american interest and american values that we be the ones who engage and lead to create a fair and level playing field to protktect and workers and protect our jobs. >> looks like china has a b robust trade policy. >> senator i want to thank you for the number of times you've taken my telephone calls and given me updates on negotiations that we're talking about here, having the opportunity to get updates is very important. also i want to -- since you talked to the president probably more frequently than i do on trade, get a little bit of advice. i know the president is very much a believer in trade and wants trade promotion authority. i know he's mentioned it at least in the last two state of the union messages to the business round table, to the export console but i hope you'll tell him that if we're going to get trade promotion authority passed, he's going to have to work the telephones one on one

with some senators that get us to the 60 vote threshold. now i'm going to ask my first question a little bit along the lines of what you discussed with senator widen. when you were at the iowa state fair me last august, meeting with iowa farmers you stated and i hope i am quoting you accurately that you would not know a good deal for agriculture when you saw it, end quote. that was in regard to tpp. my question for you is very simple:how close do you think we're to seeing a good deal for agriculture with tpp? and more spes sievecifically related to pork, how are the market access negotiations with japan going? >> well, thank you senator. we're making good progress in these market access areas including agriculture and including pork. we're not done yet. we still have work to do with japan and other countries and

we've been working very closely with our stakeholders in this area, the pork producers and others to insure that the package that we come up with addresses their concerns and creates real value for american farmers and american ranchers so we're not done yet but i feel confident that we're making good progress and hope to close out a very positive package soon. >> just to emphasize something from history as well as things that i have related to you in the past that for an overall agreement whether it's manufacturing services or agriculture, it seems to be at least from the part of the united states senate, a good agriculture agreement tends to be the locomotive that brings along everything else and i hope manufacturing and services will help along that line as well for their own good. second, over the last year we've seen china and the european union continue to drag their feet on approvals of american

bio technology trades. in some cases market disruption developed from the lack of regulatory approvals. i know you've been working hard on these issues but what else can we do to facilitate regulatory review processes throughout the world that can science based regarding bio technology? >> well, thank you senator. that's very much our perspective on this is to encourage other countries to engage in sps approvals based on science. let me take the two example you give separately. with regard to china in the sun up to the jcct in december, we had a series of dialogues with them about bio technology, they approved three bio tech events on the eve of the jcct and we have a commitment now to have a strategic agriculture policy working group, cochaired by usda and ourselves on our side and various chinese ministries on their side to work on the improvement or overall process

for bio tech approvals not just the particular events but how they can bring their process into conformity with international standards. with the eu, we're very much encouraging them to move ahead. we were disappointed that over the course of 2014 they didn't approve any bio tech events. there's a back log of bio tech events that have been designated as safe by the european safe food agency. we're encouraging the agencies to take those up consistent with its wto obligations and to approve those. >> i've had a number of u.s. companies visit with me about the need to address currency manipulation and tpp. has that issue being raised in oeg oegiation negotiations. this is an issue of top importance from the administration. we're pursuing it from the president on down directly from countrilies like china and also the g 7 and g 20 to move to countries to move toward market determined exchange rates. i know you'll be seeing

secretary lieu hereou here soon. he obviously has the lead on those issues. it's something that he and i are obviously consulting on and continue to engage with others about. >> is your answer it's been negotiated with individual countries from the president's interest and your interest and is that saying that what my question is referring to that it's not being done through tpp negotiations or is it being done through tpp negotiations? that's my last question. >> at this point secretary lou who obviously has the lead on this, has been having conversations in the context of these other memechanism, bilatterly with the g 7 and g 20 and imf. >> but not through tpp? thank you. senator shuman. >> thank you mr. chairman and

ranking member widen. i appreciate the value of our engagement in the asia pacific region through tpp however i'm skeptical about supporting another trade deal based on the results of our existing agreements. to me, the number one issue facing america is that middle class incomes are shrinking. so people can say these trade agreements grow gdp. these trade agreements help corporate profits but if they can't show they are going to help middle class incomes increase when all the evidence is that lots of them help middle class incomes decrease i got some real problems. and even further, i'm very skeptical about enforcement in these deals. it seems to me we signed these deals. we go right to the letter of wto, the other countries thumb their nose at wto, they take us to court and we lose. it took four years for wto to rule on china's rare earth monopoly and they captured the

globe in that time. it's a never ending battle with south korea dumping steel tubes into our market. while all the litigation goes on our people get clobbered and our people lose jobs. india regularly waves patent rights on pharmaceuticals. we seem to slughrug our shoulders. i'm exposing come backs of intellectual come back of property theft. i hope you will work with me on some of these ideas. if you're going to have any hope of gaining support of this agenda from many of us on this side of the aisle not all, the administration needs to prove to us and to the world we're going to start fighting back. we need concrete predictable and un a un ilaterally enforcement mechanisms in place to show that

