a limited issue. we will continue working on that. >> do you see that as being an impediment giving votes in congress because these kinds of issues are out there? you've already heard from the chairman talking about automobiles, and then you are talking about the docs, were you got dockworkers. how are you going to get around that in your negotiation? >> i think we will make clear to our trading partners on a number of the issues that members of congress have that making progress on issues, resolving those is part of grading the environment in which this agreement is going to be considered and considered favorably. it's early continued to the overall atmosphere around this. >> i have a major steel plant. people think of washington state, they think of boeing and starbucks. that is not all washington to 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 point in the whole world i think. .. >> under the criminal of the commerce department, 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. you know, trade is economic freedom. it's the ability to buy and sell, compete around the world with a as little government interference as possible, and what it means is that when that 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. 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 asia-pacific region. we want to be as americans where those new customers are at. the trans-pacific partnership is really a 21st century trade agreement unlike others in the past. i think we'll have tremendous value. so what's, what's your strategy? i though the goal has been to complete that by the end of the year. 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 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 the asia-pacific region. that number is expected the grow to 2.7 billion between now and 200. and the question -- 2030. and the question is, who's going to the serve that market in. >> yeah. >> are they going to be buying american goods ask 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, environment, on intellectual property rights? are there going to be disciplines around state-owned enterprises so there's a level playing field with private companies, or will we be taking the digital economy into the future and making sure that the internet is free? do 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 out there with different versions of trade who are also out there negotiating agreements, and if we sit on the sidelines and don't fulfill our leadership role in this effort, others will help define the rules for us. and that'll put our workers and our firms very much at a disadvantage. we're well down the road in these negotiations. we are in the end game. we have a reasonable number of outstanding issues on rules, and we have some critically outstanding issues on market access. as the chairman talked about earlier, the critical issue right now is japan, market access on agriculture and on autos. it's then bringing canada to the table because i think canada is waiting to see if, what happens with japan. 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 the rules. they're difficult issues that are left, there's a reasonable number of them. our negotiators are working around the clock here and around the world to narrow those differences and close them out. >> i'd like to ceja pan included -- see japan included in this, but they've got to hit the numbers we expect from our trading part they ares. >> oh, very much so. we're focused on, as i said, working around the clock to get this done as soon as possible. >> good. 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 to make sure there's strong consultation and we can assure others of a timely up and down vet. 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 in this hearing. mr. ambassador, welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you for your good and great work, and thank you for being here today. you know, mr. ambassador, you know, in our own country we believe in certain basic rights, certain basic freedoms. freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, open and free elections. you said a moment or so ago this 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-american who fellowed vietnam because of

communism, because of suppression. and they asked, they're raising the question how can we trade with vietnam? how can we do it? >> well -- >> or with china -- >> and we very much -- >> and vietnam has such a strong relationship with china. how can we go down the road? how can we get in bed with them? >> well, through our negotiation with them we are working to address system of the issues that you mentioned. for example, on labor rights which is a key issue in vietnam, we want to make sure that there's a meaningful right to association, a meaningful right to collective bargaining, a meaningful dislin on forced labor -- discipline on forced labor, child labor, discipline on acceptable conditions of work all consistent with the ilo standards ask a work program that can achieve that objective. in all of our meetings with the vietnamese government from the the president on down, the president met with the president and the 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 look at what we're trying to do on the digital economy and the internet about the free flow of information, that, too, is supportive of some of those values you mentioned about freedom of speech, making sure people have access to information, that governments 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 where we are on the status quo. i think the question is you take a country like vietnam which has well known challenges, what's the best way, what's 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. >> do you have any assurance that five years from now, ten years from now that we're going to see radical changes in vietnam? people are receiving starvation 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 force t and child labor, decent conditions of work and having those be enforceable, having them be binding and enforceable and our ability to continue over time to insure that those are upheld is a central part of what we're trying to negotiate. i, too, met with a group of vietnamese 'em grays as well

as -- emigres as well as human rights act visitses around vietnam before i went last time precisely 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 art of our ongoing engagement with them, as part of tpp ask our overall engagement to try and address these issues. so it is high on our agenda, and we think it is important that vietnam headache progress on these -- make progress on these issues. >> mr. ambassador, let me just ask you this last question. do you believe that 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 stakeholders, 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 in particularly 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 lay wore union -- labor union, environmental group, consumer groups. as i mentioned in my testimony, we're launching a new advisory committee to be able to bring in other public interest groups into the process. we want to make sure we've got their input. we've experimented in putting out for the public summaries of our ttip objectives, summaries of our negotiates to try and be as public and as transparent as possible while at the same time insuring we can negotiate the best deal for the american people. and i -- >> all right, thank you. time's expired. mr. tiberi. >> thank you for being here, ambassador. japan's unwillingness in tpp to meaningfully open to 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, pork producers from my district in ohio yesterday, and they're very concerned about this particular issue. as you know, the united states has sought in past trade negotiations comprehensive liberalization with respect to agriculture products. this is true for agreements with both developed and developing 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, as you continue down this road in negotiating with the japanese, will you exit to us today not to allow the japanese to exclude agriculture markets from the tpp?

>> yes. i mean, our goal in tpp and the goals that japan signed up for when it joined tpp is exactly what you said, 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 bridge our remaining gaps on a series of commodity issues. not just pork, but other issues as well. but we are continuing to press them with the goal of achieving comprehensive market access. and we agree there shouldn't be exclusions of commodity groups from this agreement. >> and don't you agree that the you exclude a number of things in this agreement, that that a just sets us up for further exclusions down the road in other free trade agreements? >> well, we think that tpp was intended to be an ambitious, comprehensive, 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 japan come to the table, absolutely. >> so i can tell the pork producers in ohio that you're committed to not allowing exclusions of -- >> that's right. >> -- products like agriculture, pork, beef -- >> we think everything should be on the table, that's what a comprehensive agreement is. >> i appreciate that. a second issue not totally within your wheelhouse, a number of manufacturers in ohio have told he they've seen a surge in steel coming from 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 well 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 a 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. it's one of the most important new issues being dealt with by tpp. it would affect, of course, not just the steel industry, but other industries as well. the steel industry is one in which there's a lot of state-owned enterprise involvement. >> i'd like to sent you a follow-up letter on this issue kind of getting deeper if you could just be alert to that, i would love to have further input from you and your staff. i yield back. >> look forward to it. >> thank you. mr. neal, you're recognized. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to thank you, mr. ambassador, for the work

that you've to done outside of committee hearings with footwear across new england. you've been very helpful, very good with your time, and you've tried really hard to speak to the specific questions understanding that 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 the question of trade agreements, obviously, is enforcement. and there's a suspicion, as you know, that geopolitics sometimes gets in the way of enforcement. and i think it's particularly acute when it comes to intellectual property rights and, clearly, i think currency manipulation as it related to china. but let me toll -- follow up specifically on something mr. tiberi 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 need to be mindful of that as art of the enforcement -- part of the

enforcement 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 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 hodgepodge of programs across the country, and the truth is that the jury's kind of out still. some work and some don't work. might i suggest that we direct more of the trade adjustment assistance to community colleges in i think that would be the atmosphere which would be more conducive to preparing people for the skill set that they're going to need if they're dislocated because of changes that trade they suspect have created. so i'll give you some time on both points. >> well, thank you, mr. neal, and certainly we agree

