchange rates, through the treasury department's engagement
11:26 am
with the g7 partners to insure that g7 countries abide by the same kind of rules. we have made clear throughout that this is an issue, and we want to make sure that we are moving countries in a positive direction. as i mentioned earlier, taking china as an example, we have made some progress. not enough, not fast enough, not far enough. something that requires continued focus and continued pressure at every opportunity. but we are making progress through the various mechanisms. secretary lew, i know you had an opportunity to see him up here testify recently, had an opportunity to talk to him about this. i think secretary lew and his consulting on this, we're working with the treasury secretary, the treasury department consulting with members up here, with other stakeholders to determine how can we be most effective in addressing the underlying concern? >> and i think you've seen that
11:27 am
the greater the action is in trying to deal with currency manipulation, probably the likelihood of having trade promotion authority passing trade deals rises because there's more confidence in this institution that we'll finally tackle something that is an invidious way to try to get a leg up over the united states of america and its businesses and its workers. it's very interesting because 20 years ago when i got here one of the big issues was dealing with how we treat workers throughout the world, labor. and we always thought of trade deals as dealing only with the capital side of things, of the equation. but now we recognize that you could undermine a trade deal by undercutting labor, the value of work or workers. and can you comment on how you think we're doing with regard to dealing with labor and the environment in these trade deals that are moving forward?
11:28 am
>> well, thank you for making that point pause you're absolutely right -- >> we just have a few seconds, so if you could make it quick. >> sorry. twenty years ago labor and environment were considered to be side issues and not issues of agreement, and now under u.s. leadership in our recent ftas and certainly in ttp and ttip, labor and environment, high standards, fully enforce bl are going to to be absolutely accord to those agreements, and that creates a new global standard. >> all right, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. dr. boustany. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i, too, want to thank you for the tremendous work ustr's been doing under your leadership. mr. ambassador, i firmly believe that the source of america's trent and our capacity to lead -- strength and our capacity to lead internationally is our strong and, hopefully, growing economy and our willingness to engage. and you can argue that our most important export is the fair application of rule of law. and the work you're doing is right at the center of all of that. i want to focus on the investor
11:29 am
state dispute settlement issue. i believe that having a strong investor state dispute mechanism in place is critical to protecting u.s. investors doing business abroad. this is especially important for companies engaged in energy projects. my district we have a lot of companies that engage internationally, and this is something i hear from them, that they want to see strong provisions in any trade agreements that we have. clearly, having access to a neutral third party arbitration when there's disagreement with governments is something that's really important especially in light of what's happened historically with u.s. oil and gas interests around the world, and so i believe having a key element is that these provisions cover so-called investment agreements that these firms negotiate with host governments before they invest billions of dollars to develop these resources. so in the tpp negotiations, several countries have certainly come out in opposition to
11:30 am
inclusion of these types of protections even though they do exist in other trade agreements, and i, i want to, i want to give you an opportunity to share your views on this, and do you share that view that we ought to have a very strong investor state dispute mechanism in this trade agreement? .. process that assures that the same kind of protections that we provide to domestic and foreign
11:31 am
investors in the united states, in terms of ex-appropriation and due process are also available to our investors when they operate abroad. it will not guarantee profits. it's a guarantee that if there ask appropriate without compensation they have recourse. that's the same kind of right we provide here in the 20. we think it's very important we are able to provide that kind of support for investors. at the same time assuring that governments can regulate as they see fit in the public interest for health, safety, environmental protection but this shouldn't use as a mechanism to undermine government regulation. it should be used to ensure that investments are not, foreign investors are not discriminated against, vis-à-vis domestic participants. that's been our approach on investor state. this is when the outstanding issues including the investment agreement provision that you alluded to. but that's the fundamental
11:32 am
approach we've taken towards that issue. >> briefly with the time remaining, can you give us sort of a status report on the negotiations with regard to as the reason? either that's another contentious area? >> we've made significant progress on the answer the chapter. i think there is now broad agreement among the tpp countries about -- soe, the importance of leveling the playing field between soe and private firms. and ensuring that if soe are getting noncommercial assistance from the conference, subsidies in fact, that comment the subsidies are creating injury to the private firm that there is recourse there. with a robust soe a chapter that lays out the principal, lays out transparency provisions, ensures there is dispute, dispute settlement we are seeking for that chapter as well so that are private firms can have a more level playing field, vis-à-vis
11:33 am
soe. on investor state, the other part is assuring were adding safeguards to support the ability of governments to regulate by the ability to dismiss frivolous claims, rewarding -- rewarding attorney seas, ensuring that government, or assuring that nonparties can reduce the in the process if there's transparency, all with the goal of ensuring that legitimate regulation is provided for while at the same time assuring that discrimination against foreign investors, there's recourse against that. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador. in march 2012, as you know a complaint was filed concerning hunger and labor practices under cafta. it was accepted in value -- me that year was supposed received a report within 180 days. it's now been over two years. when the expect that that report about honduran labor practices
11:34 am
