information is better than secondhand information, would you agree? >> sorry. ma'am, the request for these interviews came on december 4th, i believe, and we spoke quickly with the committee and the staff to try to figure out what the highest priority were, and it was communicated to us that the four diplomatic security agents, ds, and that's where it runs into this complexity of an ongoing investigation to prosecutor potentially the individual that is in custody for those terrorist attacks and the justice department has raised concerns that need to be -- we need to be mindful of. that's the only discussion that we've had related to that. >> thank you. and please note that as a former u.s. attorney and someone who is in charge of victim witness subcommittee for attorney general ashcroft and attorney general gonzalez, i'm very concerned about prosecutions and about victims and witnesses. and let me just share with you that our staff is in communication with the justice department, and we will handle these witnesses appropriately. but if we made a request to you on december 4th of all of these witnesses, and i appreciate you

would like them to be prioritized, it's january 27th today. there is no date yet scheduled for an interview of any of these people. we're not going to wait to receive now all of these documents, which would have been the more efficient way for a real investigation to be done. so we'd like to know what date, and because we want to preserve the safety and security of these personnel, we'd like to know, i would say within the next 24 hours, which witnesses will be made available next week, and which witnesses will be made available the following week? and which witnesses will be made available the following week and so on? and we all have a certain number of staff, but our staff will go to these witnesses, or we will work with you to make arrangements to get these staff back to washington, d.c., to conduct these interviews. are you in agreement that that can be done? >> to provide a bit of context -- >> and we will be working with

the justice department on all of this as well to ensure their safety and security. so assuming that we take the justice department prosecution off of your plate and assume we work with them on how this will be done, will you work with us to get these interviews set up in the next week? >> ma'am, we're always open to communicating and speaking with you. the experts, i am not the legal expert for the state department. i will not take on that role. >> who is the legal -- who is the legal expert? >> we have lawyers at the state department that are continually in touch, and individuals and staff with the staff of the committee. >> and who is -- >> and we're always open to that conversation. >> i appreciate that. who is the lawyer from the state department that we should be communicating with with respect to scheduling these interviews of up to 22 different witnesses? >> i'd have to get you the specific person, but i'm sure that the staffs know who they are speaking with directly about these issues. >> who is the head of legal affairs for the state department? >> well, the legal adviser is nancy mcleod.

that's -- that's the legal adviser, the top of the state department bureau for legal affairs. but the context of the letter request for these interviews, it's important to remember that after we received the request, we have gone to the committee to ask for the priorities. in that interim process, we have prepared briefings. we have been engaged, and it took several weeks to get the priorities from the committee. >> why do we need priorities? they're all priorities. 22 people -- why do we have to prioritize? why does our staff have to prioritize to the state department? >> because we want to know for your work to make it as easy as possible what it is that you are looking at as the highest to-do item on your checklist. >> when we don't know what they have to say, it is difficult, mr. ruben, to know who has the most information. and so at this point, we have the bandwidth and i would suggest that the other side has the bandwidth to set up a schedule as to when we will interview each of these 22 witnesses. 18 who have not been interviewed

who worked in benghazi and in libya prior and four who were there at the time of the attack. and so will you work with us? will you commit -- >> of course. >> -- that your legal department will work with us to -- and we will pledge that we will work with the justice department on these witnesses, too, because we absolutely do not want to compromise that investigation. but these are individuals, some of whom have been interviewed by the arb, is that correct? >> i'm not intimately knowledgeable of every individual the arb spoke with. >> we must have these interviews done in an expeditious manner, and if we could please get the documents ahead of time, it will make it most effective, and we won't need to have multiple interviews with these important eyewitnesses. >> thank you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair would now recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it's been a very productive hearing. mr. schiff seemed confused by why you're here, mr. higgins. i'm go to enlighten him perhaps a little bit about why you're here today. the central intelligence had turned over a series of documents to the house permanent select committee on intelligence when it wrapped up its investigation. it returned those documents as it did under its instructions andity rules and provided them to you in a letter of may 8th. then chairman of the committee, mike rogers, asked you to hold on to those documents, to secund them in a way that would be available to this committee in a very expeditious manner. since at least october, this committee has been seeking those documents. november 19th, one of your staff said, quote, working to try to set up a time next week. end of quote. december 8th, one of your staff attorney says quote, we're in the process of organizing and page numbering. end quote. and then december 15, one of your staff attorneys said quote, we'll reach out to you soon, end of quote. this is a series of documents you've already identified. you turn them over on thursday of last week. after chairman gatty had to go through the process that you were going to have to come here today and answer to why you