completely on the importance of enforcement, and we've had a very robust enforcement agenda throughout this administration. we've brought more cases to the wto than ever before, we've doubled the rate in which we've brought case against china. we've created something called the interagency trade enforcement center based at ustr with a lot of support from commerce and a number of other agencies which has allowed us to put together more complicated, complex cases to be able to bring to the wto or 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, so we're fully committed to that, and we're always looking for additional cases to bring, putting together the positive cases. the particular dumping or countervailing duty 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 to. 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 though in the budget, the president has a proposal for comprehensive skills development, and we also have the trade adjustment assistance program which expires in december, and we very much support making sure that american workers have the support and 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're excruciating

long days, if i could pronounce that correctly, it would be good. i know that you are really putting forth major every here. you mentioned your 1200 meetings, and we're reaching out too. just yesterday mr. boustany and i met with system of the ambassadors from six countries represented, representative of the 12 countries that you're negotiating with. and they had 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 the last meeting that we add the president mentioned to us -- that we had the president mentioned to us how much he appreciated our efforts and how much he wanted to to work with us. there are 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 heat with him. we feel that we could 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 cochairs along with mr. boustany and myself. if you could relay our message to the president, we'd like the 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 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 tied to trade and that we need high standards trade agreements to grow these jobs. and i know you agree with that. as a result, i consistently hear from businesses, local chambers of commerce and farmers in my home state about the need to renew and update tpa and why -- and this is why i support chairman camp's tpa legislation. this is not just the sentiment 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 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, and thank you for your leadership on the tpp caucus as well. yes. as we travel around and meet with shawl, medium-size -- 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 seeing that. i think it's incumbent on all of us to continuously make the case to 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 if america products -- 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 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 continuously with out there making that case. there's a lot of misinformation about trade and trade agreements, and we need to take that directly on and make clear exactly what the benefits of trade are, the benefits of exports and 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. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. becerra. >> thank you, mr. chairman. or ambassador, thanks for being here and, mr. chairman, by the bay, i think all of us echo the remarks that were made earlier about your service to our country and to this committee. >> that means a lot from a fellow survivor of the supercommittee. >> that's right. [laughter] you're welcome to stay with us be you like, mr. chairman, it's not too late. ambassador, let me -- actually, the chairman hit on 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 seek with one voice as american legislators versus our particular political philosophies. i think on currency you find 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 our businesses to compete, in making it hard for some of our businesses to keep jobs in america and, quite 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 while it's not a direct trade activity, 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 far more inexpensive than

they really are. and if you can get into a market, take over that market, you know, at some point you're able to lift the value of that product and extract extra dollars from folks. i think for many of us it would be 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 but really dealing with it. i know that the peterson 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 more of a sense of how ustr is doing if trying to get -- 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, of course, i should say that 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 in its bilateral engagement with countries like china, in its engagement with the g20 where there was agreement by all the g20 including by china to move towards market-oriented exchange rates, through the treasury department's engamement with the g -- engagement with the g7 countries to abide by the same rules, we have made it clear throughout that this is an issue, and we want to make sure or 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 and 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 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 workers. it's very interesting because 20 years ago when i got here, one

of the 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 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? >> well, thank you for making that point because 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 now under u.s. leadership in our recent ftas and certainly in tpp and texas tpi, high standards, fully enforceable are going to be agreements, and that creates a global standard. >> all right, 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 fully believe 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 state dispute settlement issues, 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 proprovisions cover so-called investment agreements that these firms negotiate with host governments before they actually invest billions of dollars to develop these resources. so in the tpp negotiations, several countries have certainly come out in opposition to inclusion of these types of protections even though they do exist in other trade agreements. and i, 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? >> thank you, dr. boustany. there are something like 3200 investment agreements around the world. and a very significant percentage of those have

something like investor state dispute settlement. our approach has been after a four-year review of our bilateral investment treaty and then consultations with congress and the public in the runup to the tpp and ttip negotiations has been to put forward an investor state dispute settlement process that assures that the same kind of protections that we provide to domestic and foreign investors in the united states in terms of expropriation and due process are also available to our investors when they operate abroad. it's not a guarantee of profits, it's a guarantee that if they are expropriated without compensation, they've got recourse. and that's the same kind of right that we provide here in the united states. we think it's very important that we're 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. this shouldn't be used as a mechanism to undermine government regulation. it should be used to insure that investments are not -- foreign investors are not discriminated against vis-a-vis domestic participants. and so that's been our approach on investor state. this is one of the outstanding issues in the negotiations including the investment agreement provision that you alluded to. but if that's the fundamental approach we've been taking towards that issue. >> and briefly with the time remaining, can you address -- give us sort of a status report on the negotiations with regard to soes. i though that's another contentious area. >> we've made some very significant progress on soe, on the soe chapter. i think there is now broad agreement among the tpp countries about the importance of leveling the playing field between soes and private firms. and insuring that if soes are getting noncommercial assistance from their governments,

subsidies, in effect, that -- and those subsidies are creating injury to the private firms, that there is recourse there. so we have a robust soe chapter that lays out the principles, lays out transparency provisions, insures that there's dispute, that -- dispute settlement that we're seeking for that chapter as well so that our private firms can have a more level playing field vis-a-vis soes. i should just say just back on investor state for a moment, the other part we're doing is insuring we're adding safeguards to support the ability of governments to regulate by the ability to dismiss frivolous claims or awarding damages -- awarding attorneys' fees, insuring that the government, assuring that nonparties can participate in the process, that there's transparency. all with the goal of insuring 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. mr. dog get. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador. in march 2012, as you know, a complaint was filed concerning honduran labor practices under cafta. it was accepted in may of that year and was supposed to receive a report within 180 days. it's now been over two years. when do you expect that that report about honduran labor practices will be published? >> thank you, mr. dogget. i will check to you and get back to you. i welcome happy to get back -- i will be happy to get back to you after this hearing. >> you've made emphasis on the value of the may 10th agreements concerning labor and environmental protection agreements that at time were the most that couldobtained from the bush administration and the least that could be accepted. but under those may 10th 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've brought a dispute settlement -- >> yes, sir. >> -- case yet under those agreements. >> and that's despite the fact that with reference to peru logging, for example, logging imports to the united states have gone up substantially, and the world bank comets to estimate -- continues to estimate that over 80% of that peruvian hardwood is illegal. i know you've done some invests, but there's never -- investigations, but there's never been a complaint filed. and i think when we look to how vietnam will be treated, we have to look at what the experience has been under these previous labor agreements. as you know, there are reports out today and there were last week of the european union trade commissioner complaining about the position that the united states has taken on dispute resolution and on transparency. under the dispute resolution

process, you've told me previously that though we have no dispute resolution with australia, we haven't had any problem or our investors there are 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 ists procedures that exist and, i think, the 40 or so agreements in which we have them, i -- there's no separate appeals process. by the way -- >> is there a concern that in 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 would receive in united states courts? >> well, as i said in response to dr. boustany's question, there are 3,000 or so agreements out there on investment. >> yes, sir. >> and through --