we're going to protect our workers and our economy. let's start with currency. a bipartisan majority of senate and house have made it clear that we want strong and enforceable currency manipulation language enacted as part of any tpp agreement but must also deal with any country not part of the tpp agreement particularly china t. i know you can't have that in the agreement but we can have two things aside one another. as china continues to manipulate currency throwing millions of american workers out of jobs unfairly, don't want to go forward with another trade agreement if we're not going to finally address this issue. on all do respect secretary lou is great he talks to me but the administration hasn't done very much here. they've never called china currency a manipulator when it is plain as the nose on your face that thefrmt japy are. japan and other countries distort their exchange rates to push up their trading surpluses. i'm disappointed to hear your advance to senator grassly that

that won't be part of the tpp negotiations. it has very real consequences for jobs in the middle class. a study by the peterson institute of economics found that currency manipulation has cost america between one and five million jobs. according to economic policy institute, eliminating currency man ipipulation would reduce the u.s. trade deficit by $500 billion. increase gdp between 500 to 700 million and lead 5.8 million jobs. i've long been the advocate here. 2003 i was alone when i talked about this issue. i was very proud when both the wall street journal and new york times editorial pages condemned me for it. now people have come around and said that currency manipulation is real but we still don't do anything about it. okay. administration after administration, unfortunately yours as well as president bush have taken the position that the issue can be dealt with as

senator grassly said by country to country negotiations rather than legislative changes well not for this senator. we've had enough of country to country negotiations for a decade under democratic and republican administrations. so i want to make clear, i can't support a tpp agreement if we do not at the same time enact new statutory law that includes objective criteria to define and enforce against currency manipulation manipulation. i will not support moving this trade agreement forward if we're not fighting to make sure that we have the necessary tools to protect the american middle class and american jobs. you wouldn't go to a game of baseball where your team only got two strikes per bat and the other team got four. if we enter into tpp without strong currency language, that's exactly what we're doing. >> senator your time is up. >> and i'm just finished. >> that's a miracle.

>> i thought you made a lot of questions. >> all things come to those who wait. >> i'm very proud of you. i will tell you. >> plb do you care to comment on senator shumer's comments. >> well, thank you senator. thank you for your leadership on this issue and on enforcement. we very much look forward to working with you on it. i will say the following. this administration has taken enforcement very seriously. we brought more cases than ever before than any other country. we brought 18 cases before the wto and the first if case against china. we have won efvery single case that has been brought to conclusion and we're continuing to work to bring additional cases wherever we find that there's a problem to be had and where we can make a case and win. so we look forward to working with you. we've set up the interagency trade enforcement center which has allowed us to bring more resources from across the governments and have a whole government approach to trade

enforcement that has allowed us to bring more complex and more sophisticated cases. we look forward to working with you because weigh gree important that it's not two strikes 4 strikes that there's a level playing field and we do everything we can consistent with our trade on liging asbligations to enforce our trade rights. >> thank you. i would like to join senator grassly for expressing my appreciation for your outreach on both the tpp negotiations and tpa. i have to i think that if other members of the administration followed your good example in terms of letting congress what's going on seeking input that would be a lot more productive working together as i hope we'll be. i don't share the ambivalence that the senior senator from new york has about the benefits of these trade agreements when you consider the fact that 80% of the purchasing power in the world lies outside our shores.

selling our manufactured goods an things that we grow and produce here in america to those markets abroad seems like an unooerun unequivocal good thing for the middle class and for the economy and economic growth. i will ask you two questions. one has to do with something outside of your immediate pursue but it's something that i want to make sure you're aware of and the other falls squarely within your purview. as you know there's been a long labor despite out on the west coast that has resulted in a lot of our exports particularly of our beef, pork, and poultry to asia to basically sit rotting on the docks there at the port of oakland and other locations. u.s. exports over 200,000 metric tons of beef, pork, poultry, a month to key asian markets.

