it made hard choices not to increase the deficit and, therefore, provide an offset for tax credits. i think it is absolutely essential for us to do. this bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition i think most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance that the research and develop a tax credit will, in fact, be available not only for one year, but for a series of years, in this case i believe 10 years. .. making the deficit worse. as a matter of fact, mr. leader, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. this goes in exactly the opposite direction, and i think that's lamentable. i said $150 billion. it's actually $155 billion over 10 years. i would hope that the party

that is demanding that unemployment insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the >> and that the, any change in the sequester be paid for ought to have consistency and not add $15 a -- $155 billion to our deficit in a vote next week on something i think we're all for, and it is easy, mr. leader, as you well know to vote for tax cuts. easy. takes no courage whatsoever. i've been at this business 45 years. it's opinion my experience -- it's been my experience it is easy for members to vote for tax cuts. what is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. this bill does not do that. this bill makes the deficit worse, exacerbates the

confidence that americans have in their fiscal responsibility of their country and puts us in a worse place. so i would hope, mr. leader, that before this bill comes to the floor that you and the rules committee and mr. camp as he did in the bill that he offered to this house which was, frankly, dismissed out of hand because it made tough decisions. this bill makes no tough decisions. it has a tax cut, it has always candy, none of the spinach. it is all good, and nobody has to pay the price. nobody has to take responsibility. i think that's lamentable, and i would hope that before this bill comes to the floor there would be a way to pay for this bill. and i want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for

it, there is a way to pay for the other extenders that the committee wants, and that is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill. mr. boehner indicated that that was not being done because it was tough, and people didn't want to do tough things. i understand that. it's hard to do tough things, that's why they're called tough. mr. boehner now says he was kidding when he said that. my view is he was deadly serious. and the reason that we're considering this bill next week is because it's easy to do. the reason we're not considering comprehensive immigration reform, because it's difficult to do. but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of the tax cuts that are being proposed in these extenders and, indeed,

in all of the extenders that is proposed by the senate finance committee. and they only proposed that for two years, not ten years, but it would pay for all of them. in fact, cbo says that if we pass comprehensive immigration reform, it will mean $200 billion for next year -- excuse me, for the next ten years and $900 billion over the next 20 years. in december the budget committee chairs, mr. ryan and ms. murray, were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. we ought to be able to do that as well. let me close this part of my comment with two quotes. one from republican secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, who said as a general rule i don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.

and then mr. alan greenspan who initially said in '01 and '03 he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. however, upon review of those tax cuts, he came back when he was in response to a question on "meet the press" from david gregory. the question was you don't agree with the republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themself themselfves. mr. greenspan: they do not. so that all of your republican colleagues are being asked to vote for $155 billion increase in the deficit which they all say they want to bring down. i'm sure they will get up and rationalize as they did in 1981 in 2001, 2003 that those tax cuts would magically grow the

economy so that they would not exacerbate the deficit. in the 33 years i've been in congress, that has not been our experience. so, mr. leader, i very sincerely hope that we can join together if a bipartisan way -- in a bipartisan way and support this legislation because the right thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing, and it's the right thing to do in bringing down our deficit to pay for it, and i yield to my friend. >> direct comments to the chair. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that for 30 years plus the rnd tax credit has been on temporary extension. this is nothing but reflecting reality saying that this is a very important part of incentives so that we can fulfill the mission that the

gentleman is on as well as we share or which is more manufacturing here in america. if making it in america is important, the r&d tax credit is fundamental for that mission. this ab in place for over -- has been in place for over 30 years on temporary extension. and to hold it hostage, as the gentleman suggests, mr. speaker, is not the way to go about facilitating growth in our economy. and i respect the gentleman's commitment to fiscal discipline. obviously, we have different opinions about how to get to that goal. but both of us, i think, could agree, mr. speaker, that growth is something that has been too little, too tepid, and we need to return to an era in which we can see some robust growth in our economy.

it will help those who are chronically unemployed. it will help businesses grow. it will help communities grow, families to get by easier so they can see a better future. this r&d tax credit is something that as the gentleman says he supports. and to support that means support it as it has existed, but let's once and for all send a signal of certainty that this will be the policy for manufacturing and others in this country so we can continue to innovate. and i yield back. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors who are serving medicare patients. we do that every year as well. and the republican side of the aisle demands that that be paid

for. we do -- >> mr. speaker? will the gentleman yield? >> i'll be glad to yield on that. >> mr. speaker, the difference in the sgr to this is we have consistently offset the expenditures under sgr. this r&d tax credit is a tax credit. it is allowing businesses who invest to keep more of that investment, to plow it back into resource. the precedent is not there as it is on sgr and the other items that perhaps the gentleman would point to. this is important to growth. this is important to manufacturing. we should all join together and support the permanent extension of what has been if place over 30 -- in place over 30 years on extension over a dozen times. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his observation, mr. speaker. the other side of the aisle laments the deficit.

they lament the debt. we have the debt, we have the deficit because we don't pay for what we buy. that is why we have a debt. that is why we have a deficit. when we were be charge, we put in a pay-as-you-go rule. that rule said if you're going to spend money, this is essentially a tax expenditure, it is a worthy tax expenditure. it is something that i support. it helps to grow the economy. but it is a tax expenditure. and no one on this floor can say that it does not make the deficit worse. no one. with any degree of credibility. the argument has been made, of course, though that tax cuts, they'll grow so much that you won't get the deficits. that's what mr. reagan, president reagan argued and his proponents argued in 1981. the debt increased 187% under

president ronald reagan. because they didn't pay more themselves. pay for themselves. and the republicans took over, mr. speaker, they amended the rules so we didn't have to pay for things. so this bill comes to the floor without any necessity to pay for it. so we'll give a tax cut, assuming it passes. somebody's going to pay for it. my children, my grandchildren, your children, mr. speaker, they're the ones who will pay for it because we are going to make a decision, apparently, not to pay for something that we know is going to increase the deaf set. deficit. so the analogy when we want things paid for is not always followed, mr. speaker. for instance, unemployment insurance almost invariably not paid for. and every, almost every economist says investing in unemployment insurance grows the economy, will help grow the gdp.

but we don't follow that practice here, you unfortunatel. we have a bipartisan, paid-for unemployment insurance bill that the senate has passed that we can't even get to the floor. that's paid for. it grows the economy, and it helps 2.5 million people who are falling through the cracks. and yet we bring a bill to the floor that has $155 billion cost, we don't pay for it, and the unemployment insured 2.5 million are ignored. mr. speaker, we don't think that a policy is one that we ought to pursue, and we would hope again that before this bill comes to the floor that it is paid for. i referred to comprehensive immigration reform, mr. speaker. and i will yield to my friend if

he wants to make a comment on the previous comment. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and would like to just point out that the last time that the gentleman's party was authority in this house during the lame duck session, we did extend the r&d tax credit unpaid for. so i hear what the gentleman is saying, but i would point that out for historic accuracy. i would say this, mr. speaker, i guess there may be a little bit of different view on how deficits are created. you know, the disproportionate cause for our deficit is the fact that we have demographics in this country -- 10,000 people every day becoming 65 becoming eligible for our health care entitlement programs -- and those programs are almost 50%, the medicare program's almost 50% underfunded. that's the disproportionate cause of the deficit. and i think all of us have said you can't tax your way out of it, you can't grow your way out

of it, you have to change the structure of the program. and that's something that the gentleman's party, nor the president will agree with us on. that's the disproportionate cause of the deficit. now, an additional cause of the deficit is we don't have enough growth. we don't have revenues coming into the federal government. and for some reason there's been an acceptance around here of a new norm, a very low and tepid growth. the r and d tax credit -- r&d tax credit is something that is growth oriented. it's certainty. the gentleman said so himself. the gentleman said that manufacturing in america needs certainty in the r&d tax credit. we've essentially been allowing an r&d tax credit since 1983 in this country -- 1981 in this country. so let's just call it what it is and make it permanent so that we can get back on the path to growth. addressing growth, addressing our unfunded liabilities connected with entitlement

programs, that's the sure way to reduce deficits and reduce the debt burden. i yield back. >> mr. speaker, i'm glad to hear the gentleman point that out, and i've been trying to work with the gentleman and his party for some period of time now starting with bowles-simpson and some other comprehensive suggestions. as i said, mr. camp, the chairman of the ways and means committee, has offered a comprehensive bill. i don't agree with some of the things in it, but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the trade-offs, the tough choices that need to be made. this bill does not. that is my point. lastly, mr. speaker -- because i know the majority leader has another engagement -- comprehensive immigration reform. i said that it scores our economy over