hadn't turned over the documents. coincidence? >> no, sir. thank you for the question. and i absolutely understand your frustration and the committee's frustration. producing these materials has taken longer than you consider acceptable, and certainly longer than we anticipated as those e-mails from november and december suggest. if you bear with me, let me see if i can explain the delay. >> if you will do so quickly, i'd be happy to bear with you. >> i will do so as quickly as i can. let me see if i can explain the delay. the committee first requested access on november 14th, one of the e-mails you reference. over events overtook that request. the committee revisited the issue on december 8th asking to see the documents during the week of december 15th. at that point, those of us in contact with the committee, as those e-mails, again, suggest, thought that it should be a pretty straightforward process of delivering to you the materials that we previously produced to the house

intelligence committee. during this time while we were in contact, our staff most familiar with theback-related documents have been working on the state department document request, reviewing those 40,000 pages for cia equities. when we asked them to prepare our own documents for delivery to the committee, they made three discoveries. first they discovered the documents we had provided to hipsi and they had returned to us. we were disorganized. they were not in chronological order or any logical order. secondly, they realized that the documents did not comply with the limited redaction criteria that we have previously discussed with this committee staff directors. third, they learned that cia had not kept an exact soft copy of what had been produced to hipsi. so what that meant was that we had to go through a fairly time-consuming process of identifying the matching soft copies for the hard copies of thousands of pages that were produced to hipsi, pairing them up, the limited redactions that we had agreed with staff directors and then inserting them in chronological order and run into technical problems with

bates numbering them, but we were hoping they would all be able to be bates numbered as well. >> let me see if i can summarize. you couldn't figure out how to get them back to us in a timely fashion. but when the hearing was noticed, you figured it out. >> our internal goal was to finish it -- our internal goal was to finish it by this friday. we did accelerate that time line. >> you bet, to meet the hearing. >> to meet the hearing deadline. we planned to finish the process as i designed as bureaucratic and as cumbersome as it sounds, by this friday at the latest. >> i appreciate that. >> i apologize for the delay. >> this was a pretty simple request. some of the other challenges that the state department identified didn't exist. >> we discovered it was more complicated. >> let me talk about witnesses. there have been comments from the other side that we haven't asked for witnesses. we're going to. will you agree that you will help us find those folks, we'll

do all the right things to safeguard these folks, they are warriors, we don't want to compromise them at all. will you agree that you will work with us closely to help us get those folks so that we can get their testimony as well? >> yes, sir. we actually just received today the committee's request to speak with the eyewitnesses, and we will do so. >> great, thank you. that brings up a point. you just got it today. i assume when these witnesses come, you're going to hope we only have to interview them once. is that correct? >> i would hope so. >> it would be your strong preference that we not turn up a document after we've brought these folks back from goodness knows where to come testify that we don't have to call them back to address another document. so one time is better than two. and certainly better than three. right? >> absolutely. >> and mr. ruben, you'd agree with that? >> yes, although i'm not the expert in interviews. >> but you'd prefer if we have to round up, we just do it once and not have to gather them up, get your lawyers, all that goes with that a second or a third time. that's better from your agency's perspective. fewer of your 70,000 top people, right? >> i can't speak to the effectiveness of interviews, but --