>> i understood your answer. i just want to know if you think -- >> if i can complete it, through our ttip and tpp negotiations, we're seeking to raise the standards of what applies in an ists procedure -- >> but not to use the courts. >> and to add safeguards so that the standards overall of the international trade and investment regime will be higher than they are now. we can't change those 3,000 agreements, but we can through our future negotiations introduce new standards into the international system that become the new standards. and that's what we're trying to do through our is texas s procedures. >> if you can't respond this morning on whether you think the court systems of those european countries are inadequate, i would appreciate your responding in writer and your also responding in writing to the letter that's been pending since last fall from a number of members of this committee and ores concerning tobacco and the position you've taken with regard to tobacco. you stated, sir, priestly that your confidence in these dispute resolution systems is such that

you will end these negotiations -- in these negotiations treat environmental and labor law enforcement the same way you treat oh kinds of trade disputes and that, in fact, that position was nonnegotiable. is that still the position of ustr and the administration today, that insuring that labor and environmental law provisions are treated the same way as other trade disputes? >> yes. our view is that labor and environment ought to be wining subject to the same kind of settlements. >> no different than -- >> no different than ipr or commercial. >> and if both of these agreements don't include those provisions, they won't be submitted by the administration -- >> i can't envisage concluding an agreement that doesn't have binding, enforceable labor and environmental provisions. >> the other issue that complaint has been made by the european trade commissioner is that the united states is not very transparent. if our -- and that's in a report that's out this morning. in that 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? >> well -- >> if you could answer briefly. >> we each have our processes for engaging with the public and our various parliaments and, in their case, their member states. we do it, as i mentioned, through consultations with our various committees through our statutorily-created advisory committees and through a series of public measures like putting out for the first time a summary of what our negotiating objectives are chapter by chapter this our ttip negotiation. so we're very much open to other ideas on transparency. our systems are somewhat different. they don't consult with their parliament in the same way we consult with you, but we have different reed yours for insuring we get input from the public -- >> they want more transparency that you oppose. >> well, i think his answer,

previous answer will have to stand, because we're out of time. mr. gerlach. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, ambassador. switching gears a bit, jackson trade restrictions were lifted against ukraine about ten years ago, and thereby giving a favored nation trade status to ukraine. what's the current status of american/ukrainian trade today, and how can that relationship be strengthened as expeditiously as possible for both american companies as well as for the benefit of the ukrainian economy? >> well, one -- thank you very much for your question. one thing that could be done the renewal of gsp because ukraine was a gsp beneficiary. that's expired, and we look forward to working with the committee and with congress to seek its renewal as soon as possible. that would benefit ukraine immediately. >> yeah. has the president specifically asked you to get involved since the outbreak of the crimean

crisis, asked you to take a look at american policy relative to ukraine from a trade perspective to see where greater trade relationship, a better trade relationship might be one way to help the ukrainian economy? and, of course, american business as well. has there been any specific dialogue between the white house and your office about that? >> yes. there's a robust interagency process, as you might imagine, involving all of the agencies, the economic as well as the other agencies around this set of issues. we are engaging in that dialogue, and my understanding is, in fact, there'll be a delegation here from ukraine at the end of next week which i intend to meet with, their schedule permitting, to talk precisely about those issues. >> would you let us know what the outcome of that meeting so we're aware of that and see what we can do from a congressional standpoint to assist you in that effort? >> absolutely. >> okay, thank you. yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. thompson.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, thank you very much for being here, and i've got to say you've been great through all of this. you're more than willing to meet with any of us, and you've done that a number of times, and i really appreciate it. i want to raise a couple of issues and am interested to hear what you have to say about it today and if there's anything you could add to it, if you would do so in a letter, i would appreciate that. i'm interested in a few things like everybody else here that are district-sent trick. wine -- centric. wine in my district is extremely important. you've been out and met with a number of my growers and vicinitier ins, and as we told you before, the issue of geographic indication is extremely important. the e.u. is making it very, very difficult as we explained to you, and some of the things that they've done have created harmful trade barriers for u.s. exports. and i'm hoping that you can work

with them to show that this is not helpful and do whatever you can to make sure that we can get some relief from this idea. and they're also expanding the gi stuff into the traditional and semi-generic terms. and this is something that's very, very dangerous. and i hope that we can fete your commitment to work -- get your commitment to work with us on that. and then also as we explained in the one region of my area, the napa valley, there's a lot of poaching of names, and we're, we continue to be concerned that our foreign trade partners don't poach that name to use on their products. ..

around asia around the rest of the world cup as a strong perspective with regard to g.i. and it's important that we establish a regime that works for us as well. >> thank you. you send me a letter in response to question i asked i think the last time you were in regarding the yarn forward program, and your letter outlined how well it's working. because about $13 billion in apparel is imported using the yarn forward rules. that's fine and dandy but that

the most about 17% of the total u.s. imports. so i want to make sure that we're dealing with the problem not just stating percentages because i don't think it's one and the same thing. i'd like to take another look at that yarn forward program and get back to me with something other than the $13 billion number. it does represent a very small percentage of what it is that we are concerned about. >> on outdoor apparel, i'd be interested in hearing the flexibilities that you see that we can use to accommodate this industry, given the fast advancement and some of the stuff 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 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 customers -- >> 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 begin with you, and that's rice year i'm very, very concerned that our rice community is taken care of and considered in this. i know the rice industry didn't do well in the last round, and i'm wondering if the administration is ready to move forward without you there if japan continues to hold back with regard to our trade efforts with them? >> look, our focus is to ensure that japan needs same standards as the rest of the partners in

terms of competition, but nothing is excluded and that includes rice. so we are in dialogue with japan about market access, about sensitive sectors and how to achieve meaningful, additional market access that is consistent with our stakeholders objectives as part of this ambitious great. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. >> thank you. mr. buchanan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here today, mr. ambassador. i look forward personally to working with you. the economic benefits of trade or while document as you've mentioned it today, 38 million jobs through trade, 95% of marketplaces outside the u.s. but i had an opportunity last year being in beijing, in china. i met with two different leaders. want to thank the minister of trade or finance. you mentioned their goal, circled the ship going forward and the last four or five years,

it's trading 20 million new jobs. met with vice premier separate meeting, same thing, 20 million new jobs is their goal. so i kind of thought to myself, game on. i was there back in the late '80s myself with my wife. they were a non-factor in terms of the economic global economy. after that i a chance to meet with our american chamber, 4500 members, and i think the general feeling is people are open to free trade. 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. we talked 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, we just got done, this committee worked on this, the id these past trade agreements with panama and korea

and colombia. everybody had a sense, some extent they were pretty fair but the bottom line, i got from a lot of members, american businesses, they were very concerned about negotiation being win-win, it's fair, good deal today but it's a good deal for both countries two years from now. and so i would just ask you, what's your general attitude about in terms of negotiation? i think a lot of american companies feel like everybody's got access here, the japanese, chinese, but we don't have the same access in those markets and they're very concerned. as i mentioned, the world has changed a lot 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 that our companies and our jobs are protected. >> we agree completely that the importance of both free and fair trade and that we're using agreements to break down barriers that traditionally have kept us out of their market. our market is already --

relatively open. nontariff barriers are not used, regulations are not used as nontariff barriers. what's important to these trade agreements is to do precise as you said, whether china or japan or brazil or any of the country is to work with him to produce barriers for our exports. also to ensure that there upholding certain agreed upon rules like protection of intellectual property. in our dialogue with china, whether it's strategic and economic dialogue or jcct or our bilateral meetings with them throughout the year, one of the chief areas of focus is ensuring that using illegal software, or decking and lecture, clamping down on privacy because you could have market access but then you can find your ip has been stolen. >> i think the general feeling in the past, not referring so much to visit michigan, i was in the past 30 years with an outfit and that negotiated. there's that sense there.