the next 20 years. but it's also morally the right thing to do to fix a broken system. a system that;2 doesn't work wih which everybody agrees. i would again appeal to the majority leader, mr. speaker, to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. i understand that there are many on his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. fine. vote against it. give this house an opportunity, give the american people the opportunity to have a comprehensive immigration pill voted in -- bill voted in the people's house on this floor so that we can fix a broken system or offer alternatives to that which is proposed by the united states senate and passed overwhelmingly by the united states senate. and if gentleman wants me to yield to him, i will certainly -- if not, i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. speaker? >> i'll yield to my friend. >> mr. speaker, thank the

gentleman for yielding. and i would just respond, we've had this discussion before. the majority is in opposition to the senate bill. speaker has said as much, i've said as much, and i've also said, mr. speaker, to the gentleman, to the president and others that we've got a lack of trust between this house and the white house. and i've said to the president that what could help is we start rebuilding that help which starts with an admission that it can't be my way or the highway. and it must instead be building trust, understanding where we can agree together. yes, we all agree the system is broken. it is a system that is broken on the legal side, and we have illegal immigration. there are things that this house has done before like a green card stapled to a diploma. but the president says, no, we can't do something like that. they can't -- we can't do

something like that without taking care of everything. and that, to me, mr. speaker, is where the problem lies. there's not enough trust on the part of the members of this body to think that the white house and the administration is going to implement whatever it is that we pass. so instead, why shouldn't we focus on where we agree and start from the there? that's been the profession that i've -- the position that i've expressed to the gentleman as well as to the administration. so, again, i just take issue with his insistence that somehow we can just do that, and it'll all be fixed. and that's the fundamental problem here, mr. speaker, and i yield back. >> mr. speaker, the fundamental problem is not my way or the highway, it's no way. the republican judiciary committee has passed out a number of immigration reform bills. the homeland security committee headed by a republican chairman has a passed out an immigration

reform bill dealing with border security. none of those bills have been brought to the floor. it's not a question about liking the senate bill or trusting the president of the united states. everybody agrees, mr. speaker, the immigration system is broken. but there's no way, no bill, no option that has been brought to this floor to fix that system, to respond to what everybody agrees is a broken system of immigration. matter of fact, mr. speaker, the prime minister of ireland celebrated st. patrick's day here with us at a luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing comprehensive immigration reform. now, they don't have to take our bill. they don't have to take the senate bill. but, mr. speaker, the american people deserve to have a bill on the floor to fix a broken system. it's not a question of whether they trust the question, it's

whether or not they trust the word of the house of representatives that it can work its will. i would hope that we could work our will on this issue. it's important for the american people, and i yield back balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, to ajoin to meet at noon tomorrow, and when the house adjourns on that day, it agrees to meet on tuesday, may 6, 2014, when it shall convene at noon and 2 p.m. for legislative business. >> when the women went off and became incredible successes, they were the -- not only did they be the first women stockholders in the world, i mean, to own a brokerage firm not to be repeated for a hundred years, they add a radical newspaper, they became -- they had a radical newspaper, they became lecturers, they spoke to

6,000 people, they were celebrities. they had headlines with just their names. it's like madonna or whatever. [laughter] they were really famous based on their beginnings with vanderbilt. and the family just kept threatening them with blackmail, said we're going to expose you, who the past is and what the past is like. and then the mother salterred thisly dick lob -- started this ridiculous court trial in which he said victoria's then-husband wanted the put her in an insane asylum and wanted to kill her, and so the press went wild and wrote about this very trashy family. and it was, the sisters had been trying very hard for two years to hide all that. and they were inventing and reinventing themselves. they were not at all the least bit educated, but they said they were. anything that would help them, they had moved on forward with. so they were willing to wreck their whole life just to get

tenny back in the fold to tell fortunes. and there had some really, really rotten characters if the family which i address. >> myra macer ifson argues that two little-remembered victorian sisters changed the course of women's rights in american history. sunday night at 8 on c-span's "q&a." >> the u.s. is in the middle of negotiations on the trans-pacific partnership, a trade deal with 11 latin america and asian countries. u.s. trade representative michael froman discussed the status of those talks at a finance committee hearing yesterday. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> finance committee will come to order. for decades american trade policy has been a story of adaptation and change. in particular, the extraordinary economic changes of the last generation demonstrate how important it is that future trade policies are reformed to reflect the times. for example, consider how

technology has transformed the american and the global economic landscape. in the 1990s an entire month's worth of internet traffic data would sit on a single hard drive that you can buy today for ther0 at any electronics store. more than two billion people now log on to the net regularly. but vietnam has a law on its books that calls into question the ability of u.s. businesses to move their data in and out of that country. governments in china, brazil and europe are also considering developing systems that would e educate ifively -- effectively build digital barriers to trade that nobody could have foreseen a few decades ago. and when it comes to enforcing our trade laws, a key priority, enforcement officials used to watch out for criminals fleeing offices with armloads of trade secrets printed on sense ty documents -- sensitive documents. now hackers can break into a

company's servers and steal data from the comfort of their own desks, classrooms or military facilities thousands of miles away. next, a generation ago american workers and businesses competed against a smaller, very different china. today bolstered by enormous advantages provided to state-owned and run enterprises, chinese government-backed steel and solar firms are able to take entire segments of the american economy out at the knees. they can do so because they sit on seemingly bottomless wells of cash, hide their paper trails with opaque accounting and dodge the risks and borrowing costs that american companies face. a third transformational change was the advent of unfair policies like indigenous innovation that target our american innovators. in the 1990s india and china

have limited technical capacity. now they can use highly technical standards to advantage their domestic firms and extract american companies' intellectual property for their own use. and it's a shakedown, plain and simple. fourth, over the previous decade currency manipulation has reemerged as a major concern for our economy. china made commitments to follow global trade rules when it joined the world trade organization in 2000. but when it comes to currency, as in so many other areas, china is keeping a finger firmly planted on the scale and undermining those commitments. pick a product manufactured in china and imported to our country, pick any product and currency manipulation makes it artificially cheaper. that is hurting our workers' ability to compete. finally, unlike 20 years ago the

american people expect to easily find online the information they want on key policy issues like trade. yet too often there is trade secrecy instead of trade transparency. it's time to more pulley inform americans -- fully inform americans about trade negotiations and provide our people more opportunity to express tear views on trade policy -- their views on trade policy. bringing the american people into full and open debates on trade agreements that have the effect of law have not too much to ask. at present many americans are questioning if trade developments have contributed to persistent, long-term unemployment, stagnant wages for far too many and students with good degrees unable to find high quality jobs while they're saddled with debt. last week's report sewing that america's -- showing that america's middle class is no

longer the best off in the world produced additional questions. responding effectively to the trade changes of the last generation is absolutely essential to instilling more confidence that trade policy will be good for america's working families and bring more of those middle class americas into the winner's circle. i'm going to wrap up by saying that, fortunately, america has big advantage ares to work with -- advantages to work with in the trade area. we have the most skilled, productive work force in the world, one that foreign students want to join. the dollar remains the dominant currency of the global marketplace, and with the internet's big bang and the boom in high speed networks, the u.s. exports $350 billion worth of digital goods and services each year on what amounts to a new virtual shipping lane. the internet also makes it easier for a classman, for

example, from fossil, oregon, where i was recently or a barbecue sauce maker from memphis, tennessee, to reach their customers around the world. so policymakers have a lot the work with. we do have classic issues that remain. the overseas carriers to bring down and other barriers to eliminate. we've had an open market, so clearly if you do this right, when america negotiates, we can get more of an advantage out of it than other trading partners. that is particularly good for american products like wheat and dairy and footwear that need to be able to compete on a level playing field. so, colleagues, here's my bottom line: the new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation has to be addressed with imaginative, new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious job-generating trade agreements. they have to reflect the need for a free and open internet and

strong labor rights and environmental protections. nations don't dismantle protectionist barriers or adopt these rules on their own. they do so with reciprocal agreements hammered out through negotiation, and america has to establish new rules to reflect today's trade norms and enforcement. we're looking forward to hearing from ambassador froman. i just want to thank my colleague, chairman hatch. since i've been chair of the committee, he has consistently tried to reach out and work in a bipartisan way. i'm very appreciative of that and, senator hatch, we welcome your opening statement, then we'll have an introduction for ambassador froman. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, i feel exactly the same about you. i think we have a real opportunity to have this committee do its work. in the way that i think most people on the committee would appreciate. under your leadership. hearyng, and i want to thank you, ambassador froman, for

appearing here today. as you know, we heard from you over three months ago when the committee held a hearing on the importance of trade promotion authority. and while i am still disappointed that you declined my invitation to participate in that hearing and glad you're able to be with us today and appreciate you coming. president obama's trade agenda is extremely ambitious. if it succeeds, it will help shape global trade patterns for decades to come. if it fails, it will result in billions of dollars of missed economic opportunity for american workers and for american job creators. of course, the president's term is not over yet, and the jury is still very much out. even so, i am concerned. first and foremost, the fact that tpa is not renewed creates a serious and perhaps fatal flaw in the president's trade agenda. i do not believe you can conclude high standard agreements that will meet congress' approval without t, a,