>> here's what i can say. we have heard today from the other side that we haven't called witnesses. and i will tell you, until you get us the documents, we're going to be very loathed to bring them because i know we will never get these folks back a second time. you all will find hundreds of reasons not to bring them the first time and thousands of reasons not to bring them the second time. and we're just going to do this right. we're going to do this where we're actually going to pursue this inquiry in a reasonable way. mr. higgins, it took us a long time to get some of our sf star clearances. we had a three-star general that couldn't get an sci completed until when was it? when the hearing was noticed, shortly before the hearing is noticed, we get the final set of clearances that we need. can you assure us that that won't happen in the future? we'll probably have additional folks that need to be cleared. this is a comedy between the branches that you all have done good work on in the past. and it's one of the things, again, we've been trying to move this along. now we have the minority saying we're too slow. but we didn't have clearances for staff members in a timely fashion. >> we will commit to working with you to make the clearance

process work as smoothly as possible. i'm happy to explain in more detail if you like the various -- what cia's limited role is in the clearance process and why it's taken as long as it has in a few instances. but the bottom line is we will work with you to clear individuals as quickly as possible. >> in the case that we're doing something wrong, you don't have the information, we are happy to expedite that as well. but the executive branch sat for far too long and plea vented this committee from taking on the task that we have been charged with. and so we hear the minority today talk about it. but the executive branch prevented us from having access to information and having staffpeople having access to information that was necessary for us to execute this investigation the way these families deserve. >> usually when clearances have taken longer than we would like or you would like, it's because necessary information to adjudicate staff access to sensitive compartmented information which is the limited piece that cia does was not provided. and we either had to come back to the committee or go back to our interagency partners. we've worked through that. i think our security officers and committee security officer

now have a good understanding of how we can move forward in an expeditious fashion. >> have you received any documents from the minority? >> no, i have not. >> have you received any witness requests? >> no requests independent from the requests that we received this morning. >> mr. ruben, have you received any document request from the minority on this committee? >> we have not, sir. >> have you received any witness requests from the minority on this committee? >> similar to mr. higgins. >> so this -- today this is fascinating to watch, mr. schiff and mr. cummings talk about us being too slow. you've seen all the impediments that have been put in our way,

whether it was clearances or priorities or documents we can't get our hands on. they claim that they want to get mr. cummings says, i want to make sure we complete a fact-finding investigation. he hasn't asked for a single fact, not one. it must be the case that he believes every fact has been

determined, that every relevant line of inquiry has been completed, that there is not a single witness left in the universe to be interviewed. the minority complains they've been shut out. they haven't asked for a single thing that they have not been granted by an incredibly gracious chairman with respect to a witness that they wanted to call before this witness or a document they sought from any group within the executive branch. the hypocrisy to come today and say we are both moving too slow and asking for too much is something the american people will get to judge as we move forward. but i can assure you that everyone on this committee -- and i hope the minority will join in this effort in a serious way as well -- we're going to ask the questions, and it may be the case as mr. smith said, we won't get to all of the answers that we would like to get to, but we're going to work at it. we're going to take this charge seriously. and i hope the minority will participate as well. they talk about us being too slow, and yet they act as if their job is to play defense, right, to stop us from engaging in this inquiry. not participate in it. not say mr. chairman, i think we ought to ask this witness questions x, y and z. mr. chairman, might it be possible that we could obtain documents from this particular group. no, rather they simply act as if they are the break on this committee's investigatory work. as if their sole role is to claim that this investigation is political and not to participate. we still have men and women out in the world who are engaged in important intelligence collection activities and keeping america safe. we have an obligation to make sure this committee gets it right. and i hope the minority on this committee will begin to take that role seriously, that they will participate actively, that they, too, will seek witnesses and documents and information such that when we get done, they, too, will be able to sign the report. i would love nothing more than to have a bipartisan report that gets to all the facts. but if the minority continues to believe that their role is to play fullback to our efforts, to block everything we do, not to clear the way, but rather to obfuscate, i suspect we'll end up in a place where we get a

good factual report, but the american people don't get the full resolution that they deserve. with that, i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to make a couple comments about some of the statements that's been made about the delay in this committee. and the request for documents. this committee was formed in may, and i don't know, as the minority leader, didn't appoint the other side's members for two or three weeks. but we had -- we had to staff up. both sides had to hire staff.