will be published? >> nineteen mr. doggett. i will check and get back to. i don't know what the status is but it would happy to get back to after that's getting. >> you've made emphasis on the value of may 10 agreements concerning the labor and environmental protection agreements that at the time with the most that could be obtained from the bush administration and the least that could be excepted, but under those may 10 agreements, has the united states ever initiated on its own volition any complaint concerning labor or environmental practices in colombia, peru, korea or panama? >> i don't think we brought the dispute settlement -- >> yes, sir. >> and -- >> that's with respect to peru logging, for example. logging imports to the united states have gone up substantially. and the world bank continues to estimate that over 80% of that
11:35 am
peruvian hardwood is illegal. i know you've done some investigations but has there been a complaint filed and i think when we look to help vietnam will be treated we have to look at what the experience has been under these previous labor agreement. as you know, there are reports out today and there were last week of the european union trade commissioner complaint about the position that the united states has taken on dispute resolution, and on transparency. under the dispute resolution process, you told me previously that the we have no dispute resolution with australia we have had any problem for our investors their or their investors here. as far as the dispute resolution process is concerned, is there a right to appeal from one of these arbitration panels? >> in the existing isp is procedures that exist everything the 40 or so agreements in which we have them, there is no
11:36 am
separate appeals process. by the way -- >> is there a concern tha that a country such as the united kingdom or france or germany or denmark that the court systems are not sufficiently mature there to provide adequate protection to u.s. investors of a level that they will receive in the united states courts? >> as i said in response to dr. boustany's question, there are 3000 or so agreements out there on investment. and -- >> i understood your answer. i did want to know if -- >> if i can complete it. we are seeking to raise the standards of what applies in an -- >> but not to use the courts? >> and to add safeguards so that the standards over all of the nationainternational trade invet regime will be higher than they are now. we can't change those 3000 agreements but we can through
11:37 am
our future negotiations introduce new standards of an international system that become the new standard. that's what we're trying to do through our train 11 procedures. >> if you can't respond as part of what you think the court systems of those european countries are inadequate i would appreciate you responding in writing and also responding in writing to the letter has been pending since last fall from a number of members of this committee and others concerning tobacco and the decision -- position you've taken with regard to tobacco. you stated previously that your confidence in these dispute resolution systems is such that you will in these negotiations treat environmental and labor law enforcement the same way you treat other kinds of trade disputes and, in fact, those positions were nonnegotiable. is that still the position of the ustr, the administration today that ensure that labor and environmental law provisions are treated the same way as other trade disputes? >> our view is that labor and environment ought to be binding,
11:38 am
including the availability of trade venture. >> no different -- >> no different than commercial or -- >> if both of these agreements don't include the provision, they won't be spent by the administration? >> i can't envision including an agreement to does have binding enforceable labor and environmental. >> the other issue that complaint made by the european trade commissioner is that the united states is not very transparent. and that's a report that's out this morning. they would like to see more transparency. if the affected industries can see what the united states' position is, if our trading partners can see why not make these agreements open to the public? >> we each have our processes for engaging with the public and our first parliaments, and in the case their member states. we do it as i mentioned through consultations with our various committees, through our
11:39 am
statutory created, industrial advisory committees, like putting out for the first time a summary of what our negotiating objectives are chapter by chapter in our ttip negotiations. with the much open to other ideas on transparency. our systems are somewhat different. they don't consult with their parliament the same way we consult with you. but we have different procedures for ensuring that we get input from the public and from our political partners. >> more transparency that you oppose? >> well, i think his previous and will have to stand because we are out of time. >> mr. gerlach. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, ambassador. switching gears a bit, trade restriction lifted against ukraine about 10 years ago, and thereby giving the favored nations trade status to ukraine. what's the current status of american ukrainian trade today,
11:40 am
and how can that relationship be strengthened as expeditious possible for both american companies as well as for the benefit of the ukrainians economy? >> thank you very much for your question but one thing that can be done is renewal of gsd because ukraine was a gsp beneficiary. that's expired and we look for to working with this committee and with congress to see kids renewal as soon as possible. that would benefit ukraine immediately. >> as the president specifically as you to get involved since the outbreak of the crimean crisis, ask you to take a look at american policy relative to ukraine from a trade perspective to see where a greater trade relationship, a better trade relationship might be one way to help ukraine economy? of course american business as well, any specific dialogue in the white house and your office about that? >> there's a robust interagency process as you might imagine
11:41 am
involving all of the agencies, economic agencies as well as others around this set of issues. we are engaging in that dialogue and my understanding is, in fact, there will be a delegation here from ukraine at the end of next week which i intend to meet with their schedule permitting, to talk resources about those issues. >> would you let us know what the outcome is so we are aware and see if we can do some congressional standpoint assist you in that ever? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> okay. yield back. thank you very much. >> mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, thank you for being here. i've got to say you've been great through all of us. you are more than willing to meet with any of us and you do not a number of times and i really appreciate it. i want to raise a couple of issues and interested to hear what you to say about it today, if there's anything that you can add to it if you would do so in a letter i would appreciate that.