and i'm -- tpa, and i'm not the only one who holds this view. indeed, in recent months agriculture secretary tom vilsack and jason fuhrman, chairman of the council of economic advisers, have been quoted as saying tpa is a necessary component to conclude and implement our ongoing trade negotiations. ambassador froman, i have no doubt in your capabilities or those of your staff. in fact, i have every reason to believe in those capabilities. but history tells us very clearly that without tpa your trade agenda will almost certainly fail. that is why i'm very disappointed in the president's passive approach on this particular issue. and i am sure you can remember the enormous political effort president clinton put into successful implementation of the north american free trade agreement. and i'm sure you can also recall president bush's total political commitment to renewing tpa back in 2002. in those cases war rooms were

established and each cabinet secretary made congressional approval of those initiatives a public priority. put simply, we are not seeing that level of commitment from president obama which is disappointing to me and, i think, a lot of others as well. and without more effort on the part of the administration, i just don't think we can succeed. in addition, i am concerned about the president's enforcement record. e do spite a myriad of clear -- despite a myriad of clear violations, we have yet to see a single case brought against russia in the world trade organization. this is the case despite the fact that the administration told congress during consideration of pntr that one of the major benefits of having russia in the wto would be our ability to bring hem to dispute -- bring them to dispute settlement. i'm also disappointed that the president refuses to bring a wto case existence india for its -- against india for its continuing efforts to undermine the u.s. in intellectual property rights.

india knows better, and we ought to be forceful about in this, and i think it would help them as well. this failure to act with regard to india exemplifies a pattern within this administration when it comes to enforcing american intellectual property rights. countries around the world are taking note of the president's failure to act in the this area, and this is feeding the perception that they can refuse to protect and even actively violate u.s. intellectual property rights with impunity. finally, i am deeply concerned about the institution. ambassador froman, i appreciate the hard work and dedication of you and your staff. i have a high opinion of you, as you know. i am also deeply impressed by the caliber of your agency's career staff and their personal commitment to the work of the ustr. yet despite your best efforts, the agency still ranks dead last in employee job satisfaction among small agencies. part of the problem, excuse me,

is ustr's failure to effectively play its traditional role as a bulwark against other federal agencies. too often during the interagency process, regulatory agencies are just saying no to cooperative participation in international trade negotiations. for example, it was the department of health and human services that alleged the need for so-called, quote, policy space, unquote resulting in ustr's proposal to simply carve out tobacco products from the trans-pacific partnership negotiations. it was the department of treasury's insistence on relegating financial services' discussion to pre-existing forms that resulted in ustr's position that financial services should be carved out of our trade negotiations with the european union. and despite the strong support of u.s. agricultural and food processer groups for fully enforceable sanitary chapter in tpp, it was the food and drug

administration's fear of dispute settlement that resulted in a weaker ustr proposal which excludes certainties palins from dispute -- certain disciplines from dispute settlement. there's a clear pattern here. if this does not change, i am worried that any agreement this administration negotiates will never match the president's rhetoric of concluding high standard, 21st century agreements. of course, the history of this administration's trade agenda has yet to be written, and there is still time to correct the course. but make no mistake that time is limited. i want to help. that is why i work with my house and senate colleagues for almost a year to negotiate the bipartisan congressional trade priorities act, a balanced, bipartisan compromise which will empower our country to negotiate high standard agreements that will get the approval of congress. over 160 leading business and agriculture associations and companies have come out in strong support of this

legislation. like them, i strongly believe that approval of our tpa legislation will help our nation succeed in its ambitious trade negotiations. that being the case, i am asking once again that the president redouble his efforts and help us get this legislation signed into law as soon as possible. the political clock is ticking, and it won't be long until we will lose the small window we have to pass significant trade legislation this year. ambassador froman, i have high regard for you, as you know. i look forward to your testimony today. i have to leave shortly after we begin, but i appreciate your testimony today and will be working with you to achieve a successful conclusion of a strong, proto-growth trade agenda. pro-growth trade agenda. thank you again, mr. chairman, i'm sorry i took a little longer than usual. >> thank you, senator hatch. ambassador froman, thank you for your patience. i understand, also, that you have your family -- why don't you introduce them to all of us.

this is your first appearance. >> well, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i have my parents are in town, abe and and suzanne froman, my wife, nancy goodman, and my -- our longtime friend, brenda schafer, are all here in town. >> well, welcome. we're glad you're here. [applause] public service is not for the faint-hearted, and we really appreciate having family here. ambassador froman, we've been working closely with you. i know recently you've been out talking to senators, that's much appreciated, and why don't you make your opening remarks, and then we'll have questions from the senators. >> thank you, chairman wyden, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on the president's 2014 trade policy agenda. the core of the obama administration's economic strategy is to create jobs, promote growth and strengthen the middle class, and through our trade policy we're contributing to that strategy by opening markets for made-in-america exports, leveling the playing field for american workers and businesses by raising standards and fully

enforcing our trade laws and our trade rights. we're unlocking opportunity for american workers, farm beers and ranchers -- farmers and ranchers, for manufacturers and service providers, for entrepreneurs and innovators in a way that promotes both our interests and our values. the obama administration has made great strides in promoting u.s. exports and creating jobs here at home. we increased export toss a record high of $2.3 trillion in 2013, contributing to a third of our total economic growth. 11.3 million americans now owe their jobs to exports. 1.6 million of those jobs have been created in the last four years, and those jobs pay 13-18% more on average than nonexport-related jobs. building on the success, the administration is pursuing the most ambitious trade agenda in decades with the negotiation of a high standard trade agreement in the asia-pacific and with the european union. together, these negotiations would allow us to access

economies representing nearly two-thirds of global gdp. last week during the president's visit to japan, the united states and japan crossed an important threshold in our bilateral market access discussions. in doing so, we've i identified a path forward on agriculture and autos, two of the most challenging areas of our negotiations with japan. and although work remains to close the gaps, this milestone achievement spurred on by the president's direct engagement will provide significant momentum to the overall tpp negotiations. through these negotiations we're working to insure that tpp will open markets for u.s. goodses and services, include strong and enors bl environmental commitments, promote strong individual property rights protection and enforcement and include ground-breaking rules on state-owned enterprises and the digital economy. looking across the atlantic, we'll continue this year to make significant, steady progress toward a ttip agreement with the european union and later this month we'll hold a fifth round

of negotiations. and building on our success at the wto, in march we notified congress of our intent to enter negotiations on an environmental goods agreement with countries representing nearly 95% of this $1.4 trillion market. we'll move to conclude negotiations on the trade and services agreement and the expansion of the wto information technology agreement. and we're also working to conclude a comprehensive review of the african growth and opportunity act which expires next year. we look forward to working closely with you to review and revitalize that program. to our trade policy, we seek to promote sectors that are vital to the u.s. economy. in 2013 our farmers and ranchers exported a record $148 billion many food and agricultural goods -- in food and agricultural goods. in 2014 we exported nearly $1.4 trillion in manufactured goods and nearly $700 billion in services, and this year the administration aims to help our farmers and ranchers, our manufacturing workers and service providers build on this

record. as the chairman has said, we want to make it here, grow it here and sell it around the world. the united states is an innovation economy, and the obama administration is committed to protecting intellectual property rights so that our inventors and creators enjoy the fruits of their labor. just yesterday we released our 25th annual special 301 report, a tool through which we identify and resolve intellectual property rights concerns around the world. 30 million americans' jobs rely on intellectual property, and we'll continue to use our trade agenda in 2014 to defend the intellectual property rights of our creators and innovators by also insuring access to affordable medicines and a free and open internet. the obama administration also placed an unprecedented emphasis on trade enforcement. since 2009 the administration has filed 17 wto complaints, doubling the rate of cases filed against china. in fact, a little over a month ago the united states scored an

important victory on fair access to rare earth minerals that are essential for maintaining u.s. manufacturing competitiveness including in the area of clean technology. and through our ongoing enforcement effort, we're leveling the playing field and keeping markets open for agricultural producers, manufacturers and service providers. as we pursue this agenda, we're committed to consulting with congress and seeking input from stakeholders, advisers and the public. we've held over 1250 meetings with congress about tpp alone, and that does not be include consultations on the rest of our trade agenda. our congressional a partners preview our proposals and give us critical feedback every accept of the way -- every step of the way. any member of congress can receive detailed briefings by our negotiators, and many have. we're taking steps to further diversify our advisory committees including opening up our advisory committees for broader representation and launching a new public interest rate advisory committee which

provides stakeholders focused on consumer, public health and other public interest issues additional opportunities to inform our trade policy. and finally, let me say a word about trade promotion authority. the last tpa legislation was passed over a decade ago, and much has changed since then. from the may 10, 2007, bipartisan agreement on labor, environment, innovation and access to medicines to the rise of the digital economy and the increasing role of state-owned enterprises in the global economy, we believe these issues should be reflected in a new tpa bill, and we look forward to working with this committee and congress as a whole to secure trade promotion authority with broad, bipartisan support. we also look forward to renewing trade adjustment assistance which will provide american workers with the skills to compete in the 21st century, and we urge congress to expeditiously renew authorization of the gsp program. in conclusion, our trade agenda will create growth, support well-paying american jobs and protect and strengthen the middle class.