of course in 2014 it was roughly $8.4 billion that cleared west coast ports. so i know that the federal mediator has now gone to try to facilitate theying oeshyate negotiations there. even in that dispute in the port of oakland was finished tomorrow or today it would take 45 days to clear the backlog. i would like to hear from you whether you know whether the administration views resolving this dispute as a priority? >> well i understand as you suggest that the two -- the parred parties to the dispute have asked for federal remediation. that is now happening and we hope that will be successful and we'll get that resolved as soon as possible. >> i appreciate that. i hope you'll carry that message back that this is a matter of grave concern to some members of congress and presumably all who represent constituents who are en engaged in selling poultry, pork

and beef to asian markets and who recognize the important impact that has on our economy. conversely the negative impact that it would have if they start rotting on our ports on the west coast. the second issue has to do with the critical importance of protecting intellectual property for bio logic medicines in the tpp. as you know, the founders of our great country thought it was so important to protect our intellectual property terms of advancing science that there is a provision article i, section 8 known as the copyright clause in our constitution. yet a number of the countries that we're negotiating with offer zero protection to the intellectual property rights in their countries. i'd just like to hear from you about the administration's on the issue of bio logic medicines to

make sure that the 12 years for data protection in particular, is included in the transpacific partnership negotiations. >> well, senator, we've got 40 million americans whose jobs depend on ip intensive industries and certainly a key part of what we're doing in tpp is to promote strong intellectual property rights including strong enforcement of those rights, as well as access to medicines consistent with the bipartisan consensus that has emerged here over the last several years. bio logic specifically as you suggest, there are 12 countries in tpp, five countries have zero years, four have five years of protection, two have eight years and we have 12 years. so this is one of the most difficult outstanding issues in the negotiations. we're continuing to make the case with our trading partners about how data protection can lead to greater innovation around the region. greater investment in this area. how to achieve access

consistent with promoting strong intellectual property rights and we're continuing to have that dialogue with our trading partners. >> thank you very much mr. ambassador. i appreciate your good work. we look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you. >> i will announce senator carden is next and after that it looks like isaacson. >> thank you very much. i want to join the praise to use the ambassador for our consultation with us your working with us, the open way that we've been able to work together and share views and share the challenges we have on the trade agenda. so i very much appreciate the manner in which you have involved us in the process. as chairman hatch pointed out we have a challenge. the challenge is that tpp is so far along the way. normally we would have had a tpa enacted. he would have voiced our

objections. you would have come back with consultation on those trade negotiating objectives and we would have had a chance to adjust our expectations along the way. well, tpp is so far along the way that becomes somewhat awkward whether tpa really will work in the way that it was intended to work with congressional input. i mention that because you know my number one concern, my number one concern is in tpp that tpa has very strong negotiating objectives as it relates to good governance governance, as it relates to any corruption issues. we're dealing with countries this are challenging in tpp. brunei are the community has legitimate human right concerns. in brunei, malaysia and vietnam their record on labor is very suspect and on anti-corruption, they could pass laws but they don't have the institutions, the independent prosecutors and courts to give us confidence

that they would enforce those laws. so my priority from the beginning, i think i have been very open about it is that our trading objectives be very strong on good governance because of the tpp negotiations and that yes, we are concerned to make sure that we continue to have a level playing field on environment, on labor protections, but also on good governance anti-corruption and as senator shumer said, enforcement because if it's not enforceable under trade sanctions, it becomes very difficult to see we will we have really elevated. and for those who are concerned as i know some of my colleagues are about mixing trade and human rights, let me just remind you that it was u.s. leadership in trade that helped change the anti- -- the apartheid government of south africa. it was the u.s. leadership that spoke to the soviet union and their human rights on immigration through jackson vannic that brought about

change. it is critically important that we are going to see change in vietnam and brunei and malaysia and other countryies that don't have that record that we use that to achieve the objectives. so i will be evaluating very carefully not just what we do on tpa because we're so far down the line on tpp. also, an open process on both tpp and tpa as it deals with human rights in good governance. i want to ask one more question and then have your response on that in the second question. and that is, tpa would deal with more than tpp. it would deal with t tip as you already pointed out. there's a growing concern with our european partners that they are sympathetic to bds legislation dealing with boycott boycotts and sanctions. i'd be interested in those discussions whether we have been raising the issues that such action by our european partners would be considered to be

against our overall trading objectives and whether we are using t-tip as an important to protect against such legislation. i'd be glad to hear your comments on both of my points. >> well, thank you senator. thank you for your leadership on human rights an governance issues. tpp in fact does have strong governance and anti-corruption provisions in them. really it's one of the innovations of tpp to makeagreement. it really goes throughout the whole agreement with regard to trarnz transparency, regulatory transparency across the board. of course it has strong mechanisms generally across the whole agreement. we agree on the importance of that. tpp has also given us the ability to engage in countries like brunei and malaysia so we are in deep consultation with these countries about what it would take to bring their labor regime into conformity with