11:42 am
i'm interested in a few things like everybody else here, the district centric. wine in my district i is excellt important to keep it out of milk with a number of my growers and a number of the vendors it and as we told you before, the issues of geographic indication is extremely important. the eu is making their very difficult as we explain some of the things they have done have created harmful trade barriers for u.s. exports. and i'm hoping that you can work with them to show that it's not helpful and do whatever you can to make sure that we can get some relief from this idea. and there are also expanding the gis stuff into the traditional and semi-generic terms. and this is something that's very, very dangerous, and i hope
11:43 am
we can get your commitment to work with us on that. and then also as we explain in one region of my area, the napa valley, there's a lot of poaching of names, and we continue to be concerned that our foreign trade partners don't poach that name to use on their products. and we need a strong assurance that you will work toward that end. >> absolutely. this is a key issue, particularly in our ttip negotiations but also in our tpp negotiations. we think our system of trademarks, names, works well. we are resistant to efforts to create further geographic indications. but i go back to something i said earlier. this is one reason why it's important to move forward and complete these agreements because we're not the only party out there, and the eu is negotiating agreements of an asian, a very strong perspective with regard to g.i. and it's
11:44 am
important that we establish a regime that works for us as well. >> thank you. you sent me a letter in response to a question i asked the last time you in regarding the yarn forward program and your letter outlined how well it's working. because about $13 billion in a barrel is imported using the yarn forward rules. and that's fine and dandy but that amounts to about 17% of the total u.s. in peril imports. so want to make sure that we're getting with the problem not just, not just stating percentages. i don't think it's one and the same thing. i'd like to take another look at the yarn forward program and get back to me with something other than the $13 billion number. because it does represent a very small percentage of what it is
11:45 am
that we are concerned about. and on outdoor apparel, i'd be interested in hearing the flexibilities that you see that we can use to accommodate this industry, given the vast advancement in some of the stuff that they're doing in a highly technical aspects of the outdoor apparel industry. >> i would say in answer to this last two points, our approach to the textiles and apparel has always been to ensure that we're striking a balance that helps our domestic producers continue to be able to produce while allowing importers to import products that serve to customers and allow -- >> i see the orange light is on, so if you could give me a written response on that i would appreciate it. i have one more issue that i want to weigh in on big in with you, and that's rice. i'm very, very concerned that our rights community is taken
11:46 am
care of and considered in this. and i know rice industry didn't do well in the last round, and i'm wondering if the administration is ready to move forward without japan if japan continues to hold back and regard to our trade efforts with them? >> well, look, our focus is to ensure that japan needs the same standards as the rest of the partners in terms of comprehensive, ambitious, and nothing is excluded and that includes rice. so we are in dialogue with japan about market access, about its sensitive sectors and how to achieve meaningful, additional market access. that is consistent with our stakeholders our objectives as part of his ambitious agreement. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. >> mr. buchanan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here
11:47 am
today, mr. ambassador. i look forward for flight to working with you. the economic benefits of trade are well documented as you have mentioned today, 389 jobs created through trade. 95% of the marketplace outside the u.s., but it opportunity last year where being in beijing in china, i met with two different leaders. one i think was the minister of trade or finance. he mentioned their goal, the goal this year going forward, and the last four or five years is trading 20 -- creating 20 million new jobs. that was the vice premier separate meeting, same thing. so i kind of thought to myself, game on. i was there back in the late '80s myself and my wife. they were a nonfactor in terms of the economic global economy. after that i had a chance to meet with our american chamber their, 4500 members, and i think the general feeling is people are open to free trade.