at their core, our trade agreements include strong, enforceable rules that promote u.s. values and u.s. interests. and we look forward to continuing our close, bipartisan cooperation with congress to accomplish our shared goals and insure that our trade policy creates opportunities for all americans. thank you again for this opportunity, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. we're going to be working very closely with you in the days ahead. i simply at this point want to say to all our guests that there are strong views with respect to trade and, certainly, everyone has the right to cers their first amendment rights, but i'd like to ask our guests in the back in the green shirts to sit down now so that they can respect the rights of others, and i think it's also worth noting i intend to ask ask right now about some of these transparency issues that i know people feel strongly about. mr. ambassador, first of all -- and i touchedáeivyv)p on this s going to generate a lot of heated opinion.

i think we all understand that with respect to trade. the reason i describe the changes that we've seen over the last generation is that i think it's going to be important on a bipartisan basis to find fixes to deal with those challenges. and right at the heart of it is what i believe is a need for unpress kented -- unprecedented transparency on the trade issue. so let me ask you about a couple specifics on it. first of all, i want to make sure that there is enough time for the public to review a trans-pacific partnership agreement before the president signs it. can you commit this morning to making the text of a trans-pacific partnership agreement available to the public in advance of the president signing it? >> mr. chairman, we completely agree that there needs to be a robust engagement strategy to involve the public in trade policy, and that's why we work so closely with congress, why every one of our proposals is

previewed by this committee among others, why we work with the congressionally-mandated advisory committee system and the membership of that committee to be more representative, why we've created a public interest advisory committee and why we're having stakeholder events at our rounds of negotiation and broad stakeholder calls and putting more information out to the public about our negotiating position. so we certainly agree on the importance of robust engagement there. on the particular suggestion you mentioned, those sorts of timelines have been part of tpa processes in the past, and we look forward to -- we're glad there's a discussion just beginning. we'd like to look at what past practice is, and on a bipartisan, bicameral basis work with you and the rest of this committee to determine what the right timetables are. >> so the public can walk out of this knowing that the text of the tpp agreement would be available to the public in advance of the president signing it. that, i believe, is yes. >> well, as i said, i think

those sorts of timetables have been part of the tpa discussion in the past. there's been, as i understand, a range of practices in the past, and we'd like to work with you on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to figure out what the right timetables are. >> the public also ought to be able to go to the trade representative web site to find out what's ooh going on and not to hear about it through leaks and, in effect, what amounts to a rumor mill. ..

we try to find ways to ensure the public has information about that and we are happy to provide a summit of the negotiations. >> one other issue on transparency. i'm going to leave this with you because i want to ask tpa questions as well. at your department, there's a point person for intellectual property, for agriculture, a point person for a variety of different -- it seems to me to give transparency more prominent, thought to be specific person within your agency. call them a transparency officer, call them whatever you want. i just don't want transparency to get short shrift ever again. can you commit to that this when? >> we have a variety of ways we try to great transparency. our office of legislative affairs. weapon office of public engagement that is involved reaching out to stakeholders and

office of public affairs that is putting out information for the public. each one of our negotiations when they'r they're not negotiag there either up your consulting with you and your office or engage with the stakeholders and the public. your suggestion i think is one of many i guess we should talk about, how to best ensure robust and transparency process spent let me ask about the relationship between tpp and tpa. it seems to me an upgrade in our trade policy is going to require an upgrade to trade promotion authority. you and i've talked about what i call smart track that i think would allow us to have that upgrade in the trade promotion area, greater transparency, more strategic enforcement, a variety of other steps. it seems to me when the substance is right, this time will be right for tpa. what we want to do is make clear to our trading partners that this committee is taking on tpa,

we will work for the right tpa, on a bipartisan basis to get the right trade agreement to congress. my question is will you commit this morning to work with me and the committee on a bipartisan basis to make sure that a strong, 21st century trans-pacific partnership agreement will be met with an equally strong 21st century tpa agreement so that we can lay out how these two critical trade policies fit together? >> yes, mr. chairman, i'm happy to work with you and this committee and a bipartisan basis, and a bicameral basis to develop tpa with as broad a person support as possible. >> senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. speaker. your negotiating ambitious trade agenda. in my opinion this is hurting our ability to include high

sacraments which will again gain the approval of congress. we introduce a bipartisan bicameral bill in january which was supported by over 160 leading businesses and agricultural associations and companies, a bill which secretary of commerce pritzker said will help expand market access for american business, and sure a level playing field for companies selling their goods abroad in support aggression of american jobs. if we're going to succeed in renewing trade promotion authority this year, i believe we need to act by june this year. for that to happen we need to a greater sense of urgency and much more public engagement. can you work with me and others on this committee to help persuade president obama to make a renewal with tpa a top order for congressional action within the next 10 months? >> senator, we welcome the introduction of that bill in

january. we look forward to working with you, with chairman wyden and with the house, ways and means committee to as you pursue your legislative process, to develop trade promotion authority and get a bill that has broad bipartisan speeds as you know the president called for in his january state of union speech, and the next day some on the democrat side said we're not going to do that. >> we are prepared to work with this committee as and when it's ready to the process round trade authority to do for in a way that can get broad bipartisan support. >> intellectual property is fundamental to the u.s. economy. i'm very concerned u.s. u.s. intellectual property rights are under attack around the globe and that your office is not doing enough to fight back. india has been pursuing trade policies that undermine his intellectual property in order to promote its own domestic

industries. what they're doing seems to me to be a clear violation of the world trade organization obligation. i believe enforcement action of the wto may be the most effective tool we have to get india to change its behavior. closer to home canada has embraced policies and patent rules that undermine research and development investment, upset the level playing field for the u.s. innovators and, of course, and i believe it, their actions violate canada's obligations under nafta and wto. your testament to the house ways and means committee you spoke about the importance of enforcement. you said quote if this administration view it is not enough to negotiate an agreement and to implement it you need to make sure that it is being fully enforced as well, unquote.

he also said the administration has quote brought an aggressive agenda to the wto. i don't understand how you can say this when this administration has not brought a single wto case involving intellectual property rights. so my question is why hasn't this of minister jabr a single case on intellectual property? in particular why hasn't the recession brought a wto case against india on their harmful policies? what is this administration doing to ensure that canada, potential tpp partner complies with its current international trade commitment. >> first of all thank you for your leadership on these issues and for your encouragement on the enforcement front. with regard to those issues we remain extremely concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in india.

we have been raising this at the highest levels and throughout dialogue with the indian government about their policies on patents, on compulsory licensing. we've been encouraging them to enter into a dialogue about other mechanisms for addressing legitimate concerns about health care in india and about access to medicine that do not violate our intellectual property rights. india is in the midst of an election at a transition. we look forward to engaging with the new government of india as soon as it's in place to pursue this issue within. on candid of this is an issue we raised with the canadians directly. it's now the subject of litigation in canada and where continue to engage them bilaterally and in the context of other intellectual property issues we have with them as it relates -- as a way to move this forward. >> my time is up. >> mr. schumer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, ambassador froman. you have a really tough job and

you approach it with intelligence and integrity and calmness, so thank you for your service year. i want to talk about currency manipulation. a bipartisan majority both the senate and house have made very clear want strong and enforceable currency manipulation language included in any tpp agreement. strongly which on currency manipulation is a vital first step to earning democratic support to passing tpp in the senate. we'll have to take a close look at every aspect of the deal but i think nothing can give tpp a fighting chance of being passed better than strong currency reforms. japan and other countries regularly distort their currency exchange rate to push of trading surpluses with us. and the last year alone the yen has fallen about 25% against the dollar. china's not part of tpp but if we did this it would send a warning shot that they

eventually walk into tpp to have to reform their kurds as well and might even just get them to move on their own if they so we made a strong statement. it has real consequences for jobs here at home. a study by the peterson institute of international economics found foreign currency manipulation has already cost americans between one and 5 million-dollar, jobs can any them in english would the trade deficit by as much as 500 billion in three years, increase annual gdp by 30,700,000,000,000 create 2.3-5.8 million new jobs. it matters a whole lot. i have long been an advocate in this fight against the type of activity that china can't spend another do when they manipulate their currency. i'm not alone. senators brown and stab in out on this committee, senators graham, sessions and calls on the other side of the aisle have joined us. we brought our bill to a vote on the senate we passed again with broad bipartisan support. we could take legislative action