international standards, not just in terms of changing laws as you said, but also what kind of capacity building what kind of practice is necessary to really have changes on the ground? it's only because of tpp that we have the opportunity to have that kind of dialogue with vietnam, malaysia, and brunei and even on the human rights issue with brunei that has been raised, we're working closely with the state department which has the lead on the human rights issues but the opportunity to tpp fwichtp prks tpp gives us to engage with them about their practices to ensure that what they do is consistent with their international human rights obligations. i feel good that through tpp we'll be able to make progress in all of those areas and, that tp will set a new milestone in terms of good governance, anti-corruption and improving labor rights across the board. on the european issue, i'm not familiar with that particular area of legislation. it's not something that has come up in our negotiations but we're

happy to follow-up with you and look into it. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator grassly. welcome ambassador. for senator carden's benefit, i was with the ambassador in ethiopia ethiopia, two years ago in negotiations with the au and watched them hold them accountable for workers right as a participate istoor so i have seen this man look out what you're talking about. i think the fact that tpp is talking about including that is a big benefit because it has worked in the millennium challenge has held people accountable. you do a terrific job to thank you for the job you are doing. i have a couple of questions for you. question number one is you and i have talked a lot about poultry. i travelled to south africa a year ago with trade rep -- but

industry rep davies. i met with him at length in joe joe south africa. is that an accurating quote. >> i saw him a few days ago in switzerland. he handed me a letter from the south africa association to the u.s. poultry association. we have not yet heard back from our poultry association what their reaction to that is but we've made very clear to south africa that resolving issues around poultry will be very critical to moving ahead including a renewal. >> i appreciate that. that's very important to my state of georgia. we have joined together in a joint letter which you've been receiving when you get back to the office reinforcing our position that you use it with the leverage that it brings with the south africans to make sure

we break through the impasse regarding poultry. i think nobody has mentioned it yet but your work with india and the case we took to the wto in india in terms of poultry proved to be very successful. we just recently ran that particular ruling and i thank you for doing that. on commodities, there's another great product in my state and it's cotton. cotton was at .850 cents a pound. now it's .55 cents a pound. china is basically hoarding it. what can be done with china through the wto or through agreements that we have to keep them from manipulating the cotton prices and suppressing the cotton market? >> well i think this is a important point more generally that the whole pattern of agricultural subsidies has changed a lot over the last 15 years. when the round was first started, the focus of the

cultural subsidies was both the u.s. and the european union. in those areas subsidies have come down but in china and india, they have increased. by some measure, china is now the largest subsidizer of cotton. we are engaging with them and we had a conversations about that and taking afresh look at where subsidies are being provided, how it's distorting the market and how it should play into global trade negotiations. i think it's important that we update our view about what subsidies we have and where it is coming from. so we're hoping to engage with china on this to create some disciplines around this. >> would that case have standing at the wto if a case was brought? >> we're looking at all of our options there. we have not yet to determined whether there's a case to be brought in that area. >> one last point with regard to

poultry, i was in brussels shortly after a trip you had made and i repeat again the respect the european negotiators have for your ability and engagement. one of the problems we have is on the one hand europeans will talk about giving access for poultry but on the other hand they will say we won't take any poultry that's washed with water. well. that's the way it is produced in the united states. they use the regulation to be the burrier, not the product. what are you doing in the negotiations on t-tip to try to avoid that type of thing happening again? >> well, you put your finger on it because market access is not meaningful if it is just talking about tariffs and not talking about the other barriers that can exist. our perspective on this with regard to europe is that we don't want to force -- we're not interested in forcing anybody to eat anything but we do think the decision about what's safe should be made by science not by politics. we're encourageing them to insure that decisions on sps standards

reflect standards, reflect the evidence as based on safety. >> thank you for your service to the country. >> thank you senator. >> thanks senator grassly. welcome ambassador. it's great to see you. the others have already said this but we very much appreciate your responsiveness. frankly, your short crisp answers are welcome too. i was talking to one of my sons earlier today. i got two boys, 24 and 26. when they were little kids growing up, i used to them they would make a mistake and i would say there's nothing wrong with making a mistake let's make sure we don't make the same mistake over and over again. they are probably better at not making the same mistake over and over again than i am today so i think it sunk in. it's been nafta has been mentioned here before. if we had to negotiate it all over again we'd probably do some things differently. the point that you made earlier today is that we do have the opportunity here to negotiate nafta at least in part maybe in

whole. i'm not sure. but just drill down on that particular -- how do we -- people say it hasn't been all that helpful to the u.s. it's been, i think arguably very helpful to mexico. they have a vibrant middle class today. there are probably as many mexicans going into mexico as there are mexicans coming into the u.s. today. i think it's arguably been pretty good for the mexicans, not entirely bad for us but sort of a mixed bag. but in terms of one issue mentioned by senator isaacson in poultry, we have a real problem in nafta with canada as you probably know. just drill down on the things that we know now about nafta. what can we do differently and what are we going to do differently with respect to the trans trans transpacific trayspartnership.