11:48 am
in fact, i saw a poll the other day, 80% of americans are open to free trade but they want to make sure it's there. they want to make sure we've got access. they talk about financial products, intellectual products, the currency manipulation. they see what's happened with trade balances in the past with japan, and now with china. they just want to make sure that at the end of the day, this committee, we worked on this come the idea these past trade agreements with panama and korea and columbia, and everybody had a sense, some extent they were pretty fair. but the bottom line, i got from a lot of members american businesses there, they were very concerned about negotiation being win-win. it's fair, it's a good deal today but it's a good deal for both countries. two years from now, and to i would just ask you, what's your general attitude about in terms of negotiation? i think a lot of american companies just feel like they've
11:49 am
got, everybody has access you, japanese and chinese, but we don't have the same access in those markets and they're very concerned about it. and i think as a mission, the world has changed a lot in the last 30 years, the last 10 years, and we want to make sure we're doing everything to be much tougher negotiators to make sure our companies and our jobs are protected. >> we agree completely that we are using these agreements to break down barriers that are traditionally kept us out of the market. i mentioned our market is already relatively open. our tariffs are low. nontariff barriers are not used, reckless are not used as nontariff barriers. and so it's important to the trade agreements is to do precise as you said what is china or japan or brazil or any other country is to work with them to produce barriers for our exports. and all see to ensure that they are upholding certain agreed upon rules like the protection of intellectual properties. in our dialogue with china,
11:50 am
whether it's strategic and economic dialogue or jg tc throughout the year, one of the chief areas of focus is ensuring that they are using illegal software, they're protecting a larger party, they are clamping down on privacy it because you cannot market access the and you can find the ip is in control spent the general feeling in the past, i'm not referring so much divisiveness division, i say in the past 30 years we've been outplayed and that negotiated. there is that since they are, we just want to make sure now more important than ever going forward as we compete in the global economy and we're doing everything we can for our company -- country. in your mind how important is the tva getting it done quickly from your standpoint? >> well, as we said tpa is a critical tool for opening markets. but ultimately the only guarantee that an agreement is going to achieve the support of congress is that we bring back a
11:51 am
good agreement. and to our focus in tpp right now in ttip is on the substance of those agreements. and focusing with our trading partners on bringing back kind of the current window congress under stakeholders and theater the public will demand in order to get their support. >> what's your thought or we could do it by person basis to get this done quickly? >> we welcome the introduction of the bill in january. we're looking forward to working with this committee and the senate finance committee. there's been a change of leadership there. we know chairman wyden is consulting with the democrats and republicans on his committee on the best way to move forward. ultimately, we like to get a tv a bill that is got broad bipartisan support as possible. we look forward to working with you on that. in parallel we will continue to work to try to close the tpp as an ambitious high standard, comprehensive agreement. and our message to our trading partners, and i think they
11:52 am
follow our discussion here quite closely is that the only guarantee is we bring back a high standard agreement. we know what high standard agreement looks like. it's got to have labor, environment, intellectual property rights, state-owned enterprises, got to do with the individual economy. those are issues we need resolved before we will feel comfortable closing and bring it back. >> all right, thank you. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. chairman, as i suggested i want to mark again and thank you for your exceptional service to this committee and to the country and to the state of michigan. you will be dearly missed, and i wanted to acknowledge it publicly again. ambassador, i thank you for being here and meeting with us as often as you have. underscoring the openness and accessibility that you have had, but i wonder for the record, and
11:53 am
we discussed prior to coming into the meeting, i had an opportunity to meet with the greater harper labor board, and they opposed -- they post a series of questions, more than i could even get to in a timeslot that i have here, as did representatives rosa delauro, and i've submitted them to you and your staff. i would appreciate it, and entity those but as i mentioned as chairman, co-chair of the shellfish caucus, obviously we are concerned about the eu ban on deny safe shellfish. i hope we can meet specific on that as well. my question for you today has to do with intellectual property. i want to commend eric olson who led a letter earlier this year, along with myself, the president to i appreciate the response from the administration, the president, vice president and yourself. we met in fact and have pursuing meetings with the ambassador
11:54 am
from india. we don't have a monthly connecticut, but the concern remains and but i want to ask you is, what options do you have available to force a change on this discriminatory policy as they currently exist? we understand and hope that india in good faith is moving forward, but what options do you have to enforce this? and if you could elaborate. >> this is an issue of great concern. we have great concern about the innovation environment in india, the issues around the rules and compulsory licensing. and witty series of dialogues with the government in india, including the highest levels, i met with the prime minister about issues around intellectual property rights, and how best to achieve their objective of assuring access to medicine. and objective we all share.
11:55 am
without compromising or undermining the path. kludgy right now they're in the midst of an election and we look forward to reading gauging with them as the election is completed and the government is put in place. this will be one of the chief issues on the agenda. ultimately, the our mechanisms for bringing disputes settlement cases but we're trying to work in a constructive way with india to focus on the array of issues that they can do with on access to medicines, short of taking action on pathogen or compulsory licenses that we think are inappropriate. for example, india has certain tariffs on imported medicines, and so if you want to encourage the access to affordable medicines wanting any country can do is drop its tariffs. that would help access to medicine. there's a series of other issues
11:56 am
rent dissipation and that's the dialogue we hope to have with new government of india spent i know it's a major concern to a number of pharmaceutical companies in the state of connecticut, and across the country. also want to commend you and the administration for continued conversations with the afl-cio and its president rich trumka. how do you characterize your conversation with mr. trumka? >> well, we have a good relationship i think with a number of labor leaders and i spent a great deal of time with them and their representatives over the last few years on several issues with been discussing here, tpp, ttip, other labor rights issues and the enforcement issues. we have taken their input very seriously into our negotiating position, not just on the labor chapter but on issues around enterprises or rules of origin, and various market access issues. so they have been a good partner
11:57 am
at the table in helping us shape our negotiating proposals. again not the willingness to agree on everything and not that any stakeholder group is likely to get 100% of what they want to 100% of the chapters 100% of the time. this is negotiation but we were close to with it. we share a number of their concerns, and with afford to continuing that work on the tpp, on ttip and across our trade agenda. >> thank you, ambassador. >> mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ambassador, for your intelligence on the efforts to increase exports virtually for american producers. in addition to facing high tariffs and we know competitive aggregate industries such as agriculture are facing as mentioned before nontariff trade barriers which can only be addressed by establishing the enforceable and signed standards in trading rules. representing thousands of