we want to make sure no more importantly than ever going forward as we compete in the global economy that we're doing everything we can for our company. but me mention on a different note that's been touched on but in your mind how important is the tpa getting that done quickly from your standpoint? >> well, as we have 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 good agreement. and so our focus in tpp right now and ttip is on the substance of those agreements and focusing with our trading partners on bringing back kind of agreement we know congress and our stakeholders and the american public will demand in order to get their support. >> once your thought, what more can we do to get this done quickly? >> we welcome the introduction of the bill in january. we are looking forward to working with this committee and

the senate finance committee and i see 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, would like to get a tpa bill that's not as broad bipartisan support as possible and we worked -- laforge worked with you on the. but in parallel we will continue to work tried to close tpp as ambitious high standard, comprehensive agreement. if our message or trading partners, and the i think they follow our discussion here quite closely, is that the only guarantee is we bring back a high standard agreement. we know what a high standard agreement looks like. it's got of labor and environment, intellectual property rights. it's got to state-owned enterprises, deal with the digital economy. those are issues we need to get resolved before we will get comfortable bring it back. >> thank you. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you as i suggested i want to remark 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 wanted for the record and we discussed prior to coming into the meeting, i had an opportunity meet with the greater harper labor board, and they pose a series of questions, more than i could even get you in the time slot that i have here, as did representative rosa delauro and i submit them to you and your staff. i would appreciate it, in answer to those. and as i mentioned as chairman, co-chair of the shellfish caucus, obviously we are

concerned about the eu ban on united states shellfish and i'm hoping that we can meet specifically on that as well. my question for you to do -- today has to deal with the -- i want to commend eric paulsen who led a letter earlier this year along with myself, i appreciate your response from the administration, the president and vice president and yourself. we have had meetings with ambassador from india. we hope to have him up in connecticut, but the concern remains and i want to ask you is what options do you have available to force change on these discriminatory politics -- policies as they currently exist? we understand and help the indian good faith is moving forward, but what options do you have to enforce this? and if you could elaborate on

those. >> this is an issue of great concern. we've had great concern about the innovation environment and india, the issues around the patent rules as those around compulsory licensing. and we've had a series of dialogues with the government of india including i met with the prime minister of issues around intellectual property rights and how best to achieve their objective of assuring access to medicine, and objective we all share, without compromising or undermining the patent system. clearly 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, there are mechanisms for bringing disputes settlement cases but we are trying to work in a constructive way with india

to focus on the a rate of issues that they can deal with on access to medicines, short of taking action on patents or compulsory licenses in a way we think our inappropriate. for example, in the have certain tariffs on imported medicines. so if you want to encourage access to affordable medicines, one thing any country to do is drop its tariffs and that would help access to medicine. there are a series of other issues on this should be and that's the dialogue we hope to have with the new government of india. >> 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 would 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 of the issues we've been discussing here today, tpp, ttip, other labor rights issues and other agreements, other enforcement issues. we've taken their input very seriously into our negotiating position, not just on the labor chapter bought on issues on state-owned enterprises or rules of origin, in various market access issues. so they have been a good partner at the table in helping us shape our negotiating proposals. not that we will not serve a great on everything and not that any particular stakeholder group is likely to get 100% of what they want 100% of the chapters 100% of the time. this is a negotiation but we work closely with them. we share a number of their concerns and we look forward to continuing that work on tpp, on ttip and across our trade agenda. >> thank you, ambassador. >> will now go to do one.

mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ambassador, for your diligence on the efforts to increase exports virtually for american producers. in addition to facing high tariffs we know that competitive american entities such as agriculture are facing as mentioned before nine care of trade barriers which can only be addressed by establishing the enforceable and science-based standards and trading rules. representing thousands of nebraska and producers i certainly pay close attention to the policies impacting at the altar technology. takes to modern practices in biotechnology we are saving water and increasing yields, and a lot of great news about this. and yet unpredictable and unscientific sanitary and other hurdles are blocking entry into these key markets and many of my colleagues have mentioned that already this morning. but very specifically, considering crops produced

through biotechnology account for about 30% over u.s. exports, agriculture exports that is, the 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. ag export have stopped numerous shipments without justifiable -- justifiable cause or proper notice. would you support ustr's raising this issue and within the 2014 u.s.-china joint commission on commerce and trade processed? >> well, thank you for the question to on the last point with regard to china and biotechnology products, in fact we were in china in december, secretary pritzker, secretary vilsack and myself for a meeting of jcct and this is very much front and center on the agenda, both the issues of exports but

also their process for approving biotechnology products. and assuring that they have a process that is consistent with the best science, and that they make decisions on a timely 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 european court of justice court about the importance of the eu maintains its own timetable for approving new products in biotechnology products and this is a key part of our negotiation. so it is very much on the agenda and the europeans understand the boards to us and we are working to find ways that we can make progress on this consistent with these interest. >> and also we've heard several references here this morning a concern about japan, and perhaps even more specifically on the production of euros poured perhaps and its treatment specifically. but also i would like to raise

concerns about canada and not opening to dairy poultry and aggie markets, not opening their markets. could you perhaps speak to that and how we should move forward with that? or perhaps i don't expect you to share out the strategy but certainly how could we move forward to? >> yes, on both with japan to continue to press on those issues which we talked about and you're right on candidate but it's the only country in tpp that is not yet given us a market access offer on issues, on agriculture issues like a dairy and poultry. we are pressing them to do so. because it's a, 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 of u.s. producers and actually use consumers as well. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. schock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador froman. first, let me thank you for your country. one of the bright spots of the last couple of years in a down economy both are domestically as well as internationally. i hate to think what our economy might be doing in manufacturing and agriculture if we do not an animal, colombia and south korea now fully implemented. -- panama. a couple quick question. one is getting with the u.s. while pharmaceutical industry. i have raised this before. it's a very important issue to me because not only do they support 3 million jobs to the u.s. but 200,000 in my home state, and i'm just curious whether the administration would you particularly are supportive of ensuring that the 12 year guaranteed for ip protection for u.s. biologics is included in

whatever we negotiate with the tpp? >> thank you. this is one of the most challenging outstanding issues of tpp. look around the table, five countries have zero years of protection. there are for countries with five years of protection. two countries at age is a protection, and we have 12 fears of protection. so consistent with our standard of practice of course, 12 years is u.s. law and so that has been our proposal that we put on the table in negotiations and we are now in the midst of that negotiation to determine where we can reach a consensus in terms of protection for biologics, and we're working to underscore the importance of that -- data protection for biologics, different and small molecules and vigorous issues that go into the determination of how much data protection there should be. >> great. i have great confidence in the your ability.

because obviously those 3 million jobs in the training our precisive for that reason because with such a high state, standard, and also the rule of law which i note 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 key to them recouping the cost to protect their intellectual property. specifically, the use of camcorder recording in the fornicators is one of the major ways that people still are products. we were able to get candidate 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 again as you look at tpp, these countries tend to be some of the more rabid of users in -- abusers, particularly with the film industry? is this something we can accomplish?