and then once we hired the staff, they had to get security clearance, which mr. higgins and mr. pompeo alluded to. we had a retired three-star general that applied for clearance last september. and i think he got it last thursday. you know, if that's not dragging your feet, i don't know what is. but i don't know why we would have wanted all these documents, 40,000 pages of documents, if we didn't have staff cleared to read them. i mean, we members of congress, i know y'all don't think we do much, but, you know, for us reading 40,000 pages of documents, that's what the staff's for. and so just in the amount of time it took to staff up to find

the right people from both sides of the aisle and then to get their security clearance, i think everybody needs to understand it took a while. and then as far as the delay, you know, i think the delay has come from our chairman being too bipartisan. i know there was hours, if not a couple days, spent on arguing about how much time each member would get. and i think the minority wanted it down to nine minutes and 20 seconds each, the way this thing was deliberated. and so when you have to spend a couple days arguing about, you know, 40 seconds or 20 seconds or whatever it is, you're not going to get very far. and as far as us being in a majority, i think the president said in 2009 elections have consequences. as mr. pompeo said, he and i both sat on the intelligence committee. and reading the resolution that was put before the house, we have those same authorities as the intel committee. mr. higgins, would you agree with that? >> the resolution does carve this committee into house rule 10 which establishes the intelligence committee's authorities over intelligence sources and methods. >> so you will give this committee the same respect that you would hipsi and any request for documents or witnesses that they might request?

>> i'd be happy in a classified setting to discuss it is materials that cia has provided as well as the limited set of redactions that we are implementing pursuant to conversations with this committee's staff directors. >> okay. and 40,000 pages came from the state department. and mr. ruben mentioned that there were a lot of -- talking about redaction, there was a lot of other agencies, i guess, that had to look at what was in there as far as redacting the information. when the cia received this, were there any redactions already done? >> we had a team that we sent down to the state department to review. these are materials that had prooely been produced in part in

unclassified form with redactions. we sent a team down to review the redactions, see which redactions could be lifted. as mr. ruben indicated, the documents are now less redacted than they were previously in part because other agencies like cia lifted their redactions. again, any remaining redactions that are cia redactions are pursuant to discussions that we've had with the staff directors here. >> so is the cia the only redactions that are there now? >> i can't speak to that, i'm afraid. >> mr. ruben, is that the documents, the 40,000 pages, only the cia redactions? >> so the different agencies that have redacted in different areas cut across the entire interagency as all -- many agencies involved in foreign policy. i'm sorry, sir. >> no, i'm sorry. do we know what agencies redacted what parts of -- >> we'd be happy to meet with your staff to go over specific documents to identify where those redactions came from. >> okay. but you know where they came from, the redactions, and why they're there, right? >> again, if another agency did

it, we would engage with the committee staff and with that agency to help figure that out. >> so by sending this to the cia -- and i'm assuming that the cia had, unlike the state department, had some people specifically set up looking at these benghazi documents? >> between our office of congressional affairs and our office of general counsel, we have people that we have designated to review benghazi-related documents. so we actually sent people to the state department. they didn't send it to us. >> so you sent them to the state department rather than the state department sending you over some documents and you looking at it. you actually send folks over to the state department. >> that's correct. >> is that correct? now, and i'm assuming that for both the intel committee and this committee, that the redactions you make are for methods and sources, is that correct? >> that's correct. again, i'd be happy to provide more detail and in a different setting. we have discussed that with the staff directors from both sides. >> okay. so do you think that the state department shares e-mails

between employees that would have methods and sources in it? >> there may be times that e-mails in the state department's possession do include cia information that would speak to intelligence sources and methods. >> between employees? >> or between, say -- >> the state department feels like they're employees that can see methods that members of congress can't see? mr. ruben, i'll ask you the question. are there e-mails between state department employees that disclose me methods and operations and stuff that they can see that members of congress can't see? >> there may be times that they do have nchgs that will speak to intelligence methods. >> between employees? the state department feels like employees and members of congress can see. >> is there e-mails between state department employees that

disclose methods and operations and stuff that they can see that members of congress can't see? >> terms of communicating with other agencies, we have classified communications systems that are part of the daily operations on foreign policy probably smeeking national security. >> well, i know that mr. higgins testified that all of our facilities have been secured and certified by the cia. i think most members are taugs security clearance. are you saying that the state department employees send these e-mails back and forth or something that we should be seeing now. >> no, sir.

reat a timed to the document there's classified and unclassified. >> what would be considered classified from another agency that members of congress would not need to see? >> flstthere's a process of determining when it's classified. generally when commune kaigs classified within agencies that type of information we're all seeking. >> i believe the process is we've gone to all the agencies are relevant to these documents and sdasked for review. >> mr. higgins said they lifted

some of the redactions. >> we went over the documents and minimized. as a member of the committee we had gotten the same information reacted. the committee to have better information if we go through the freedom of information act. >> they got theirs quicker than we got ours.