today and win. the administration after administration including regrettably yours, as was president bush, democrat and republican have taken the position that this issue can be better dealt with through country to country negotiations and through legislative changes. in 18 years since the treasury department has designated any country and currency manipulator. so i ask what vehicle do we have at our disposal to combat this type of activity which everyone says is wrong if not agreement like tpp? i hope the president raised to the japanese by mr. leslie. if he did new in strong terms i hope you will do it soon. i want to make very clear, i cannot and will not support a tpp agreement that does not include objective criteria to define and enforce against currency manipulation. you wouldn't agree to put the game of baseball where your team only got tw two strikes at bat d

the other team got four. if we enter into a tpp agreement without strong currency language, no matter what else is in the, that's exactly how we would be hamstringing ourselves. that's because currency manipulation hurts our exports to other countries and advantages their exports to us across the board, not just an industry here or there but every sector of the economy. in the country taking this sort of action that is so detrimental to our nation's economy should not at the same time be granted preferential access to our market. i guess my question is has currency manipulation and discussed in the current negotiations on tpp? what do you think the outlook is for getting something real in the tpp bill? it's a great concern to many of us. >> thank you, senator, and thank you for your long-standing leadership on this issue. we agree that currency is a critically important issue. from the start of this administration from the president on down we have been

pressing china bilateral as well as to the g20, imf and elsewhere to move towards a more market-orientemarket-oriented ee into about currency misalignment to be adjusted accordingly. the treasury department of course has the lead and i know you that an opportunity to see secretary lew of this will add to engage with them as well. we are continuing to consoled ourselves with you, with stakeholders to determine how best to address the underlying issue. take china for example. as mentioned from the president on down we have engaged with the chinese and in june 2010 they began to allow their currency to move again. it has moved about 18% in real terms. not fast enough, not far enough but we've made a certain degree of progress. to the g7 ng 20 we make sure countries are focused on -- >> my time is running out. hasn't been discussed in the tpp negotiations? >> not as yet. >> it matters a great deal to

all of us. i would regret it hasn't been discussed yet given its level of importance. thank you, mr. speaker. my time has expired. >> senator stabenow. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for this hearing and it's wonderful to see you again, ambassador froman, and i want to follow up on senator schumer's comments. no surprise i want to ask you about currency manipulation as well. we talked extensively about that. i'm a little surprised to hear it is not come up yet. i thought this up in something that was being discussed but to emphasize again as you know, we have 60 senators in a bipartisan way better britain you a letter asking that we have a been inclusion of strong and enforceable currency disciplines in all future trade, 60 members, majority members who feel very strongly about that. when we talk about trying to pass the tpp i'm not sure how that passes given the strong feelings that people have a less

that's address. 230 members in the house wrote a letter also. senator schumer talked in general terms about this albany zero right in on one country, although this is certainly not about one country. we know about china, we know what's happened, issued late in the past. singapore, malaysia, korea, different places, but let me talk about japan because we are doing specific negotiations with japan, and as you know, that japan has not directly intervened in the foreign exchange market for more than two years, but the yen has depreciated significantly against the u.s. dollar and while the depression as a children impact on the number of u.s. imports, you and i shared information with me on the numbers, it does provide a

massive advantage for japanese automakers. in fact, at today's exchange rate there's an estimated benefit of $5700 on every vehicle. so it's a windfall in operating profit. they may end up in advertising. it may end up in research and development. it may end up in cutting prices. it may end up in cutting prices on vehicles in other markets where u.s. automakers are directly competing with the japanese in other markets around the world. $5700 in vehicles is no small thing. i guess to add insult to injury on china everything else, even though japan is not from intervening, and i would ask if they're not currently intervening in exchange markets, why would they not support

enforceable currency provisions in tpp? i'm not sure why they wouldn't. are you concerned about the competitive trade advantage that these kind of numbers show? >> senator, yes very much we're concerned about currency and about making sure there's a level playing field. it's been important to the world that japan get back on a path towards economic growth. it's the third largest economy in the world and it's growing, there's a market there for our products as well. it's been important to g7 has expressed to japan and the importance to them pursuing domestic demand led growth and being focused on the domestic part of their economy. but it's something the treasury department which has the lead in this area engages directly with japan on and monitor very carefully. we are concerned as i mentioned to senator schumer this is one reason why from a top down we have made focus on domestic

demand led growth, rebalancing economy both in a bilateral discussions and through institutions like the g7 and achieved when a key part of our overall economic policy. >> is just again this is incredibly important, and let me also say two-thirds of u.s. trade deficit, you and i have also talked, appreciate the focus on nontariff trade barriers. this administration oversaw a highly successful restructuring of the automobile industry, saving over 1 million jobs directly. wwe are now in a situation where we can't even get into the japanese markets if you're an auto dealer in japan you can't put an american vehicle or any foreign vehicle on your business, on your car lot. i grew up on a car lot so i recall that. but i guess in closing i would just ask that you continue very

focused negotiations there as well but it does not take the place of currency, but it is incredibly important that we open up those markets as well. >> thank you, senator. as you know we both negotiated up front and agreement with japan about the phasing out of our tariffs, the longest stage of any tears in tpp being backloaded, being longer. we have a parallel negotiations ongoing about addressing the nontariff barriers to japan's auto market which is historically close. we're making progress in dealing with issues like standards and distribution, dispute settlement along those lines. or work to do but we're making progress. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you, senator stabenow. senator cantwell. >> thanks are holding history. i know we've tried a couple of times and been delayed and i certainly appreciate your focus on transparency because i think this is a keyword of our generation is to have transparency.

our region of the country looks at this all a bit differently probably one in three jobs are related to trade. i certainly support, for example, the reauthorization of the ex-im bank because we approach this next reauthorization hope we don't fight a bunch of consternation of people who don't want u.s. manufacturers to export and get help in getting u.s. products overseas. i support the reauthorization, expansion of a program, small business step which is helping u.s. manufacturers and other small businesses export product, get access to export markets. i support the trade promotion authority. i think it's something like, china has done, the authority has less.

they've done something like nine agreements, the european union 11, japan eight, korea six. so that trade promotion authority our hands are tied. the key thing that i'm interested in and after is this news article about the rising middle class around the globe to quote this article, it's going to grow from 2 billion, to almost 5 billion by 2030. so the world market, that is again to quote this article, global middle-class spending will rise from 21 trillion today to 51 trillion in 2030. most of this is outside the united states of america. so if we don't have these agreements, then how do we get our products into these markets? i wondered if you could comment on that and then comment on the point that when you have tpa, it becomes the standard. you could do lots of individual long-term agreements.

my point is while everybody else is doing deals we are sitting here, and we know whether growth opportunity is, and if you do tpa, it sets the standard for all these agreements. even people who are very anxious about the situation, we want to set a standard of labor or in private or what have you in tpa helps us do that, is that correct? >> absolutely. i completely agree. just to throw out another figure, right now there's an estimated 500 million middle-class consumers in the asia-pacific region and that's inspected to grow to 2.7 million by 2030. the question as we engage in tpp is who's going to serve that market? i a going to be buying made in america products or buying products built by somebody else? what will be the rules of the road for that region. tpp is an opportunity for us to set certain standards for the asia-pacific and more generally throughout the international

trading system. to raise labor standards, environmental standards, to ensure the internet remains free and that you don't see a vulcanize internet or national clout to make sure we're putting discipline on state-owned enterprises and dealing with all the challenges of the digital economy. this is our opportunity to help, to be at the table, take leadership and hel helps of the rules of this vitally important region. as you mention tpp is a platform. right now there are 12 countries around the table but there several more countries waiting in the wings who said they would like to join with all of us can reach an agreement and to sign onto the high standards we are able to negotiate. it gives us a chance to open markets for products and in vitally -- important regions. at the same time to build a larger and larger platform of countries are willing to sign on to high standards and that is a win-win for us to the

alternative is that of the countries are at the negotiating their own agreements at our expense getting market access at our expense. a lot of the other countries don't d put the same value we do on labor and environment or protecting intellectual property or a putting discipline state-owned enterprises or about maintaining a free internet. that's what we are present for with our partners. we have a number of willing partners around the country -- the table and this is our opportunity to show leadership. >> people don't realize when you lose marketshare over a long period of time, then you try to go in and compete come it's much harder. thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ambassador, on behalf of tpp and trade. i think i heard you say in your opening comments that you have met of 1500 times with members of congress on trade, is that

right? >> 1250 times. >> all right. of the 1250, have you met with the majority leader harry reid? >> i have met with the majority leader. >> and his response to any movement on trade or tpa or fast-track was? >> well, i think leader reid's position on trade agreement is well known but the leader has also worked with ministership and on a bipartisan basis to move trade agreement -- >> did he give you indication there was any wiggle room that we could do something like this in this session like the chairman would like to see and everybody else would like to see? >> our view is that he would like to see tpa move forward as and when this committee is ready to work on it and move it forward. look forward to working with the chairman and -- >> the chairman will do a great job and so with a reiki number and all the rest of us as well. i'm just worried a little bit about the majority leader.