>> this is a very much part of our proposal at tpp is to have countries take action to deter camcorder and as one of our intellectual property rights proposals but we're working with the other countries on that here there is a range of perspectives on and we are optimistic we will be able to achieve something meaningful in that area. >> they seem to understand that's important and achievable? >> we have underscored that for them. >> great. finally, i know others have talked about the importance of tpa and what's happening in russia. what about the wto? russia it is enjoys participation in wto to obviously congress i think in a bar person way as an effort to put the squeeze on russia. neither the president nor the public wants use military force over there, but should we be using more economic tools, particularly looking at their

participation in wto? what is your thought? >> it helped them bring it to 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 view their participation in the wto as giving a central to be able to take action. step back from that, economic issues are very much on the table and light of russia's recent actions. the president, the administration have taken actions with regard to economic sanctions as have our allies but we made clear there's got to be a price paid for the actions that they participate in it they maintain the same path that their on going forward, the sanctions will increase. so economics isn't much a part of that. and from ustr's point of view we have ceased all of our bilateral engagements with them on economic issues, on efforts we have underway to improve our trade and investment

relationship, including the negotiation of a bilateral investment treaty. >> thank you. >> mr. blumenauer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you again for joining us. it's been very helpful having conversations. you've been generous to meet in private, in small groups, and yet another committee hearing. it's i think important to build this record. i will submit to you a more technical question that deals with rules of origin for titanium products. it makes a great deal of difference i think in terms of having a preference for melting, and not milling, i don't expect you to be deeply versed in this right now but i would appreciate attention to because it makes a big difference protecting us from unfair competition from state owned industries in china and russia, for instance, and protecting the capacity and the united states. there are 13 members of this

committee that cosign a letter that congressman schock and i developed. i have legislation with ms. jenkins getting with it. we've had conversations before that this isn't an issue where less than 1% of the product is manufactured in the united states. the value chain is concentrated not just in my region of the pacific northwest but around the country. that's we have an opportunity to make some real advantages in going forward, yet they suffer some of the highest tariff rates, which retards ability for capital formation in this country, to create jobs or move them here, and it is a tax on the american consumer that is much higher as this moves through the value chain and just the burden on the 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 he did speak briefly to the progress that we're making to reduce these punitive tariffs and the tax on consumers? and maybe spark some innovation here. >> thank you. this is an issue of sensitivity both to the u.s. and among our trading partners to its a key issue in tpp. we've been working with domestic stakeholders, both domestic producers that exist 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 we are able to bring in good, high quality products for the

american consumers. and so it's one of the outstanding areas in our negotiation with our trading partners, and once we are in continuous discussion including as recently as this week with our stakeholders as we formulate our position. >> as i mentioned there are 13 members of the committee that cosign that the letter, dozens of other members. we think there is some support in congress for efforts to try and extract more value for the american consumer and these american companies. 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, including in this hearing, that it remains a high priority for you, for the administration to be able to make progress.

i do identify a little bit, however, with a comment from a friend from texas, mr. doggett, about how enforcement actions as someone 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, you here or going forward, would make, i think give more dimension and traction to the representations of what you're trying to do environmental it. >> thank you for that and i'm sorry didn't have a chance to answer mr. dockets questioned while he was here but let me simply say that i think this administration demonstrated -- mr. dockets, a commitment to trade enforcement. he said at this agency trade for a center with assets run the government that allowed us to bring better, stronger and more complex cases.

with regard to the particular issues that were raised, with regard to peru, for example, and the force to annex, we been able now with the resources at ustr has been given the recent budget to reengage with peru on monitoring that agreement and were now heading towards having a registry in peru for the locking to ensure that it meets the standards of the annex. on labor we've been 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 bangladesh given their labor issues. we use our enforcement tools thoroughly to make sure the labor and environmental commissions are fully enforced. >> thank you very much. >> ms. jenkins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for this important hearing. thank you, ambassador, for being here and for all of your good work. many of us have serious 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 raise serious questions about whether china is complying to its wto's obligations. most specifically the world organization for animal health recognize lester that all cuts of u.s. beef are safe yet china continues to ban u.s. beef import. i know congressman smith touched 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? >> thank you and it is a high priority in our relationship with china, ever since the u.s. has found to be a negligible risk country. last year it's been able to go

back to trading partners and open up markets for u.s. beef exports and as i mentioned earlier, secretary vilsack was with secretary pritzker and myself in china 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 in a series of technical discussions between usda and its chinese counterpa counterpart. but you also need you all the tools at our disposal, and here's an example where we brought a wto case against china for the exclusion of certain chicken parts, broiler parts. we won that case. in the wto and we will continue to bring cases in agriculture and other issues where we think parties have violated the standard to the underlying point you make which is we want to make sure sbs standard around the world, whether it's in china or europe are based on science

as ours are is an absolutely critical and funnel part of our trade policy. >> excellent, thank you. my concerns with china are not exclusive to agriculture because the are many examples giving with china is a significant challenge, but we need to address these concerns without all -- hurting our own economy. given the limited time and resources available to address the long list of china's barriers how would you prioritize the various challenges u.s. companies face in china? and would legislation such as some of the currency bills that 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 its market access obstacles or how the concerned that the force the transfer of technology as a condition of doing business there. we've pushed back over the last couple of years on their

innovation policies that would've required our intellectual property need to be transferred as a condition of doing business are persisting in government procurement. we're pushing for the legalization of software, of ensuring that trade secrets are protected. and across the board we are looking both are biological dialogue enforcement mechanism to ensure that china upholds its wto obligations. so the conflict is a complex set of issues are absolutely critical to improving our trade investment relationship with china. have a lot of mechanisms to do this. our bit negotiation, other engagement with china and we are insured that we set priorities so that we are making sure we're addressing the most, the practices of the greatest concern to american firms and american businesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i yield back. >> thank you. mr. paulsen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by thanking you and your team for accessibility, for your responsiveness and for your engagement but it's very much appreciated any charging situation shoved into meeting with my office in particular. i want to follow up on what john larson mentioned earlier, because the situation with india. it was just lester we had 170 members in congress, bipartisan, 15 governors that asked the decision to raise concerns with india's unfair trade practices at the highest levels of the indian government. the president has done the. the vice president and gm secretary of state on down the line. since the inception of ustr special 301 report, in india is one of the few countries to have been designated as a priority foreign country. in the last 25 years. so india does not fail to make any meaningful progress i was in addressing the long-standing concerns raised each year by

your agency in that special 301 report. there's a whole host now of market access, trade issues that significant indeed the ability of the u.s. companies and business and investors to operate there. given the boards of the u.s. and india strategic relationship, and india's pro-growth protection which are outlined in your opening testament of the market for u.s. goods and services, i think all efforts need to be made to overcome these challenges and many difficult issues. the primary forum to help address some of these bilateral trade investment issues seem to be the trade policy forum, and ustr co-chairs that. it's not been held since 2010 it went expect told the next trade policy forum of? >> thank you. first, i got a series of meetings with my indian counterpart since coming into this job and we stayed very closely in touch, including about how to make sure that trade policy forum is an 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 staffs to work through outstanding issues in preparation for a trade policy forum. and 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 should wait until the capacity election in order to engage on that, but i'm fully committed to reinvigorating trade policy forum. we want to make sure it's not just to have a meeting but it's a meeting that will help achieve results and that's what i want to make sure spent the elections are coming up soon and it sounds like you agree with staying on a positive trajectory that talks with india's have to produce concrete results of? >> absolutely. >> let me switch topics real quick. since congress last debated tpa in 2002, one aspect of our economy and trade as a medical checkup and that's the use of the internet for both commerce and personal use. back in 2002 nobody knew anything about google or

googling anything or facebook or twitter. can you talk a little bit or explain about how our trade agreements i and today's 21st century model can truly reflect the full balance of u.s. law regarding the internet? >> thank you. that's very much one of the areas of focus in tpp at the moment. because we want to make sure we take the lessons from the physical world and bring it into the digital world consistent with existing legislation. we are pushing for the free flow of data, for example. we're pushing against localization requirements that servers have to be located in a country for a business to be able to serve that country. we want to make sure we are respecting privacy concerns and governments have the ability to regulate in a bona fide weight in the interest of privacy, and those are also important objectives. so we take as our touchstones