>> many of the categories that were redacted we have reduced. >> i yield back my time. >> the chair will recognize mr. jim. >> as i sit here i want to make sure we're all doing the same things. i've heard a lot of comments that concern me. let me be clear we've never ever tried to veto the chairman's is. it just never happened. i made it clear to him over and

over again. we have asked to be true partners in this investigation. i think it's sad that, in my 18 years in the congress, to see how the stress builds up and when distrust wells up, it's very hard to get anything done period. i was watching you a minute ago when you talked about am basket eded about ambassador stephens. i watched you as you, you may not have realized it became

emotional. as you became emotional i couldn't help but think about the other employees add state who are probably watching this right now and how they give their blood, sweat, tears away from their families to do the jobs that they do. the first thing i want to do is thank them. the same thing for you. when i think about this effort that we're making and i don't

care what anybody says, it is search for the truth. be clear what is one person's truth somebody else may say something opposite. our effort is to bring our heads together our best efforts and hopefully some trust to look at all the facts and come to some conclusions conclusions. you're absolutely right. if we end this with a republican saying this and democrats saying that what have we really accomplished. one of the things we did and i thought it was great that we did it, was to sit down and meet with the families. i met i made every one of those meetings. it was painful.

it was painful. they did not ask for republicans to sit on one side of the room an democrats to sit on the other. they wanted us to sit down and work together. period. one of the things they said over and over and over and over again don't make this a political football. they talked about how they wanted closure. they talked about how they wanted us to truly work together.

i've said it before and i'll say it again. i'll say it until i die. each one of us represents over 700,000 people. all of us bring something to the table. it should not be about the gotcha moment. it should be about the big picture moment. it should be about how we make sure this does not happen again. as i listen to a lot of discussion it was an issue of the question of whether the democrat put forth witnesses and the fact is that we need a scope. we need an id of what we are

going after. woint even be here wouldn't be talking about this if we didn't already have any reports. we've got a situation where millions of taxpayers dollars have been paid. we've had members of congress that have been paid to sit in hearings. we have staff members and producer. some of them are bipartisan. some of them are bipartisan. we got our staff involved. we created something that answers questions. it's not contrary, we didn't say that these are things that

we judge to the facts. documents presented and just the very questions that have been asked. we just presented the documents. that's all we tried to do. then we said now that we've done that, no that we've got that, let's see what it is that we can work together on if there is something that has not been answered. you talked about priorities. the chairman lays out, as i understand it what he wants. have you been given priorities? >> thank you. we have been given pie yourriorities

which is to ensure that we provide additional documents related to a special search for former secretary clinton as a to priority. >> how did that come about.? how did that happen? why did it happen? >> it was initiated through the contact and communications between staff and committee in our officials our personnel at state including with the letters on december 4th and at the end of november i think november 18th. >> i agree with that needs

certain information. when it comes the priority, shets theshethe sets priorities, not you. >> we're responsive. >> tell me the priority list right now. what is that list? number one. >> it is the production of documents that we're requested regarding former officials and top of the list was former secretary clinton. number two is the interviews of the four diplomatic security agents that we referenced. that's not to say that the other requests are forgotten. those are the items we have worked most diligently on. those documents that were requested. it's only been six weeks since

the initial request and a few about a month of the finalization of that. >> we got to move to higher ground. that's the families deserve. that's what the american people deserve. i think that's all we want. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> democrats asked for no hearings in august and october, and now they complain the democrats picked the topic for the first hearing, the arb recommendations. now they complain. democrats asked and got a second

hearing on the arb recommendations. now they complain. in that second hearing, mr. smith, has given the kurty i have not seen in my eight years after summery to call in and ask questions. now they complain. i mean, so suggest that the chairman has been unfair is ridiculous on the face. now, the one thing they have said that makes some sense is the pace is way too slow, and that's why we've got you guys here today. we have got to pick up the pace for the families that mr. cummings just referenced. so mr. ruben, i'm going to start with an issue i dealt with in my work on standing committee here in the house and has carried over to this committee, and that's the arb process. are you familiar with that, mr. ruben? >> i'm not the expert on the whole arb process. >> specifically, do you know something about the benghazi arb process at all? >> i do in general terms. >> we've had two hearings on it. the first two hearings that the democrats requested. it's a pretty important issue. >> and secretary stark came and testified. >> he sure did. many claim the arb process and the arb report was independent. mr. cummings said this. he said -- called it the independent accountability review board.