i hope he can fill his glass. his glasses have into. make his glass full if you could. i'm not going to mention the vice president speaking, allegedly vice president meeting with the house and assuring members over there that people are worried about union concerns, don't worry, we will not have any trade bill. april 4, 44 of us wrote to u.n. secretary vilsack to express our concerns regarding the european union's protectionist geographical indications, brand-new concept, or gis which you're insisting upon in trade negotiations under ttip if the eu to have its way, product such as parmesan, bologna, and this is a lot of baloney, and black forest ham would no longer be able to label themselves that way. that's ridiculous. i am not interested in the ua

dictated what we in america, i.e., the bread basket to the world, especially cases, cannot label their products. and you responded to our letter and i appreciate that very much but i'd like to hear what our negotiating position is against the eu in regards to geographical indications of what insurance can you provide the members of this committee. and more at specially the producers of meat and dairy and cheese that a final agreement with the eu will not prohibit these comments the banks. >> we share your concerns completely, senator, and we made very clear to the european union that we oppose their g.i. system. we think it's unnecessary and it's inappropriate for our trade agreement. i'll just be an example. we had several parmesan products register here in the united states and eu exports billions of dollars of cheese and meats to the u.s. under these various

names. we are not able to export any of our feta cheese or any of our parmesan cheese to the eu so they're able to live quite well under our system. were not able to live nearly as well under the system. we have made clear that we think the common name approach and trademark approach that exist in the united states is the more appropriate space what was there approach that you just now defined or explain? >> i have not yet convinced them. we will continue to work and make what we think the common name and trademark approach allows room for us to have access to each other's markets. >> you might have them read green eggs and ham. that my do something. i have one more question with regards to cool. many of us here who represent agriculture are waiting for a final vote on the wto regarding mandatory country of origin labeling, or cool. do you have any idea of what we can expect a final ruling? >> i will have to get back to

you on that. it is still in litigation and canada and mexico have not dropped their case and so i'll get back to you on the precise time he spent if the united states were to lose the case, large sectors of our economy, special agriculture would be subject to retaliation from canada and mexico. are we taking any steps to prevent retaliation if it is found that cool does indeed violate our wto obligations? >> we believe that the rule that has been developed is wto compliant and so we've argued that at the wto and we will wait the decision of the wto and then as we do in other cases we will engage with our trading partners but we firmly believe it is compliant. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator isakson is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start off with a question, a common enemy, the first to last august i was in ethiopia with you at the african union and i got 48 hours of time to watch you work with the countries in africa on the go

act and its -- i was impressed. my comment is though without tpa getting that i have little hope we can get tpp or ttip none and i think what senator robert said and what other citizens we need to work on. this is just a comment, not the question. to try to raise, let's have that debate. sherrod brown and i will have significant differences on tpa and taa but we have to have those differences and debate the result in a result rather than talking about comments. that's just my editorial comment. my two big points or questions on this. you mentioned keys a. there are jobs in our state, insurance, financial service, package delivery that depend on good good trade in services agreement with the world. first of all, what kind of

progress are we making on the tisa agreement? second of all what goals with the knuckles of the country affect tpp and taa in terms of trade agreement? >> thank you, senator, and thank you very much for your mom and leadership on the efficacious in particular and we look forward to working with you on the agoa renewal we are currently underway. on services we're making good progress in the tisa talks. we have countries around the table representing about 70% of the global services market. we have defined the text that is being worked out and virtually all the parties around the table, we are working through those offers. we're making good progress and there's a good work program ahead over the course of the next several months. services as you mentioned are a vital part of our economy. we export over $700 billion in services last year and, therefore, they are also a key part of our trade negotiations both tpp and in ttip.

we are seeking market access in those negotiations for our critical services. i was there one more thing because you mentioned express delivery and logistics. and his and we reached wto agreement on trade facilitation which is the first multilateral agreement with wto is reached in its 15 history. it's a very important agreement for reducing the cost of shipping goods around the world. it helps businesses into the global economy. it's very good for all those companies that are involved in shipping and logistics and many of our companies. >> you are working out the agreement in terms of package delivery by the way any case, how important a comprehensive agreement like tisa will be for all other types of financial services, insurance and other service products. so wto has not been as successful as i would like to listen over the last 20 years in furthering trade services agreements of this piece i think would be very, very important.

lastly and i don't know if this is the question i want to bring something to your attention. are usually with the greater brazil plan? >> i am not. >> brazil is putting punitive tariff on u.s. products in limitations on procurement of u.s. goods and services by governments in brazil and subdivisions of the brazilian government to the extent they're shutting the market out. there are hundreds of years companies that have invested millions of dollars building the skills and personal. they employ thousands of brazilians. they built products for the world but included are products -- they are being totally shut out from competition in the brazilian marketplace and is beginning to really hurt and it's a brand president of the western hemisphere if we don't stand up for this countries that made those investments and see to it that trade is a star as we can make it with brazil and other casualty as an opportunity to do the same type of thing i would like to bring it to your attention, which i have, and encourage you to get involved in the diplomacy world to see what

we can do to ratchet up brazil's attention that we understand what they'r they are doing and r consequences to treating the united states that way. >> i'm happy to follow up on that and we are looking for ways to engage with the brazilians to deepen and broaden our economic relationship. we have had a dialogue with them about policies which we think create adverse there's to trade and were happy to engage on this issue as well. >> the localization pulses are part of the greater brazil play by the way some pleasure on that. thank you very much. >> senator cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador froman, always a pleasure to have you. you're not going to be surprised by my question on how we are advancing a good governance in the tpp negotiations. the tpp countries are a diverse group of countries, several have real challenges and good governance and basic human rights. and india with similar issues, corruption.

i'm going to ask you how the negotiations are getting because i know when you're dealing with trade you have a countries attention. they are more likely to do things to improve governance issues and anticorruption matters when they know that it will have an impact on the willingness of a country to open up its markets. we have of course very strong anticorruption laws here so it's difficult for our companies to be able to anticipate and countries where bribery is a standard practice. anticipating that you might give me some glowing progress reports, you could also respond as to whether you are willing for us to put into a tpa bill that we might be considering negotiating objectives that are strong on negotiating the rule of law, anticorruption and similar matters consistent with the universal declaration of human rights by the u.n.

your comments. >> well, thank you, senator, and thanks for your leadership on these issues. we have worked to address these issues in tpp and a number of ways. generally on good governance through a series of transparency measures, regulatory policy, ma opening up processes that can otherwise be susceptible to corruption. in addition we have some specific anticorruption elements of the tpp negotiations that we're still negotiating with our partners. then on issues of rights in particular, our focus has been, particularly on labor rights and focusing on the ilo core principles, forced labor, conditions work, making sure that countries commit to those that have plans in place to achieve those. and as you say, this process is an important process for bringing to the table countries on issues that they are previously perhaps not engaged

on. i will just mention in the context of vietnam that you and i had the opportunity to discuss the other day in the office that we are engaging with them on labor issues, particularly charging set of issues for the country as you know. and we've also made clear the need for them to make progress on other human rights issues. they have recently released a couple of dissidents and we are encouraging them to take further action to improve their human rights. >> basic human rights go beyond the labor issue. labor issues are important, to get me wrong, but fighting corruption, fighting for the enforcement of rules law, making some final changes in a country that we're going to be competing with to me needs to be, since he did not directly respond i would say we don't object to a strong objective to the negotiating objectives to deal with these issues be? we will look for in a context of alleged that process to working with you on a bipartisan bill.