existing u.s. law and we're working in that context to assure that the digital economy is very much reflected in the 21st century very much. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. kind. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and think if only to see. thank you i want to share any accolades directed toward you with the leadership to show this committee and what you meant to the congress and our friendship in particular. we're going to miss you but we still have some work to do. mr. ambassador, thank you for being here. i think it has been a consistent message delivered from the committed to you is one of gratitude given your access and level of engagement not only with members of this committee that members of congress and especially in the new democratic coalition of which i in meeting to get then be forced on a number of occasions in fact so often that we're talking about making you an honor remember given our endless meetings with you, but that is going to be crucial as we do move forward. not only tpa authorization but

the tpp negotiations. members need to have access, that level of engagement. you have been tireless in that effort and the ultimate you. just yesterday dr. boustany and mr. reichert, myself and mr. meeks had a chance to breakfast with the tpp and bashers at the canadian embassy. we were able to engage them directly about the market access issues that you been working on but have diplomatically a fake exchange, but you should also know there was high praise from everyone of them about the job you doing on our behalf, and that's always very good to hear. here's one of the concerns i have. i think it's important we are at the table, moving forward on a robust trade agenda. it's important not only for the economic growth our nation and the 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 the final tpp being negotiated. the rest of the world is not

sitting around waiting for us to get our political act in order. there's a danger that tpp could turn into an other doha, which we're trying to avoid at all costs. i'm just wondering if you are sensing the same type of concern, or if you are seeing significant progress being made that might elevate this and enable the congress to finally start taking action, give you the tools you altar boy need in order to reach the best agreement that we can get with the tpp nation's? >> thank you. i think again i think the only guarantee, i'll tell you what it our trading partner come the only guarantee is an agreement being approved by congress is that we negotiate a good agreement. and we know what good agreement is. we can know what the good agreement is through the expression of tpa an expression of negotiating in tpa. we can also know after a thorough consultatconsultat ion

with members of congress and stakeholders and with the public about the good sense of what's necessary. what each of our domestic processes that we need to go to an ours is tpa and our trading partners have their domestic process as well. we don't want him to use the lack of tpa as an excuse for not coming to the table and not concluding our high standard, ambitious copperheads agreement as soon as possible. i think we can do that but i think we can work in parallel to conclude are high 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, editing to share this, is that those at the table, the 12 nations negotiating, all of them are there because they want an agreement. they are not just playing games but on another level and in court, under cap with some pretty innovative capacity building provisions in chapter.

i'm when it were still pursuing using that are trying to elevate 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 a part of what we're trying to do with vietnam, as they sig signed onto international labor standards, as we develop action plans and work programs within to be able to meet those standards but it's going to require technical assistance whether from the ilo or from the solitary center or elsewhere for them to be able to achieve those objectives. we are working closely with the state department and usaid to assure that there will be resources available so they can fully of a their obligations under tpp. tpp. >> i would be happy to follow up with you. and, finally, a resource issue. it against me with ambassador punke recently to talk about the idea negotiations with china. i was somewhat alarmed to understand that he was there on our behalf they sing 15 chinese

negotiation across the table tried to wear him thin or wear him out. am wondering if we're giving you enough resources in order to pursue these negotiations and that we are not being undermanned -- >> well, we are a lean and mean organization, ustr. i think that's generally one of our strengths. frankly, doing sequester we got a little too lean and we were not able to fulfill all the responsibilities the way that we would like to. we are working with our appropriators to assure we've got the necessary resources going forward, but i would put ambassador punke up against 16 chinese counterpart any day. i think that's a pretty even match. >> mr. marchant. >> thank you, ambassador. as you know, texas, global trade is for important to text. in fact, texas leads all states in exports, and have for about 12 years. and in my district in this south

fourth work -- fort worth, trade is a very important to get our people in my constituency that a 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 for texas and to my constituents? >> you know your constituency well. my understanding is that in texas, you are exporting about $8 billion to korea, and that's about a 54% increase over the last few years. same is true on clinic, 140% increase. hannah martin 93% increase. you are seeing the benefits of these trade agreements directly affect and choose your exports grow, and that sort of role with ttip is a sick kind of export growth come with the opening of

these markets. >> to problematize, just reflate american airlines has announced it's 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 a little bit about that experiment and how important it is and how that will dovetail into your negotiations with them? >> interesting question. this is the shanghai free trade zone but announced last year, and we are monitoring that very closely to see what it is a intend to do and how they intend to use it. and that together with the outcomes of a third plenum in november with a layout to the reform program, there's a lot of positive signals in the third plenum program and in the shanghai free trade zone proposal about where china wants to take its economy of how wants

to open its economy, liberalize it, have a few more market oriented, take the government out of the process of approving every investment. one way we are following up on that is to our bit negotiation, our bilateral investment treaty negotiations. that gives us an opportunity to put to the test whether wayne china says it wants to move towards a so-called negative list, meaning companies can this a new business in china before and anywhere in any sector unless it is explicitly prohibited to see whether and how far they want to go in that regard, how far they went to take the third plenum outcomes and drive it through reform and become. we're 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 are performed are being translated into reality. >> thank you. yield back. >> mr. pascrell.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, you have a very, very difficult job. you inherited a terrible situation with the trade imbalance is. i've listened to the smoke and mirror games of presidents, democrats and republicans on trade issues. the american people are fed up because they've seen the results which many times have not helped us at all in the long run and have not helped foreign countries. so i trade policy i think is at a crossroads. we have come a long way since the one-sided deals of the '90s and 2000s, which helped cripple our country's industrial base. we want to build the base and i've heard you say that you're so. want to build manufacturing in this country. weather services for anything else. when democrats took the majority, we fought to include real protections for labor

rights and the apartment. we were moving in the right direction, thanks to the involvement and investment of the congress and the united states and the administration listening at the time. i think that this is important to we need an investment. i agree with ranking member levin when he says we need contents involvement by the congress, not after but before. we've had serious consequences and that did not happen in the past, and it has had repercussions for now, today. what we are seeing in this difficult trans-pacific partnership negotiation, fearing we could slip back into the old ways of doing business but i realized that you job is difficult. you inherited a negotiating with a lot of countries that don't share our values and commitments to high standards for labor and environment. and we celebrated in the peruvian trade deal. that was i think a pivotal point for the congress of the united

states to have enforcement roles, to have countries agreed before the deal is signed sealed and delivered that they're going to make some changes and do that in a very transparent way. countries should be our allies in that fight are nowhere to be found many times, mr. ambassador. i urge you to stay firm and not go backwards. mr. ambassador, i'm a co-chair of the house textile caucus, what's left of the textile industry in the united states of america, which we have seen dwindle away in the last 40 years. i'd like to thank you for your commitment to the yarn forward roll of origin for textiles and apparel. which as you know is a critical importance to the textile industry in this country. my question today is on market access with the most sensitive textile products manufactured here in the united states. can you assure the members of

this committee that your negotiators will seek the longest duty phaseout possible for the most sensitive textile items? that's a pretty direct question. we don't need a glossary of discussions here. would you give me and after? >> we are working with very close with textile and apparel stakeholders to make sure with a full understanding of what the most sensitive products are, and using the tools that you mentioned, yarn forward, short supply list, and staging issues. we're making sure we strike that right balance between assuring protection for our domestic producers as appropriate, and also allowing the import of apparel and speed as you heard before, folks are concerned about vietnam's wanting immediate access to any think that's a serious problem. do you think that that's the hurdle we can get around to make it over, et cetera?