the report was independent. jerry connelly, another member of congress, said it was the independent accountability review board process. greg starr who you just referenced, a colleague of yours who's testified twice on this committee. the first two hearings said this. thank you for inviting me today. this is at the last hearing. to provide insight on the department's progress to implement the recommendations made by the independent benghazi arb. i mean, they use the term independent almost as if it's part of the title. part of the official title. now, i think there are problems with that claim. secretary clinton picked four of the five members of the board of this so-called independent board. secretary clinton was never interviewed by this so-called independent board. sheryl mills, her chief of staff, wasn't interviewed by this so-called independent board. sheryl mills, her chief of

staff, was given a draft copy of the report before it went public to make edits of this so-called independent board. admiral mullen, a co-chair of the board, after interviewing charlene lamb, employee at the state department, then called up sheryl mills and said hey, ms. lamb's going to testify in front of a congressional committee. she's not going to do a good job. i'm giving you a heads up. when the co-chair gives up a heads up about a potential witness coming in front of congress, that doesn't really scream independence. but mr. ruben, let's assume they're all all right. let's assume they got it right, that this is independent. in spite of those facts, in spite of the fact the secretary picked four of the five people who were supposed to investigate her, i don't know where anywhere else in life with a potential subject gets to pick their investigators. despite the fact she wasn't interviewed, sheryl mills wasn't interviewed, despite all those facts, let's just assume that mr. cummings, mr. connelly, mr.

starr correct when they say independent, how do we test that claim if you guys won't give us the documents? how do we test the claim of independence if you guys won't let us see the record? mr. ruben, you've had a subpoena congress issued in august of 2013 saying we want every single document, or as the chairman's made clear, all documents relating to the arb investigation, we want to know, when are you going to comply? >> sir, as -- >> when are you going to put those top people that mr. roscum, when are you going to put those top people on a subpoena that's been issued a year and a half ago to get us the documents so we can test the claim that this arb was actually independent? >> sir, as i just mentioned with mr. cummings, the top two priorities that were communicated to us for the immediate term were these interviews and these other documents. >> here's what we've got to get past. wait, wait, wait. this is what we've got to get past, this priority line you keep using. the subpoena was august 2013. this wasn't -- we're not talking

a couple months ago. we're talking a year and a half ago. so you got top people working on it. so here's the point. you can't have it both ways. you can't claim oh, this was the independent be all, end all definitive statement that the arb made on benghazi. and then not let us see the record. all we're saying is okay, we'll accept this fact. we don't think it is independent. we'll accept it. show us the record. >> so we had two hearings with secretary starr about the arb implementation. the arbs themselves are crucial to providing security for our people. that's why they're there. and the documents request that you're referencing, there are documents as well in the 40,000 pages of documents that are related to the arb. >> that's where i wanted to go. you're right where i wanted to go, mr. ruben. you've given us 40,000 documents. are contained in that 40,000 documents, are -- within that 40,000 documents, is every document that the arb received

from the state department, so the state department gave the arb a bunch of documents, are everything the arb had contained in that 40,000? >> i have not read all 40,000 pieces. >> no, i don't expect you've read them. >> i don't want to misstate that. >> have we received everything the arb received? >> again, sir -- >> simple question. >> -- i did not draft the arb, and i have not read all 40,000 pages. i'm here to convey to the house, to the committee, what it is that we're working on. so the -- it's not something i would be able to testify on here. >> this is the key question. the documents the arb got from the state department, are they in the 40,000 that we now have? every single thing that the arb got from the state department, are they in the 40,000 documents we now have? yes or no? >> the document that you requested -- >> you can say i don't know. >> the document request was related more broadly to an overall search for documents from the state department.