11:58 am
nebraska producers, i certain pay close attention to the policies impacting agriculture technology. thanks to modern practices and biotechnology we're saving water and increasing yields and there's a lot of great news about this. and yet unpredictable and unscientific sanitary and other hurdles are blocking entry into these key markets. many of my colleagues have mentioned that already this morning. but very specifically, considering crops produced through biotechnology accounts about 30% of our u.s. exports, agricultural exports. biotech approval processes should be a top policy priority i would hope for this administration. could you provide an update on what ustr is doing to ensure that such barriers are receiving the proper attention? and also in recent years we know that china obviously a key market for u.s. act exports have stopped numerous shipments without justifiable cause or
11:59 am
proper notice. would you support ustr's raising this issue within the 2014 u.s.-china joint commission on commerce and trade process? >> well, thank you for the question. first of all on the last point with regard to china and biotechnology products, in fact we were in china in december, secretary pritzker, sector those of myself, and this was very much front and center on the agenda, both the issues of exports but also the process for approving biotechnology product. and assuring them that the process is consistent with the best science, and that deal makes decisions on a time and appropriate basis. this issue is a key issue with our negotiations with the european union, and there of course we want a wto case. they are there's been a european tour of justice case about important eu maintaining its own timetable for approving new
12:00 pm
products in biotechnology, and this is a key part of our negotiation. so it is very much on the agenda and europeans understand the importance to us and we are working to find ways that we can make progress. >> thank you. and also we've heard several references this morning the concern about japan and perhaps it more specifically on the production of u.s. pork perhaps in its treatment, specifically. but also i would like to raise concerns about canada and not opening to dairy poultry and agriculture markets and not opening their markets. could you perhaps speak to that and how we should move forward without? perhaps i don't expect you to share out the strategy but certainly how should we move forward? >> well yes, on both with japan we continue to press on those issues. we talked about. you're right on candidate. it's the only country in the tpp
12:01 pm
that has not yet given us a market access offer. on issues like agriculture issues like dairy and poultry. we are pressing them to do so. because those are important priorities for us. we are addressing their priorities in a number of ways and want them to come to the table as part of an overall package. >> i appreciate what you mentioned earlier that a comprehensive trade agreement needs to open things up and i appreciate your efforts and i look forward working together on behalf of u.s. producers an actual u.s. consumers as well. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. schock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador froman. first let me thank you for your work on trade. i think one of the bright spots for the last couple of years and i doubt a comic book their domestic as well as international. i hate to think of what the economy might be doing in manufacturing and agriculture if we did not have animal, colombia and south korea now fully implement it.
12:02 pm
-- panama. a couple quick questions. one is dealing with u.s. biopharmaceutical industry. i phrased this before but it is a very important issue to me because not only do they support 3 million jobs to use but 200,000 in my home state. i'm just curious whether the administration whether you particularly are supported of ensuring that the 12 year guarantee for ip protection for u.s. biologics is included in whatever we negotiate with tpp? >> well, thank you. this is one of the most challenging, outstanding issues in tpp. when you look around the table, five countries have zero years of protection. for countries have five years of protection. two countries at a just a protection, and we have 12 years of protection. so consistent with our standard of practice, 12 years is a u.s.
12:03 pm
law and so that has been our proposal that we put on the table in negotiation, and we are now in the midst of that negotiation to determine where we can reach a consensus. we are working to underscore the importance of data protection for biologics, how it's different and small molecules and that there is issues that go into the determination of how much data protection an there should be. >> great. i have great confidence in your complete ability. because obviously those 3 million jobs in the united states are here for persuasive that reason because with such a high standard not only in terms of length of time but also the rule of law which i know in some of these countries is not so predictable, particularly in the courts. my second question is with regard to u.s. film industry which has obviously been recouping their costs, billy to protect their intellectual property. specifically the use of
12:04 pm
camcorder recording in foreign theaters is one of the major ways that people steal their products. we were able to take canada as you know to outlaw this practice which basically eliminated the use of camcorder recording in that country. how important is this on the trade agenda as a look at tpp, these countries tend to be some of the more rabid abusers in ip violations, particularly with the film industry? is this something we can accomplish? >> this is very much part of our proposal at tpp is have countries take action to deter camcorder as one of our intellectual property rights proposals but we're working with the other countries on that now. there's been a range of perspectives on it and we are optimistic we will be able to achieve something meaningful in that area. >> so they seem to understand that's important and achievable? >> we have underscored that for
12:05 pm
them. >> finally i know have talked about the importance of tpa and what's happened in russia. what about the wto? russia august enjoys participation in wto. congress -- to put the squeeze on russia. the president nor the public i think once to use military force over there. but she would be using more economic tools, to look at their participation in wto? what is your thought on that? >> it helped them bring into a rules-based trading system and also gave us the tools to be able to enforce those rules against russia when they violate them. so we do their participation in wto as giving us a tool to be up to take action. stepping back from that, economic issues are very much on the table in light of russia's recent actions. the president, the
12:06 pm
administration has, the administration is taking as his of actions with regard to economic sanctions as are our allies. we've made clear this got to be a price paid for the actions they've taken to date and if they maintain the same path they're on going forward, that those prices, the sanctions will increase. so economic history much a part of that. from ustr's point of view we seize all of our bilateral engagements with them on economic issues, on average we have underway to improve our trade and investment
12:07 pm
12:08 pm
tariff rates which retard ability for capital formation in this country to great jobs or move them here. and it is a tax on the american consumer that is much higher as it moves through the value chain than just the burden on individual companies. i know this is an area that you been doing a lot of work, vietnam for instance, is troublesome in some respects in terms of some of the practices, but real opportunities to change some of their behaviors. i wonder if you could speak briefly to the progress is that we're making to reduce these punitive tariffs and the tax on consumers, and maybe spark some innovation here? >> well, thank you, mr. blumenauer. this is an issue, an issue of sensitivity both in the u.s. and among our trading partners.