>> nafta was 20 years ago. lots has changed in the global economy and global trading system. first and foremost one lesson that we've learned is labor and environmental issues need to be core to the agreement they need to be fully enforceable just like any provision of the trade agreement. that's exactly what we're doing with tpp but not just with canada and mexico but 40% of the global economy. so we're spreading the enforceable provisions to over half a billion workers around the world. that reflects a very meaningful evolution of the global trading system where labor and environment where 1one considered to be side issues now they are central and fully enenforceable. it has also given us the ability to go back and address market issues that we couldn't address. we're still negotiating. we have a ways to go. we have made progress with canada that this is an area that we want to see on tpp. some of the intellectual property rights issues that have

evolved over time or the digital economy issues that have emerged before there was an internet economy. this gives us an opportunity to renegotiate and update our approach in all of these reflects. >> thank you. senator shumer raised some serious concerns about enforcement mechanisms. there's an old saying the latest justice denied. i think you've made that we brought about 18 cases to the wto. those have been resolved have been resolved in our favor. can you give us a break down of out of the 18 how many have been resolved and how many are still outstanding? >> i believe seven have been resolved fully through the process. all of them in our favor. we just recently won the case with argentina on import licensing as senator isaacson we won a case on poultry in india. we have won up till now. we feel confident in our aproext

approach approach. we're trying to resolve in consultation. we're waiting for the other ones to go through the system. >> is there anything we can could in congress to expedite the amount of time it takes to resolve the issues? >> i think the key thing with tpp we're able to have our hone dispute settlement mechanism among tpp countries we have a strong mechanism that we're negotiating with our partners one with firm timetables and schedules an one we hope to find expedited resolutions. >> the reason why senator isaacson, yours truly, senator carden and warner continue to focus on poultry is it is a huge industry. we have three counties in delaware. we raise more soy bean in any country in america. we want to make sure that we can sell them to as many markets as

possible. the last thing i just want to say, i want to re-emphasize a point made on bio logics. you and i had an opportunity to discuss this earlier this month, maryland delaware pennsylvania, our other states, new jersey right along this row here have huge interests. tens of thousands of jobs depend on our ability to have a fair settlement and free agreement with respect to bio logics. i would just continue to raise that issue with you. thank you. >> senator, i apologyizeapologize. i passed over you to call on him. i didn't mean to do that. thank you very much for being patient for me. i call on senator coats and then is it would be roberts in that order. >> mr. chairman. no apology needed. i'm happy to yield to my friend and colleague from delaware. >> i owe you one. >> i am new. trying to figure out the rules here in terms of -- i rushed over to be here on time. get my name on the list.

you saw me, i had to go out and make a quick stop at another place and come back. and then i thought oh, i got the rules wrong must go back and forth between parties. that's fine whether me. i appreciate your apology. not necessary. ambassador, thank you first of all for dijligent work on a very tough subject but a very important issue for the economy and for the future of our country and many many people from my state and many states that rely on trade for their well being and their lifestyle and for our economy. in indiana we are a big export state, getting this right means a great deal to many, many hoosiers. several hundreds of thousands approaching a million whose jobs are there because we are willing to export. agricultural products, steel, auto products, pharmaceutical products medical devices and a whole range of other products

that are produced in my state so i wish you nothing but success. i am a strong supporter of trade. i want to affirm that some of the reservations that have been expressed here by my colleagues relative to making sure we have a level playing field and we've established the rules and they are accepted and enforced will be important. but my question to you is this. at the state of the union one of the things that brought republicans to their feet faster than anything else that the president said was his announcement that he wanted to go forward at gain of trade promotion authority and move these trade agreements forward. to get this done on my experience it's got to be all in. it's got to be above partisan politics, done in a bipartisan way. there had been some reservations raised about prolimbationclimations

from the white house in tirmerms what they will support and what they won't support. i want to make sure that we're all in. if we're all in we can get it done. all in means that republicans and democrats need to work together here in this committee and the ways and means committee in the house. our colleagues have to work together to bring this home and the president and the administration. can you affirm to us that the president is all in on this. that the administration is all in that you have the support that you needed from your administration in order to work with us to get this accomplished? >> yes senator. both the president has made clear both publically and privately, he's been meeting with folks privately as well. we also have a structure now at the white house. organizing a whole administration effort involving virtually the entire cabinet to promote the entire trade agenda. talking to members about tpp and what's in tpp and addressing their concerns and their