now, as far as the arb investigation, it's important to also recognize that arbs, over time, need to stand independence as you've cited, and that is for the security of our personnel. >> mr. ruben, there's two components to the subpoena. there's what i was just talking about. does this committee now have everything that the state department gave to the accountability review board? that's question one. question two is, the notes, the records, the files, the interview, notes, everything that the arb compiled in their investigation, we want toes, too. does this committee have those notes, records and files that the five-member arb panel had, do we have that information? >> again, i cannot tell you specifically every single document has been in there. again, if the committee tells us that that is in their priority, the number one thing, i'm happy to convey that back and have us move on that. >> mr. ruben, are you familiar

with the statute, the statute pertaining to arb says this. records pertaining to administrative proceedings under the arb process shall be separated -- shall, not may -- shall be separated from all other records of the department of state and shall be maintained. so here's the point. you should have a file already with everything nicely and neatly organized of all the documents that the state department gave the arb and all the notes, files and records that the arb compiled in their investigation when they did the interviews, how many people they interviewed, did they do it alone or in groups. you should have all that in the file. that should be the simplest thing in the world to hand over to us, and you haven't done it. and yet -- and yet everyone claims the arb was independent. how can we test the claim when you won't give us what the statute requires? separated, segregated file on what the arb did and you guys keep it. >> part of the core integrity of the arb -- >> do you have that file

separated and segregated like the statute requires? >> sir, the core integrity of the arb is reliant upon discretion and the ability -- >> mr. ruben, these questions are so simple. is there a segregated file like the arb statute requires, do you have that separated, segregated ready to hand over to us -- a long time ago, frankly -- but do you have it separated and segregated? >> i'd have to go and ask our experts about that. the liaison -- >> this is amazing. you were invited to come here today to tell us about the documents. the statute says you're supposed to have them separated and segregated to maintaining those, and you don't know if you have them and can't give them to us? >> no, i'm saying i'm going to get our experts -- >> you said i don't know. i got that answer. >> -- to convey that. i want to get you the proper information. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. in the article you wrote, one month after four americans were tragically killed, one of them a friend of yours and a great ambassador, in the article you wrote that mr. roscum cited earlier, you talked about not

rushing to judgment, and you specifically said we should wait to get all the facts out. direct quote from your guest blogger column. and here's the irony. wait to get all the facts. you said wait to get all the facts, and now you're the guy who can give us the facts. you're the guy who should have the arb files separate, segregated, ready to hand over, and you guys won't do it. after you'd said that a month after this tragedy and now this should be ready to give over to us, and the state department's saying keep prioritizing. we've got top people on it. keep getting in line. we're working with you. we promise we'll work with you. we're going to get to it someday, sometime, somehow. it's not going to fly. >> sir, we've been proactive with the committee. we have provided briefings that the committee didn't request, and we're always open to, as i said earlier, to have these communications. >> the subpoena was a year and a half ago.

i don't know how you can say you've been proactive and helpful when you won't even comply with the statute and give us -- give us what the law requires you to give us and have it segregated and separated for us. and oh, by the way, claim independence in the process. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from ohio, mr. ruben, and mr. higgins, i think both of you have something in common with every member of the committee, which is a deep and abiding respect for the four people who gave their lives for this country. so i think that you share our desire to do what the house instructed us to do. and you'll note the department of justice is not at the table. you made reference, mr. ruben, to the department of justice. ms. sanchez made reference to the department of justice. and i asked her to yield time so i could clarify that. and she's well within her rights not to do so. the department of justice did write us a letter. and we met with them. and we addressed the concerns that they had about protecting the integrity of their prosecution. which i can assure you, given my

former line of work, i want them to be wildly successful with their prosecution. so i would never do anything to jeopardize that. we met. we discussed it. we worked out the issues. they're not at the table. that's why they're not at the table. i don't enjoy these hearings. i'd rather have a hearing about substance, not about process. i don't want another hearing like this. but when my colleagues are complaining about the pace, and i've got colleagues on this side which i never thought i would ever hear in my life that i am too polite, i never thought i would hear that. i hope my three sisters are watching. we're going to have to ratchet it up. and if the letters don't work, then we're going to have to resort to a more formal legal process. because i want this concluded. and i will note -- i don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had