>> that's very much part of the current negotiation. >> what do you think? >> we're in the midst of negotiating that with our trading partners so i can't say at this point -- >> are you making a commitment today to this committee that you were going to do what the question entails? >> we are firmly committed to ushering that we haven't out, on textiles and apparel as well as other products, frankly, that support the maximum number of american jobs in this country and take into account the sensitivities of some of our key sectors. >> i wanted to highlight the concerned about intellectual property, those decisions in canada in recent years that go against our neighbors international commitments. the canadian courts have ruled that certain pharmaceutical patents, including many belonging to companies in my home state of new jersey, invalid due to what i believe to be an inappropriate

interpretation of international standards. this is an issue increasing access to medicine developing countries. canada is well the competent induction was nation. this policy is designed to benefit their manufactures at the expense of -- mr. ambassador, we do not need a corporate draft for our trade policies. >> time has expired. you want to respond briefly? >> on the canadian patent this is something we are monitoring closely the it is now in litigation both in the canadian courts and in investor states case, something were marching very close as part of tpp as well. >> thank you. ms. black is recommended. >> thank you, ambassador for the new. is such an important conversation we're having. i want to go to the issue of intellectual property which i can did you ask about because i hear so much about that in my own district, about our job

creators there that do business overseas and how they believe specifically in the asian countries that is not the respect for the intellectual property. so tpp must contain strong ipr productions to be effective and copperheads it trade agreements. not only are these protections support millions of jobs here in the united states, a significant portion of her exports but they are also encouraging american innovation and investment. the full spectrum of intellectual property rights must be covered including and copyrights and trademarks in all types of products and services must be adequately addressed, including pharmaceuticals. how will ustr ensure that tpp will contain strong and effective ipr protection similar to that found in our u.s. law? >> that is what our objective in

negotiations. and as i mentioned in my opening remarks, we have millions of americans whose jobs depend on the innovation economy, on creativity, honor intellectual property rights and whether its copyright, trademark, cited things are in the pharmaceutical side of the ledger. we're working to assure the appropriate level of intellectual property rights, and very much based on concepts of u.s. law. so strong copyright protection, also limitations and exceptions consistent with u.s. practice. and on the farm circles are consistent with a may 10 agreement ushering incentives for innovation while at the same time access to medicine by the poor and developing countries. >> the other issue also right along those lines is the issue of cross-border data flows which are critical not just to service companies but also the globalized company in any sector. so respecting the differences of those data privacy approaches

country to country, how can we ensure that there's a robust protection of those cross-border data flows? >> that's a central part of our new approach on the digital economy in tpp, to try and reach agreement around disciplines on regulating the flow of data, making sure that there can be the free flow of data. also didn't with issues like localization of servers so businesses are not quite have servers in the particular country in order to serve that market. this is very much, we talk about updating our trade agreements for the 21st century and bringing to issues like the emergence of additional -- digital economy is precisely what we are focused on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i, too, want to commend you for your service to the nation, and especially for the outstanding leadership you've

provided as chairman of this committee in terms of the way that you facilitated this work. i trust that when you leave congress you will always relish the memory of that. and thank you, mr. ambassador, for being here. and for your interest up with the great work that you do. mr. ambassador, i come from chicago, up north, which has been known as the candy capital of the nation. thousands of jobs in chicago are directly related to the availability of sugar at a competitive price. according to the commerce department to date in this country, we've already lost 127,000 sugar using jobs since 1997 because of the trade

distorting sugar program. over the last five years, confectioners, bakers, candy makers and other manufacturers have suffered through the highest sugar prices anyone can remember. all did in kuwait repress the sugar policy. -- all due to a repressive sugar policy. in both mexico and the u.s., and a temporary sugar surplus, big sugar has decided to use more government action to eliminate competition. last friday, sugar processors filed antidumping and countervailing duty cases against the importation of mexican sugar, allowed under the north american free trade agreement. mr. ambassador, can we count on you to oppose any effort to

restrict access to adequate supplies of sugar from mexico or anywhere else that are needed to preserve good manufacturing jobs in the confectionery industry in chicago, and throughout the nation? >> the antidumping and countervailing duty case that you mentioned is the province of the commerce department and the itc. it's actually a quasi-adjudicatory process in which ustr or any other agency is involved. it's being dealt with in a technical way that those two agencies deal with it. sugar is it is a very sensitive issue in trade negotiations, always has been, and we are consulting very closely with stakeholders on the issues around sugar. but we are not going to do anything to the trade agreements that would jeopardize or undermine the sugar program.

>> in your view, does this dumping complaint help or hurt our bilateral trading relationship with mexico? >> well, trade remedies, congress created trade remedies so interest would have the ability to bring these cases when they thought there was dumping and countervailing duties, and it's brought by the compass themselves with the industries themselves, not by the government. it's certainly something that the mexican government and the mexican stakeholders care a lot about, but it is the province of her injury, in the initial whether it's sugar or steal or any other industry to avail themselves of the trade remedies congress has created. >> as you indicated, it is a long history of trade disputes

in sugar and sweetener trade between the u.s. and mexico. in the past, mexico has placed restrictions on american exports of high fructose corn syrup. do you share my concern that corn farmers in illinois and other states could get caught up in another cross-border trade dispute that is not their fault, but is the result of the market distorting sugar subsidies? >> i certainly hope we could avoid that situation. >> we thank you very much and i thank you for your work. track you i yield back. >> thank you. mr. young. >> mr. ambassador, thanks so much for being here today. i really do appreciate it. i'll begin by noting mike lee, mr. griffith of arkansas who was called away to the floor, and he just asked that i convey to you he will be submitted a letter for consideration for came to tpp and japan's treatment of

rice, also pertaining to dumping of steel rebar from turkey and mexico. so he will look forward to your responses. mr. ambassador, it recently with, working with several of my colleagues, helped launch a caucus rooted to ttip. and this is a very important issue. we hope we can consummate his free trade agreement in coming years between the u.s. and the eu. were we to do so, it's projected that exports from my hosted indian would increase by roughly 33%, and it would be a net increase of employment up to 13,780 jobs. the largest category of exports that will benefit from this event we estimate will be pharmaceutical to of course the intellectual property right protection that we've heard about here today are very important to the industry as we work on this agreement. from their perspective what barriers for ipr trade our most

significant as we look at the u.s. and eu negotiations? perhaps you could cite areas where there could be some convergence and other areas where harmonization might not be possible. >> i think one thing to categorize, character is the u.s. the relationship is that both of us have strong intellectual property rights regimes. so we start from a fairly common perspective in that regard. and, obviously, our innovative and creative industries will benefit from the perspective and we're going to try to work together through ttip, 80 -- the u.s. and eu to promote strong intellectual property rights protection elsewhere around the world as well. as part of ttip we are working to bring our regulatory systems closer together, or to bridge

divergences and are ready for systems, without reducing, undermining, lowering our health, safety and environmental standards. neither one of us wants to lower our standards. the president spoke quite eloquently on this at brussels last week. this is not about deregulation. it's about picking to well regulated markets, but markets that are regulated in slightly different ways and it's those differences create trade barriers and seeing whether we can bridge those trade barriers by further cooperation on the rail tory side and our fda is working closely with the ema in europe to determine what areas of cooperation bailout for more interaction and pharmaceutical and medical devices. >> my sense is based on your response which i appreciate is we're still teasing out some of those areas, the thornier areas, the areas of common agreement and so forth. we will look for testing in touch in that regard.