questions, and talking about the importance of moving ahead on a bipartisan basis with trade promotion authority as well. so i have a great deal of support from the president on down. it's a priority for him. we want to work on a bipartisan basis. make sure we're addressing concerns of democrats and republicans as we move this forward. >> well, i'm happy to hear you say that. i think the voters in november sent a very strong message towel all of us on both sides to get it done. get something done. i think this ranks very close to the top in terms of things we can get done that will make a measurable improvement in terms of economic growth and providing jobs for people. so thank you for that. i wish you nothing but the best and we look forward to working with you. >> thank you senator. >> >> mr. chairman, the senator from kan issas has been waiting, i defer to him first. he's after me. >> the ranking member -- senator

roberts, i'm sorry. >> well i want to thank the senator and it is remarkable but it isn't remarkable as a matter of fact. i just appreciate it. senator coats has pretty well summed up what i was going to say at the first of my comments and so i would just like to reiterate that this committee is all in. and you've heard that with the strong statement from senator hatch. you heard it with a strong statement from senator widen who represents the great state of oregon but was born in kansas and you heard it with pertinent questions from senator grassly. senator grassly, i ask you this and this is of interest to the sometimes powerful agricultural committee, a package soon on agriculture. what's soon? >> well, the market access

negotiations are proceeding in parallel with the negotiations over the text. over the rules. literally as we speak, our negotiators are meeting with the other 11 countries on both sets of issues. the market arcccess negotiations are done and we meet one on one with the other countries. >> i know that. what's soon. i know it's hard to predict and i'm not trying to put you on the spot? >> well our view is the timetable should be set by the substance. we think everybody should be focused on trying to get it done in a short period of time in the next couple of months. >> all right. you say that but here we have -- i'm not going to shumerize you. i want some questions back and forth. you have really made issue on this on china making arguments but we had 43 members of the senate write you a letter on the

gi issue. the geographical indicators by prohibiting the use of common generic food names such as farmparm a balognie. where are we on that the gis? >> this is one of the toughest outstanding issues still in tpp because we in the eu have die amettically opposed positions. europe sells hundreds of millions of dollars in the u.s. and we don't sell any in europe so we've been out there fighting hard to make clear that we can have a system where countries can take into account. common names and trade marks before we grant any geographical

indications. that's the only way to balance the perspectives of the united states and eu. our challenges, is our trading partners are negotiating with us but they also want to negotiate and have good relations with the european union. they are stuck in the middle. we're trying to find a middle naj path that will protect our trade names. >> i appreciate that. let me bring up the bio tech situation. there are currently 12 products awaiting final approval. the queue is growing. the european commission announced the intention to conduct a review of the entire u oe pi an bio tech approval process. there's concern that the 12 products pending final approval will not advance. the eu is like calling for instant replays on every play. that's just not going to work. would you comment on that, please? >> well, we share that concern. we've raised it in our meetings with the european union. i've had now three meetings with

my new counterpart, the trade commissioner. we've made clear that these are products that our own european food agency have determined are safe. they have an obligation to the wto and under the european justice decisions to move ahead with the approvals. we're encouraging they will to move ahead as quickly as possible. >> i'd like to repeat. thank you for answering these questions and repeat what senator coats said again. i think we have a unique opportunity here. you've done some excellent work and i thank you pour that. i think you know that they every member of this committee is behind you. each of us have our own initiatives that we're interested in but i worry that the president state of the union, seven veto messages but we were on our feet on the trade issue to help the middle class as senator shumer said.

so we're in. i hope the president is. i thank you for the job you do. >> thank you mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you for your efforts to engage the chinese and agricultural bio tech issues over the last year e. it's critically important to american farmers and the senator from kansas and iowa who spoke to this issue both in regard to china, we want to continue to emphasize how important those efforts also and also with the t-tip agreement with the eu, it's going to be very hard, i think, to get that agreement through unless we give american farmers more certainty with regard to the approval process for bio technology products. so anyway i want to make that point. i also want to just speak to an issue last year in brookings, south dakota, we welcomed the opening of a state-of-the-art cheese plant it's a 170,000 square foot facility. employing 250 people with the

hope of more in the future especially if we can bring down what are very high barriers to u.s. barry prode diary products in canada. as you know canada's diary market was not sufficiently open as part of the many tariff rates range from 200 to 295%. i want to strongly urge you to continue pushing on our friends to the north when it comes to market access for cheese and other diary products. i guess i would appreciate any thoughts that you might want to share on that subject. >> well this has been a high priority for us and forbefore canada joined tpp we had a dialogue about how this is going to be an important part of a successful outcome. we are engaged with them on a whole range of outstanding issues. they know this is important to us and we are working towards hopefully a successful conclusion there. >> it would be very helpful. diary businesses in places in the midwest is starting to

explode in some ways. we certainly want to see more of that and all the jobs that come with it but these tariffs are pretty prohibitive. you made remarks last june in which you highlighted data localization requirements as a significant problem for u.s. service companies working to expand into foreign markets and to compete globally. i agree with your view on that matter. i'm concerned about tpp not fully addressing those types of barriers for u.s. financial services companies such as banks and insurers and specifically i understand that tpp won't explicitly prohibit our trading partners for requiring finance service firms to set up local data center as a condition of doing business in their markets. that's a serious concern. i am wondering if your office can work with mine to krebt thiscorrect this oversight and to insure that this admission is not repeated in other negotiations in t-tip and tisa.