>> let me talk about labor for one moment. i'll start with the environment. there's a time we couldn't talk about environment and trade bills and the nafta we said we would you sidebar agreements and that didn't work very well and then we realized we needed to get to the core agreement if we would have something that's enforceable. then in colombia we decided to use the labor rights action plan. i authored an amendment so that would be part of the corporate so we could take action if they did not follow up on it. that was not incorporated into the colombia agreement. now we have the congressional monitoring group, the labor rights questioning whether colombia in fact isn't limiting the labor action plan as it was anticipated at the time. my point is this, if we're going to make progress on environment, on labor called on basic human rights, good governance, et cetera, it needs to be a part of the corcoran in order for it to be taken seriously. we have their attention but a less as part of the enforcement

mechanism it's difficult to get the type of action we expect. >> senator, we completely agree and i think your description of history is an important one, 20 years ago labor and environment were afterthoughts or were sideshows, side agreements. now they are central to what we are negotiating in tpp and that's a very important development because were able to take these labor and environmental standards, perhaps four or five countries are committed to an now 40% of global gdp sign onto the. becomes more of a global standard as tpp -- >> let me thank you for help in colombia, how the regulations could undermine the intent of the exporting of heavy trucks into colombia. appreciate the cooperation we are receiving. >> thank you for raising human rights and the rule of law. i think it also is critical for trade enforcement on that i look for to working with you and, of course, ambassador. >> let me echo what some of my colleagues said about encouraging you to engage or so

as you can with congress on tpa. i think it's important we get that done and get it done soon. i've concerned about reports from our agricultural producers and cd companies about china's unwillingness to approve new agricultural biotech products. it's a critical market for american agriculture, $16 billion last year in corn, beans, but we were told this year according to see great association and court exports are down 85% from a year ago. and that corn shipments to beijing has rejected a scott gray company $427 million in lost sales and reduce prices. given the situation in china i'm wondering, i think it would like, the folks were impacted by this would like to see this issue elevated as much as possible. would you support utilizing venues such as the u.s.-china joint commission on trade and he was china strategic economic dialogue to raise these issues in a forceful way with the chinese government and perhaps

you could talk about other steps ustr might be taken to ensure that agricultural biotechnology concerns are a priority? >> yes absolutely. and back in december we had a meeting of the joint commission on commerce and trade that secretary pritzker and i co-chair and secretary vilsack also participate actively in. this is one of the top issues on the agenda, talking other biotech approval process, the need for it to become regularized and more fluid and something that will continue to work and continue to raise at the highest level in china we raised it with the vice premier as was the secretary of the minister of agriculture and we will continue to raise it. we have opportunities in the coming months. ..

and something that i believe is in it america's national security interests. question you could probably answer hopefully yes and no, he's you sdr providing comments to state as part of the interagency review of the keystone pipeline? >> i don't believe we are involved in this. >> there is nothing you are furnishing in terms of comments to the members of the committee that is looking at this? >> i don't believe we are involved in this. >> if you are i would be

interested in knowing. i would be concerned whether any challenge could be brought up with nafta it canadians decided the rejection of the pipeline is the outcome that they might be able to utilize trade considerations so i would be interested and many of my colleagues, what the implications of that might be. i talked to you about this in the past but wanted to raise the issue of the e.u.'s decision last year to impose 10% duty on u.s. ethanol exports. you indicated usdr is considering a challenge to e.u. tariffs at the world trade organization. i wonder if you could comment upon where usdr is and what american ethanol producers might expected decision from the administration. >> we are continuing to look into that issue and develop options with regard to that.

we will certainly consult with you as we go through the process. >> i want to mention you heard this many times from agricultural groups about the importance of market access for agriculture of the japanese market. for those of us making sure the tee pee pee results in new market access opportunities for u.s. agriculture will be critical and i am wondering if you could elaborate on the president's discussion of this topic with the japanese prime minister and how you would characterize market access negotiations with japan following the president's trip to asia. >> as you point out access to japan's market is a critical part of the overall tp initiative. we made clear we have products we sell to japan and lead to address their historic barriers. japan has had half barriers in

the past. we were there last week, president and prime minister engage on this and other tpp related issues and made some significant progress in our discussions. we didn't reach an agreement but reached a milestone in terms of beginning to sort out the parameters how we would deal with market access in their more sensitive areas. we have further work to do. we think there was enough progress to give further momentum to tpp negotiations. >> thank you, senator menendez. >> thank you for your service and i commend you for your outreach and responsiveness. i can't always say that about an administration official but in your case i can supply want to say it. i appreciate it. you are aware of my concerns within the's pharmaceutical patent violations and my concerns with canada's hand utility regime and a special 301

report issued by the department yesterday issued fairly strong statements about the need for improvement in both countries's i p regimes which i support and applaud but nevertheless as we look at tpp and other elements i am convinced that our economy is increasingly based on innovation. bent i am looking for the administration to demonstrate that it has a long hall rise and, government you and strategy on advancing international ip policies, one that i and other members can get behind and support. can you give me a sense of what is the administration's strategy specifically with regards to emerging economy is on ip enforcement. >> first of all as you know yesterday we issued a special report, we focus on a number of problem areas and as i mentioned earlier you have been very

concerned about the deterioration of the environment in india. we are looking forward for them getting through the election and for us to engage with new government on that and have a real dialogue how they can address their legitimate public policy interests and public health and access to medicines while still respecting the intellectual property rights of innovative companies including the united states and similarly on canada we made clear our concern about the utility approach to patents and continue to engage bilaterally in other discussions about that and other ip related issues. in tpp we have a robust intellectual property rights agenda that enhances innovation while at the same time takes a touchstone, may 10th, 2007, bipartisan agreement which noted that there should be differentiation among countries depending on levels of development, working with

individual countries to ensure they are strengthening their intellectual property rights regimes consistent with levels of development and we are able to promote innovation and at the same time promote access to medicine. we are working individually with each country and tpp and we are focused on improving the overall level of intellectual property rights protection across the region including small molecules and biologics. >> you are clearly at the lead of this because of trade, the trade value you possess in your portfolio, are there other elements of the government promoting our interests in intellectual property rights? state department, commerce and others? >> work with the commerce department and the patent and trademark office, we work with the intellectual property rights coordinator at the white house, the state department, health and human services, the department of justice, several other agencies on an interagency basis with the process of this

negotiation. >> bangladesh submitted their latest gsp action plan progress report to usda are in april and i understand it was discussed during the trade and investment cooperation meeting a few days ago. given recent reports of union suppression in the garment sector how realistic is the bangladeshi government's self assessment of their progress on the action plan's requirements to ensure protection of unions and their members from anti-union discrimination and reprisal? what is your assessment of their progress on this? >> we suspended gsp based on labor rights and worker conditions in bangladesh, developed an action plan for steps necessary for them to take. our view including discussed earlier this week in bangladesh is they have taken some steps but there's a lot of work to be done so we will continue to engage with them on the remaining work that needs to be

done encourage them to take those actions. >> finally, our trade policy agenda report of 2014 talked about u.s. exports to latin america and the caribbean increasing 175% from 2003-13, the fastest rate of growth export growth to any region in the world, almost 40% increase over the previous three years which is pretty dramatic. are there other opportunities in latin america we need to pursue based on that tremendous growth? >> i think there are further opportunities we can pursue and tpp has not only asian countries at the table but countries from latin america, mexico, peru, chile, following with great interest the development of the pacific alliance in this region as they open their markets to each other. there are other countries in latin america who would like to

julian tpp in the future in response to senator isakson's question. we are looking at ways to engage with brazil to broaden our economic relationship there. had to build upon the network of free trade agreements we already have with latin america and the caribbean and deepen our relationship with them accordingly. >> thank you. senator carper is next. >> thank you. very nice to see you, thanks for coming in. i was introduced to your wife and family, very nice of you to come here and to have his back. thank you. i know a number of questions i thought of asking. go back to one, not too much i hope. as we negotiate trade agreements, others are actively negotiating to reduce barriers, and other nations, as you know,

both of which, transpacific partner should recently concluded bilateral free-trade agreement. colombia, mexico, she lachile, three of which concluded their agreement and any free-trade agreements may not be as ambitious as the trans-pacific partnership is expected to be, what do you think is the effect of so much negotiation? any agreements with our negotiating partners that do not involve our country? >> i don't think these are mutually exclusive efforts and this country is pursued bilateral, trilateral or other regional arrangements. if it allows them to open their markets, it can be a very positive step forward. it does underscore, this goes to senator cantwell's question, the

importance of us being at the table and thus being engaged because if we are not engaged at the same time in negotiating market access and helping our partners to establish the rules of the road going forward we are going to be left out of the game and on the sidelines while other people serve those markets and the rules of the system don't necessarily reflect our interests or values so if we want a trading system that has higher labor standards, higher environmental standards, protect intellectual property rights, put discipline around state-owned enterprises, allows, protects the digital economy and allows free internet and market access to the fastest-growing markets in the world we need to take the field, be at the table, engage and showing leadership because as you point out other countries are waiting for us, they are moving ahead without us and it is not a static situation and that is why tpp is so important. is our way of engaging the global economy in a way that is

consistent with our interests and values. >> i want to talk a little, i mentioned this before you came in, with toll-free. never discussed poultry with you, i do every time i see you but i do talk about other subjects. we are never -- always quick to turn to pull free. why do you talk so much about poultry in the trade room? i say we live in a state where there are more chickens per capita than any other state in the nation, 300 chickens per capita and aquaculture is a big industry, 80% is culture related, we raise corn and soybeans and raise chickens and processed chickens and seldom all over the country and all over the world. we use to sell one of every 100 chickens we raise in the u.s. outside the u.s.. we do that in spite of the fact that countries like canada continue to impose restrictions