12:09 pm
it's a key issue in tpp. we've been working with domestic stakeholders both domestic producers that exists but also the importers, including some from your region of the country. to develop an approach that will achieve that right balance of helping to ensure that our domestic producers can continue to compete. but also make sure that we are able to bring in good, high quality products for the american consumers. and so it's one of the outstanding areas are negotiations with our trading partners, and one where continuous discussion including as recent as this week with our stakeholders as we formulate our position. >> as i mentioned there are 13 members of the committee that go signed the letter, dozens of other members. we think there is some support in congress for efforts to try to extract more value to the american consumer. and these american companies.
12:10 pm
i appreciated your clarification to a front page story in "the new york times" some weeks ago that talked about the united states capitulating on environmental issues. i appreciate your clarification on that come including in this hearing, that remains a high priority for you, for the administration to be able to make progress. it to identify all of it, however, with the comment from a friend from texas, mr. doggett, about how enforcement actions as somebody who worked on those provisions, for example, would approve free trade agreement. where we come down on enforcement i think would make a big difference. anything you can help to clarify that, either here or going forward would make i think give more to mention and attraction
12:11 pm
to the representations of what you're trying to do environmentally. >> thank you for that and i'm sure it never chance to answer mr. baucus question while he was here, but let me simply say that i think this administration demonstrated a very thorough and robust commitment to trade enforcement. we set up this interagency trade enforcement center. we have assets of a government that allowed us to bring better, stronger and more complex cases. with regard to particular issues that were raised, with regard to peru and the forestry and next, we have been able now with resource at ustr given in the recent budget to engage with peru on monitoring that agreement and were now heading towards having a registry in peru for the logging to ensure that it meets the standards of the annex. add-on labor we're meeting with the guatemalans on the case that has been brought against guatemala, the first ever case brought against a country on labor issues. and we do the same with
12:12 pm
bangladesh. we use our enforcement tool thoroughly to make sure those labor and environmental decisions are fully enforced. >> thank you very much. >> ms. jenkins. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thankfully this important. thank you, ambassador, for being here and for all of your good work. many of us have a series concerns about our economic relationship with china. one area of great concern to my constituents in kansas is china's unjustified barriers to u.s. agriculture. these barriers ignore international standards. they have no basis in science, and the racers questions about whether china is complying with its wto obligations. most specifically, the world organization for animal health recognized last year that all cuts of u.s. beef are safe, yet china continues to ban u.s. beef imports. i know congressman smith touched
12:13 pm
on this, but the first thing i wanted to ask is that you address what ustr is doing to ensure that china's regulations on agriculture products, beef in particular, comply with its wto obligations that are otherwise based on international standards? >> well, thank you, and that is a high priority in our relationship with china, ever since the u.s. found to be negligible risk country for bse last year. it's been able, we been able to go to trading partners and open up markets for u.s. beef exports. as i mentioned, secretary vilsack was with secretary pritzker and myself in december, and beef was very much on the agenda, and we worked together with their chinese counterparts to reach an agreement about opening up their market over the course of this year. secretary vilsack is following up on that with a series of technical discussion between
12:14 pm
usda and its chinese counterparts. we also need use all tools at our disposal. here's an example we brought a wto case against china for their exclusion of certain chicken parts. we won that case in the wto and we will continue to bring cases on agriculture and other issues where we think parties have violated the standard to the underlying point you make which is that we want to make sure standards around the world whether it's in china or europe are based on science, as ours are as apple the critical and fundamental part of our trade policy. >> actually, thank you. my concerns with china aren't exclusive to it or culture because there are many examples where dealing with china is a significant challenge, but we need to address these concerns without hurting our own economy. given the limited time and resources available to address the long list of china's
12:15 pm
barriers, how would you prioritize the various challenges u.s. companies face in china? and would legislation such as somebody current bills have been introduced affect our ability to deal with these other issues? >> we engaged on a whole range of concerns with regard to china, whether it's market access obstacles or how the concerns they force the transfer of technology is a condition of doing business there. we have pushed back over the last couple years other indigenous innovation policies that would've required our intellectual property need to be transferred as a condition of doing business or participate in government procurement. we are pushing for the legalization of software, of ensuring that trade secrets are protected. and across the board we are looking both the biological dialogue enforcement mechanisms to ensure china upholds its deputy all obligation.