>> we're happy to work with your office and continue to pursue our efforts to put disciplines on localizition and insure free data across boarders but we're happy to work with your office on that. >> it's a big issue and the europeans in particular, it's an area that they are really -- for reasons unrelated i think to trade, really trying to create some of these barriers. i think that would be a big mistake and certainly make it more difficult for a lot of or businesses service ibndustries and financial services being a good example to continue to do business in that part of the world. could you just quickly comment on -- its an issue i brought up with you before about the eu's decision on february 13th to impose a 10% duty on ethanol and what steps usgr is taking to bring that case to the wto? >> well, we've engaged in dialogue with the eu about that. we've not yet resolved it.

we're hoping to with the new commission in place to reengage with them on this and part of our overall discussion in t-tip about areas of cooperation to try and bring that to a conclusion as well. >> okay. thank you mr. chairman. i would echo what's already been said, we really need to get tpa done and i hope that the president talks about it. talks about it in the state of the union address but we really need the administration engaged up here trying to help us as we push this across the finish line. thanks. >> senator casey. >> thank you mr. chairman. ambassador thanks for being here. thanks for your service on a tough issue which we all have deep concerns about as it relates to not only our states but country overall. i wanted to start with a premise or a foundation upon which i will make determinations about these agreements.

and that is that in my home state of pennsylvania despite promises and assertions in the lead up to trade agreements too often, our state has gotten the short end of the stick. we can debate how that happened. we can debate the reasons for that but i have real concerns and real skepticism which i know we've talked about. and at the same time, when it comes to what i call the short end of the stick, either job loss or dislocation or workers not getting basic fairness when it comes to these agreements, that's bad enough in and of itself but then they see very powerful and well financed special interest in this town especially but in other places as well, who don't get the short end of the stick. they do quite well. so i have that concern that

skepticism. frankly, it's more than a skepticism. it's real worry. and then when we come to the question of well, okay, let's try to mitigate that somehow by remedies, trade remedies that play out in the trade cases that are brought even when we're successful, it seems that we're never where we ought to be as it relates to those workers. so i have real concerns. i know you understand that that the playing field never seems to be level when it comes to our workers. i know earlier you spoke to -- or spoke and answered a question from the panel that the improvements to labor rights or environmental protections or ip standards, but the question i have got to get to is a question of jobs. just when you look at the context of china, here is just some data between 2001 when

china joined the wto in 2013 just roughly 12 years, the trade deficit with china increased by $240 billion or $20 billion a year. when that plays out for pennsylvania we rank fifth in total net job loss or net jobs displaced, i should say, by trade with china. so how do you answer the question that these agreements and the path that you're on is good for workers in pennsylvania? well, thank you senator. you know pennsylvania's goods exports are now $41 billion. they've grown by 150% over the last ten years. more than 200,000 pennsylvanias are employed by export related businesses 15600 firms export from pennsylvania.

almost 90% of them are small and medium sized businesses. the question is with these trade agreements, we can create more opportunities for these kinds of businesses. if you take all of our fta partners as a whole, we have a grade surplus. that surplus has grown. our trade deficit as you note, is largely comprised of countries with whom we do not have trade agreements. so trade agreements are our way of shaping forces of globalization, of opening markets because our market is already quite open. our average applied tariff is a 1.4%. we don't use regulations as a disguise burrier to trade but other countries do. if you just look at pennsylvania's exports. sort of the five top areas your exports, chemicals, 35% tariffs in some of these markets. pennsylvania exports $5 billion of these products. those tariffs will go to zero. minerals and fuels. 30% tariffs in some of these markets. pennsylvania exports $4 billion of these products. that tariff will go to zero.