on poultry products. i think australia and new zealand and japan are using scientific barriers to prohibit restrict trade of u.s. products, poultry products to those countries so expanding into these countries means more income for poultry farmers in the u.s. and those in larger supply create more jobs in america and i am told if we could actually start selling poultry in the e.u. $600 million market and we wouldn't have to take all of that. it would be nice to take a piece of that practice. as your team negotiates the trans-atlantic trade investment partnership and trans-pacific partnership it is hoped that opening of agricultural exports, senator thune mentioned earlier, poultry exports. i don't think he mentioned that, top priority for some of us on this committee. take a minute if you would to

discuss what you and your team are doing to increase market access for agriculture products and trade negotiations open up the poultry market and some of these agreements and how are you preventing nations from erecting new trade barriers to our chickens? >> senator. i would be disappointed if you didn't raise chickens. >> before we start to pun i want to get senator brown is in. >> agriculture is a high priority in our market access, an area of high exports and in terms of reducing tariffs and other barriers and very importantly as you point out addressing sts barriers, nonscientific based barriers, poultry and other products out of certain markets so tpp, high priorities. >> senator brown. >> so appreciative, thank you

for working together in cooperation and the work you are doing. i want to start with the yes or no question. a number of things i want to talk about. he responded to senator schumer's questions about currency, senator stabenow pointed out house members have insisted by finding their letter, a strong majority of senators have insisted currency be part of tpp. my question i want you to enter yes or no to get ads in detail, investors take questions. are you prepared to risk the defeat of tpp by not including meaningful currency provisions in this agreement? >> i can't answer that yes or no. we are continuing to work through the department ourselves on this issue and to see how best to address the underlying concerns. >> you are unwilling -- >> i will answer this way.

>> the plan to include strong currency provisions? i know you say you are working on currency are you planning to put in these provisions as strong as the letters you have received the you have not yet answered about currency? >> again we are continuing to consult with you and other members, stakeholders about how to address the issue. >> i want to talk about investor settlements. multinational companies conduct reassessments before including assessments of foreign countries before they invest. the consulting group provides risk-management assessments that cover regulation, governance, organization, culture, process among others. multinational corporations purchase private insurance policies to mitigate risks associated with overseas investment to protect themselves. aig offers multinational

insurance program with coverage options to address multinational exposures. u.s. overseas private investment corp. opec offers a political risk, insurance to encourage u.s. investment abroad. opec services are available in 150 countries that have supported $200 billion investment. u.s. companies going into these countries are planning for every kind of the eventual problem. through insurance, risk assessment, studies, opec's political risk coverage. they are going into these companies, doing this investment in other countries with their eyes wide open. we know investors stayed settlement is given big tobacco companies the ability to threaten small developing nations. even the threat of a lawsuit from a big tobacco company in a small developing not very wealthy country has encouraged some of these countries not to

pass public health, anti tobacco public health laws so we know that the presence of isdms empowered big tobacco to go into the developing world and have their way. we have with all the other protections that companies have built in the private sector, we have market based options for these companies to protect themselves. we have u.s. opec overseas private investment corp. to protect these companies. why do we need isds to protect these companies? >> we're giving that power to big tobacco to undercut public health laws. >> underlying investors stayed through settlement is the notion that we provide in this country domestic and foreign investors a certain degree of protection under our court system. not discrimination. not every country around the world does and our investors have been subject to many countries around the world to

discriminatory practices or expropriation. there are 3300 agreements around world investment, the vast majority of which have some form of investor disputes settlement. the u.s. is party to 50 of those agreements. the countries all over the world have been signing agreements over the last 50 years that have some degree of investor disputes settlement. the standards of those agreements vary significantly. what we're trying to do for tpp is raise the overall standard of the investor tpp settlement regime. provisions that would allow these cases to be dismissed, attorney's fees to be awarded, provisions that would allow ngos or others to participate in isds procedures, greater transparency around that and also provisions to ensure government can regulate in the interest of public interest, health, safety and the environment and not be unduly subject to those

challenges so through tpp, i would say this is true of labor, environment and isds, through tpp we are trying to stake to the status quo and raise standards, improve standards and try to create new standards that can help strengthen the overall system internationally. >> thank you for the record, mr. chairman. opec does provide insurance expropriations of that flag is often raised less than necessary. >> i intend to work closely with the senator of ohio on those matters as well. we are getting towards the end, ambassador froman. i want to get at the enforcement issue and recap where we are in transparency and trade promotion of 40. a lot of americans when they hear the debate about future trade agreements the first thing they say is you people in washington d.c. are not

enforcing the ones we have got so while we talking about new ones before we enforce the ones the we have? too often it's seems when we have a trade agreement, we honor it, our trading partners don't. there are a variety of excuses. they say i have resources to do it or there are political concerns but at the end of the day we don't have the enforcement effort that is so important and our experience with china and korea and russia and others make clear the we lose out if we let agreement going to force the 4 countries are able to comply with this commitment they made. my question on the enforcement issue is outlined what steps your office is willing to take, wyden, to put in place a new commitment to trade enforcement. >> we are very committed to trade enforcement and happy to talk about what further steps we can take.

i mentioned we brought more wto cases, more cases against china, we brought the first-ever case on a labor issue, guatemala and we are continuing to pursue that and we have created this interagency trade enforcement center at usdr with great support from the commerce department and other departments and that has allowed us to put together more complex cases that we have ever put together before. people from all over the government, hole government approach, people with language resources, country expertise, domain subject knowledge, able to put together these complicated cases and bring them to a systemic impact so we are very much focus and agree with you completely that part of the deal of negotiating new agreements is to ensure we are monitoring, implementing and enforcing our existing agreements and very much focused on doing that. >> there is no question in my mind that you all are stepping up the effort to enforce trade laws and in particular i was pleased with the work your

people did on the critical minerals issue which i think is almost a model for how to tackle the major trade enforcement issue. i want you to know that even though i think you are stepping it up there's a lot more to do and the reason why is that for those of us who have been supportive of trade and i voted for every marketing agreement since i have been in public service. we have to have a better response to people who say why are you talking about new trade agreements until you have tougher enforcement of the ones that are on the books so let's recap on a couple of these issues where i think we are. on the transparency issue, you and i went back and forth on some of the semantics of trade law. the american people are going to insist on being able to review the tpp agreement before the president signs it and so am i. and i think the law is very much

in sync with that. on the tpa issue we agree on this and i am recapping now, we need an upgrade in order to reflect the needs of love modern trade agreement and one out in reflect the needs of love modern trade agreement and one out of six jobs depend on international trade, trade jobs pay better than on trade jorefl, reflect a higher level of productivity. as we walk through these issues, these issues of the future, some of which i now call smart track and we are flushing that out in the future i wanted understood we will be working closely in partnership with you. i think you know there are strong views on this committee. we can afford a bipartisan agreement to do trade policy right here in the united states senate and if you would like to have the last word we are happy

to give it to you. you have been a patient person today. has been something of an unorthodox day even by senate scheduling and we appreciate your patience. >> thank you, we look forward to working with you as the legislative process on tpa proceeds and want to partner with you on that and transparency. our goal is to release the terms of the agreement as soon as we can and once we have an agreement we want to make sure the terms are public as early as possible but of course fan means we have to reach an agreement and that is where our focus is, to reach the best possible agreement for the american people on tpa. >> i understand that and the reason i have focused on it, i came off of 7 town hall meetings, this comes up all the time and reflects 3 or 4 generational changes we have

seen in trade policy and i remember supporting this e agreements in the 1990s, had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and that sort of fame and of course nobody was expecting elected officialsthin expecting elected officials to give ongoing information. nobody is talking about making available what i call proprietary information. you talk about coca-cola you would not make the secret -- is proprietary information. the terms of the trade agreement that affect various policy issues with respect to cocaing

finance committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] dornak fible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the biggest challenge

especially in the house where redistricting is where it occurs in the house the biggest challenge of repe clican is going to face is in a primary, somebody more conservative than he or she is. almost evetion district that is the case so that is what they are worried about, being challenged from the rggeht. how was it in their political interest to reach a compromise? we have gotten the system we designed as a country. i am not sure the people who created the district realize how profound the implications would be. some demoiseats particularly minority demoiseats have been i on this too. bent and african-americans who want to be sure that they have reliably african-american -- not the democrats but the one with a large percentage of

african-american voters so they can be sure they have representation in congress. >> this weekend on c-span from the anti-defamation league changing demographithe an, redistricting and the republican party. saturday morning aftersee1:00 easterand o later on c-span white house correspondents' dinner. president obama andinternoel mc headline the event before celebrities, journalists and the white house press corps. that is live at 6:gra. live sunday on booktv for regained member, community activist and political candidate lewis j. rodriguez will take your calls and comments in depth at noon on g aspan2. on american history tv history of hawaii and sugar industry. sunday night at 9:35 on g aspan. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedine r and keep pe clic policy events and every

weekend booktv, 15 years the only teln2ision network deblyte to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable-tv industtion and brotagtion to ya public service by your local cable or satellite providprovid. watch as in hd and follow us on twitter. ..