12:16 pm
so the conflict inside agriculture but outside agriculture are absolutely critical to improving our trade investment relationship with china. a lot of mechanisms to do this. we are ensuring that we set priorities so that we are making sure we're addressing the most, the practices of greatest concern to american firms and american businesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it would yield the. >> thank you. mr. paulsen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador froman, let me start with that you entertain for your accessibility, for your responsiveness and for your engagement. it's very much appreciated in a challenging situation should have them communicate with my office in particular. i want to follow-up on what john larson mentioned earlier, because in the situation with india. it was just last you we are 170 members in congress, bipartisan,
12:17 pm
15 governors asked the administration to raise concerns with india's unfair trade practices at the highest levels of the indian government. the president has done that. you've done that. the vice president and secretary of state, on down the line. since the inception of ustr special the real one report, in india is one of the few countries have been tested as a priority foreign country in the last 25 years. india has no failed to make any meaningful progress i was in addressing the long-standing concerns raised each year by her agency in that special 301 report. there's a whole host of market access and trade issues that significant impede the ability of the u.s. companies in business and investors to operate there. given the import of the u.s. and india's strategic relationship, and india's pure growth potential which outlined in your opening testimony as a market for u.s. goods and services, i think our efforts need to be made help overcome these challenges and issues. the primary forum to help
12:18 pm
address some of the bilateral trade and investment issues seem to be a trade policy forum. ustr co-chairs that for him. it's been held since 2010 people and expect to hold the next trade policy forum a? >> well, thank you. first i've had a series of meetings with my indian counterpart coming into this job, and we have to stay very closely in touch, including about how to make sure that trade policy forum is effective mechanism for addressing these issues. so when we met back in september i believe it was we laid out a work program for our steps to work through outstanding issues in preparation for a trade policy forum. that work is ongoing. now china is in the midst of an election season, and i think everyone's perspective is we should wait until they get past the election in order to reengage on that. but i'm fully committed to reinvigorating the trade policy forum. we just want to make sure that
12:19 pm
it's not just having been but that it's a meeting that will help achieve results and that's what i want to make sure we're adequate prepared spent the elections are coming up and it sounds like you agree with staying on a positive trajectory that talks with india to reduce concrete results. >> absolutely. >> let me switch topics. since congress last debated, one aspect of our economy in trade as dramatic a change of that sees that the internet for both commerce and for personal use. back in 2002 nobody knew anything about google or googling anything or facebook or twitter. can you talk lipitor explained how our trade agreements in today's 21st century model can truly reflect the full balance of u.s. law regarding the internet? >> well, thank you. that's very much one of the areas of focus in ppp at the moment. because we want to make sure we take the lessons from the physical world and bring them into the digital world
12:20 pm
consistent with existing legislation in the u.s. we are pushing for the free flow of data, for example, but where pushing against localization requirements that servers have to be located in a country for this is to be able to serve the country. we also want to make sure that we are respecting privacy concerns and the government have the ability to regulate in a bona fide way in interest of privacy. those are also important objectives. we take as our touchstone existing u.s. law and we're working in that context to ensure that the digital economy is very much reflected in the 21st century. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. thank you. mr. kind. >> thank you, mrthank you, mr. d thank you for only this hearing. mr. chairman, i want to share in accolades directed toward you, the leadership you've shown this committee and what she meant to this congress and our friendship in particular. we're going to miss you but we still have some work to do.