metals and ores, 35%. it goes on and on and on. but we will get through this trade agreement is open up markets and level the playing field so we can protect workers protect american jobs and insure a fair and level playing field by raising labor and environmental standards raising intellectual property right standards and enforcement. making sthurure we are putting on disciplines on the type of practices that pose a real threat to workers in pennsylvania. >> well, i have no doubt about your intention. the problem is that some of this we've heard before and you mentioned some industries or some economic sectors in our state but when i look at whether it's sugar or solar panels or furniture or tires or paper or probably the best example would be steel which is economic as it relates to our state, we've had time and again promises made

prior to the trade agreements and then efforts after the fact to bring enforcement cases that have never commensurate with the promise that was made and i would argue that as much as you want to level the playing field i would hope we could level the playing field long before we have trade agreements in place. but we will continue to talk and i appreciate your time. >> well, thank you senator. we will now go to the senator portman. >> great thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate your being here ambassador. i thank you for what you do everyday and what your team of professions do to open up markets for the workers i represent and the farmers i represent and the service providers i represent. we had some discussion earlier from some folks in the audience about how this affects people who are frustrated about the lack of wage growth, concerned

about whether they are going to have a job at all going forward. all i can say is i think you just answered the question well if we're not selling to the 95% of the world outside of our boarders, we're letting our people down. we do have relatively low barriers here as you said but the rest of the world has a lot of barriers and that's not fashir. what you do everyday to knock down those barriers is what we want more of. i will give you one example. we have a little company in ohio, we opened up the trade for at a meat plant. these jobs pay on average 18% more and also have better benefits. the agreements that we talked about today people say some agreements are good. some are bad. i'm sure we can improve all the agreements that we've made but the reality is that we send 45% or more of our exports to 10% of the world. because we only have trade

agreements with 10% of the world. we don't have a trade agreement with china or japan or europe and we have a surplus with these countries countries. we've got to figure out a better way to open more markets. it's unbelievable that we haven't had the ability to open any more markets since seven years ago since trade promotion authority expired. every president since fdr has had ability to open up markets by trade negotiating authority until this president. he has now asked for it. we as americans, ought to say republicans, democrats independents, whatever, we want our president out there opening up mark epts.markets. during that seven years there had been seven negotiated. we're left out of them. you mentioned china. out of that 100, china has at least 14 of those agreements that they have negotiated during that time period. one of them by the way is with with ten different countries. we're not part of it. so our workers are getting left out. i don't know how we're going to

make progress in terms of affecting this concern on stagnant wages lack of benefits, high expenses unless we do a better job of selling that those countries all around the world. we don't do a good job. we're somewhere between eveningethiopia and tanga. to mayingke progress on leveling that playing field. as you know you've been very helpful with me on this. we've had a couple of good successes in the last year alone on two products, steel pipes we make in oihio, we want to keep making them. so it's a balance here. we've got to both get more exports out there but also do a better job of making sure that imports are being fairly traded.

i've got so many questions for you. i will submit most of these questions in writing but they are all about ohio workers and ohio farmers. ohio service providers who want to know what can we do to open up more markets to then. a quarter of factory jobs in ohio are now export jobs. we want that to increase because they are good paying jobs. i will ask one more question. i appreciate all you've been doing. there's one that does concern me and that is currency. when i was sitting in your seat i got asked by shumer who spoke a little earlier, he did give me a chance to respond before type was up. this was almost 10 years ago probably but he asked me about currency. i said yeah, i think it does affect trade. it affects it negatively. i know it's not your area in a sensement sense. the secretary of treasury has responsibility for currency.

but the does this report from others around the world and said new trade agreements should explicitly include currency manipulation that change rates should not be able to subsidize one parties exports at expense of the others. what are your views on currency and what can we do on trade agreements going forward? >> thank you senator. thank you for so much leadership on trade and being a great source of advice and guidance. currency is a great concern to us. it is a top priority. there's no difference of opinion about that. we think it's important that countries move towards market determine exchange rates. that there's not a misalignment of exchange rates. the treasury department the president, everyone on down has been focused on that bilatterly with countries like china after pushing they will to move their currency in june of 2010, we began to let their currency

appreciate and it has appreciated about 15% in terms against the dollar. not fast enough. we need to push toward full market determined rates. the g 7 money ministers got together and said you may want to stimulate your economy but you've got to do it through domestic actions for domestic purposes. the bank of japan has affectively done so. it has an affect on currency as well but they have done the same kind of thing that our federal reserve did with quantityative easing. this is a very important issue. we need to find the right ways of achieving the results. we're fully committed to do that in the administration. there's a wide range of views in congress and on this committee about how to best address this issue. we're looking forward to continue that dialogue. >> my time is up. i hope you will put some time and effort into it. the issue is intervention.

i do think that currency is something that more and more of us on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle certainly, are going to be concerned about because it does affect trade. it affects our ability to have that level playing field that we taked about today. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i do want to talk about currency. i know there's