with respect to go, essentially a development program designed to benefit the less developed countries of africa, that expires in september of 2015 and we want to make sure this reauthorization occurs in a way that improves upon ideally the existing program but i know that ustr has requested several studies from itc pertain to the program and its effectiveness in operation and so forth. this committee as requested a separate study from gao. and we agree to share information so that we can work together to improve this program speak with we certainly want to work closely with this committee and others in congress on this issue. we launched a full review of agoa to assess what's worked well, once worked less well, what's changed in every comic and what's changed in the relationships with your trading partners, and as we seek a seamless renewal of agoa next

year what need to be done to update it and make sure it's having maximal impact along the lines as it originally was designed to we look very much forward to working with you on that. >> thank you. finally, i which is built upon representative pass gross comments pertaining to intellectual -- mr. pascrell's comments. as a place to candy, particularly important to the pharmaceutical industry and you'll be receiving a letter from mr. pascrell emma stone along with several other members pertaining to this issue and validating the special 31 priority watch list in 2014. because that canada lacks of adequate and effective this intellectual property rights protection. so we look forward to getting your response on that. i appreciate the dialogue today. thank you again for your service. >> ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to begin by adding my voice to those who will wish you well, and at the risk of my husband thinking -- i will say

like all good men in my life, you are leaving too soon. and while i say that tongue in cheek, your leadership will be missed. ambassador froman, i want to take you for joining us today. i have many questions i'd love to ask but i have to that i would like to get to because i will jump right in. as you know, the united states is the world's largest creator, producer and exporter of copyrighted material. and jobs that support industries that are innovative typically are the kinds of jobs that provide benefits to workers and allow somebody to support a family all of the wages from those jobs and innovation. i think it's incredibly important to not just think about trade generally but to be very specific about making sure that we protect and try to grow

jobs in the innovation sector because they typically do often include manufacturing jobs with them. being from southern california i'm sure you can appreciate the lie that for many southern californians are directly impacted when there is a lack of respect for u.s. domestic industries and intellectual property. so my colleagues have mentioned canada in india in particular. and i know that the administration goal has been to achieve quote unquote twitterverse -- 21st century agreement, but the size and scope of our pending agreements is what concerns me. as members of congress we spend a lot of time, often years and years, crafting federal legislation to try to achieve that goal. and my concern is that in trade agreements like tpp, the work that has been done to pass these laws could be undermined if we don't include some kind of

incentive an enforcement mechanism for making sure that we are incorporating standards of u.s. law and those trade agreements. in that same vein, criminal enterprises enable infringements of u.s. intellectual property, which also for the impacts both u.s. and global marketplaces and our workers. i think you're in a pretty unique position to try to help address that particular problem by fostering legitimate online commerce. so i'm just curious how are you going to ensure that these 21st century agreements reflect a u.s. law for all industries and ensure that those who are intentionally enabling infringement are held liable for their action? >> first of all, i couldn't agree with you more about the significance of intellectual property and protecting our

industries, not just -- i was in los angeles several months ago. not just for the actors and directors when they participate but for the unionized carpenters and engineers who are working on the sets. there's a whole ecosystem their that we want to make sure that they're getting the benefits of their labor and that they are earning the benefits of the ther labor. and that's where kind of you in tpp, inner intellectual property efforts, on copyright, on camcorders and, on making sure that piracy is dealt with and that there are effective enforcement mechanisms. ustr come with a process where we list websites that are notorious for solving hybrid material and get countries to close them down or get the websites themselves to drop, drop the offending material, the pirated material. and so that's something that we were come both in our negotiation and in our enforcement efforts.

and it's a high priority force. >> thank you. switching gives -- switching or shall quickly and if i run out of time i'll ask for your response in writing. but you testified before the and lester that the administration will continue to ensure that the jones act is conducted under our trade agreement. reseller heard a report that the european union has put forth a draft proposal that would try to undermine the jones act. so i'm just looking for some reassurance from you that nothing has changed with respect to the commitment that you made to the committee and that you're going to continue to ensure that the jones act or other programs to promote u.s. flag shipping are not going to be curtailed or diluted in future trade agreements because there's nothing we can do in a trade agreement that will repeal or undermine a u.s. law. europeans have a lot of priorities in the negotiation and we have a lot of priority as well, and that's what the negotiation is for is that we work our way through these issues and understand each other's sensitivity and how best to address the concerns of each

and context of an overall comprehensive agreement. >> thank you. thank you for your time. >> thank you. mr. reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, thank you. were down to the end. and i appreciate, we've talked, we've met them and as your predecessor ron kirk, you do an outstanding job and i appreciate the work you do. i enjoy working with you. i wanted to relate to you that a large employer for my district inform the heeded its immense amount of good work for the it agreement, corning incorporated. i just wanted you to know that we appreciate the work in that arena. so kudos to you. last week i was at a hearing with a steel caucus. i also coach of the u.s. caucus here in d.c. it was brought to our attention repeatedly by many of the member companies, new ports deal is a larger put my district also. they have -- u.s. steel was

there. mr. griffin i guess we'l will sa follow-up letter to you but i wanted to stress to you are relate to you that think i heard in the steel caucus is that there's a real threat from the dumping of steel into the u.s. market. i wanted to see how you thought especially in the turkey-mexico for me. i want to see have you thought about their concern that that is going on and is there anything you could do or have done present late to try to address the issue of inappropriate steel dumping into america's marking -- markets? >> we met on the record basis, something we know is a great concern and, therefore, we are monitoring it closely. with regard to those particular issues of turkey, mexico and antidumping cases, i have got to refer you to the commerce department because those are procedures under their mechanisms that qualified adjudicatory and we're not.

were not involved in those, but the situation in the steel sector itself and the steel industry globally is something that we do monitor closely and want to continue to pursue to see if there are things we can do through our trade dialogues to try and address them. >> and could you give me any indication, ideas along those lines that you would be considering? >> one thing that's come up in the context of our china dialogue is the concern about overcapacity. there's clearly overcapacity in the global steel sector but it's something that china itself has flagged as an issue they're concerned about domestically. so having a dialogue with them, with other major steel manufacturing countries about the situation in the market, about overcapacity is one mechanism that we are exploring to see if we can make some progress on that issue. >> if there's a willingness, i

am aware capacity to do something that was also referenced in the same steel caucus hearing. with that, it's been a long day and i have no further questions. and without i yield back, mr. chairman spent again, ambassador froman, thank you for answering every question that the committee put forward to you in your appearance today and look forward to working with you as we move forward on all the important issues that were discussed. and with that, this hearing is adjourned. >> live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable industry and funded by local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the u.s. senate will gavel in in just a couple of moments. they will start with speeches after their party lunches action

of the party lunches come up at 12:30 and members will return with senator barbara mikulski was the sponsor of the equity built which is before the senate and democratic colleagues talk about that bill which requires employers to pay men and women a similar publications the same wages for similar jobs. now to live coverage ofde the. senate. dr. black. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, today make our lawmakers instruments of your grace and goodness. teach them how to be patient with themselves and each other. forgive them when they permit impatience to lead them astray preventing them from seeing the wonder and majesty of your purpose for our nation and world.