12:21 pm
mr. ambassador, thank you for being here. i think if there's been a consistent message delivered from the committee to you as one of gratitude given your access and level of engagement, not only with members of this committee but members of congress and especially the new democratic coalition which i'm leading, you can be forced on a number of occasions are, in fact, to open the would talk about make you an honorary member given our endless meetings with you. but that is going to be crucial as way to move forward, not only tpa authorization but the tpp negotiations. members need to have that access, the level of engagement and you have been tireless in that effort and i complement you. in fact just yesterday dr. boustany and mr. reichert, myself and mr. meeks had a chance have breakfast with the tpp ambassador at the canadian embassy. were able to engage them directly about the market access issues that you've been working on. you should also know that there was high praise from everyone of them about the job you're doing
12:22 pm
on our behalf and that's always a very good to hear. is one of the concerns i. i think it is important we are at the table that we're moving forward on a robust trade agenda but it's important not both of economic growth for our nation and jobs that can come from it, but u.s. leadership, not only in the pacific region but globally right now. i'm afraid with further delay as far as tpa is concerned, it may lead to further delay of a final tpp a negotiated. the rest of the world is not sitting around waiting for us to get our political act in order here, and there's a danger that tpp could turn into another doha which we're trying to avoid at all costs. i'm just wondering if you're sensing the same type of concern, or if you're seeing significant progress being made that might elevate this and enable the congress to finally start taking action, give you the tools you only need in order to reach the best agreement that we can get with the tpp
12:23 pm
nation's? >> well, thank you. i think again, the only guarantee, and i'll tell you what i tell my trading partners but the only guarantee of an agreement being approved by congress is that we negotiate a good agreement. we know what a good agreement is. we know what a good agreement is through the expression of tpa. we can also know it through our thorough consultation with members of congress and stakeholders and with the public. we have a good sense of what's necessary. with each of our domestic processes that we need to go through. ours is a tb and are trading partners, their domestic process as well. we don't want them to use the lack of tpa as an excuse for not coming to the table and not including our high standard, ambitious, comprehensive agreement as soon as possible. i think we can do the. i think we can work in parallel both to conclude our high
12:24 pm
standard tpp as congress considers trade promotion authority issues and build bipartisan support for such an approach. and that's the path that we are on. >> my sense is, and i think you should ask of those at the table know, the 12 nations negotiating can all of them are there because they want and come at the end of the day. on another level of inquiry, under cafta with some innovative capacity building provisions in cafta. i'm wondering if we're still pursuing using that in pursuit of tpp with developing nations, especially think about vietnam and what we're asking them to do to elevate their labor standards. >> that's very much, thank you for mentioning that, veteran much part of what we're going to do with vietnam as a sign on to international standards, as we develop action plans and work programs for them to be able to meet those standards but it's going to require technical
12:25 pm
assistance from the ilo or from solidarity center or elsewhere for them to be able to achieve those objectives. we are working closely with the state department, usaid to assure that there will be resources available so that they can vote government their obligations under tpp. >> i be happy to follow up in one of our future meetings on that. finally, a resource issue. had a chance to meet with ambassador pope weaselly to talk about the idea negotiation with china. i was somewhat alarmed to understand that he was there on her behalf facing 16 chinese negotiators across the table that tried to wear him fan, or wear him out there and wondered if we're giving you enough resources in order to pursue these negotiations that were not being a demand speed as well, we are a lean and mean organization come ustr. that's just one of our strengths. i think frankly during sequester we got a little too lean and we weren't able to fulfill all the responsibilities to way we would
12:26 pm
like to. we're working with our appropriate is to assure that we got to visit resources going forward. it i put ambassador punke up against 16 chinese counterparts any day. i think that's a pretty even match. >> all right, thank you spent mr. marchant? >> thank you, ambassador. as you know, texas is global trade is very important in texas. in fact, texas leads all states in expos and have for the last 12 years. and in my district is dallas-fort worth international airport, which trade is very, very important. yet there are people in my constituency that are very skeptical of tpa and these trade agreements. can you give some assurances or give some examples of why these trade agreements would be very, very positive to texas and my constituents? >> well, you know your
12:27 pm
constituency well. my entertaining is that in texas, you are exporting about $8 billion to korea, and that's about 54% increase over the last few years. same is true on colombia, 140% increase. panama, 93% increase. you are seeing the benefits of these trade agreements directly in texas as you see your exports grow, and that certain our goal with tpp and ttip is to see that kind of export growth, with the opening of these markets. >> to complement that, just recently american airlines announces going to start a nonstop flight from dallas to shanghai. so recently the chinese government, as you know, announced that he was going to make shanghai an example of free market example. can you talk to us a little bit about that experiment at how important that is and how that
12:28 pm
will dovetail into your negotiations? >> interesting question. this is the shanghai free trade zone that they announced last year, and we are monitoring that very closely to see what it is the intent to do and how they intend to use it. and that, together with the outcomes of a third plenum in november where they laid out a reform program, there's a lot of positive signals in the third plenum of program and in the shanghai free trade zone proposal about where china wants to take its economy, how it wants to open its economy, liberalize it, have to be more market-oriented, take the government out of the process of approving every investment. one way we are following up on that is do our bit negotiation, our bilateral investment treaty negotiations. that gives us an opportunity to put to the test whether when china says it wants to move towards a so-called negative list, meaning countries can invest and do business in china everywhere and anywhere in any sector unless it's exclusively prohibited, to see whether how
12:29 pm
far they want to go in that regard, how far they're willing to take the third plenum outcomes or -- trifecta reform in the economy. we are in the midst of those discussions and those will be continuing i think for several more months or longer. but that gives us an opportunity to put to test whether some of those expressions of reform are being translated to reality. >> thank you. yield back. >> mr. pascrell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador community very, very difficult job. you inherited a terrible situation with trade imbalance is. i've listened through the smoke and mirror gains of presidents, democrat and republican, on trade issues. the american people are fed up because they have seen the results, which many times have not helped us at all in the long run, and have not helped foreign countries. ..
12:30 pm
i think this is important. we need an investment. i agree with chairman, ranking member levin when he said we need intense involvement by the congress, not after but before. we have had serious consequences when that did not happen in the past

68 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on