an opportunity to highlight this point yet, but i'm sure that they would agree with me, there's not been a single leak of anything that either of you have provided us. there's not been a single selective release of information. not one. so the people on this committee take their responsibility seriously, this is not a political exercise for us. most of the people who ask me about benghazi i could not tell you their political ideation, if they have one. they just want to know what happened. and i intend to tell them, and i intend to tell them sooner rather than later. so the letters haven't worked, and the southern politeness has not worked. we're going to ratchet it up. because i need access to the documents and the witnesses, and we need to be able to conclude our work. with that -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> certainly. >> just for one question. you know, as i listened a few moments ago to the last questioner, you know, i just

want to make sure that the -- in consistent with what you've just said, us getting the job done, that apparently they have priorities that are being set. and i want to make sure that they have the proper instructions. i mean, on the one hand, we have some members saying, you know, give them everything and don't worry about priorities. but on the other hand, they say that you've set certain priorities. i just -- i mean, i want to make sure that they are clear as to the marching orders, that's all. >> well, that's a great question, mr. cummings. in a perfect world when people ask you for priorities, that's exactly what they want. they want to know what your priorities are because they intend on complying with all of your requests. they just want to know what are we going to do tomorrow, the next day and the next day. after a year and a half of waiting on compliance with a subpoena, the argument that we need priorities just rings a little bit hollow. and if i were to tell you, if i were to tell you i want you to

prioritize mr. cummings' e-mails, then someone is going to spin that into the we don't care about the other people's e-mails. we're just obsessed with the gentleman from maryland. we don't care about any other witness. so i'm not going to fall for that. i'm not going to fall for the trick of telling you what's really important. it's all important. that's why the word "all" is in the resolution. so i can't tell you -- i can tell you this. if you start producing documents on a regular basis, consistent with our request, nobody is going to complain to you that you're not giving them to us in the order in which we want them. >> the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> the reason why i asked that question is because it's my understanding that your staff had told them that it was okay to not make the top priority the arb information. and you can correct me if i'm wrong, and then concentrate on the other things. is that right?

>> that's my understanding. >> and so all i'm saying is, you know, i just want -- i understand what you're saying. and it makes a lot of sense. i just want to make sure that we're clear. and that way you talk about not wanting to have more hearings. i understand that, too. but then i don't want folks to be in a position where they come back and say well, he said one thing, and we tried to do what you said, to ask us to do, and then there's no -- i don't want any wiggle room, i guess. >> i appreciate the gentleman from maryland's point. i guess my point would be that this committee did not even become constituted until last may. so what was the priority between the time oversight sent you the subpoena on the arb and this committee even coming into assistance? because god knows it couldn't have been anything we asked for.

so you kind of get my point. i mean, you can't wait a year and a half and say well, we didn't give it to you because we didn't realize it was a priority. >> we were producing significant numbers of documents throughout that period. we've been producing documents practically every month since october of 2012. >> i understand that, but it's been how many years now? >> unfortunately, two, 2 1/4. >> i've asked if there are some people in the administration that benghazi happened a long time ago. i'm telling you that family members waiting, it might as well have been yesterday. so they want the truth. and nobody gets better with time. memories don't improve. documents get misplaced. recollections fade. that's why we have a speedy trial clock. it's ironic, the department of justice has to try khattala within a certain period of time tore that very reason. so to ask me to prioritize when all of it is important, i'm not going to fall for that trap. with that having said that, i will repeat it again, i have no interest in having another hearing like this, zero. none. and i don't think for a second that you're the decision-maker.

at the state department. no offense to you. i don't think you decide which documents to produce and which ones don't. so what i would like you to do is go back to your department and say i don't want to go back there. so let's find a way to be in compliance with the request sooner rather than later so the committee can do its job, and then we can all produce a product that we can take pride in, that answers the questions, and we can all go back to whatever we were doing before the speaker asked us to do this. okay? fair enough? >> thank you. we're happy to. >> with that, we are add journed. journed. journed. on the next washington journal, congressman charlie dent of pennsylvania on the role moderate republican will play in the 114th congress. he'll look ahead to the 2016

presidential race. representative ron kind of wisconsin, chair of the new democrat coalition will discuss the group's agenda and president obama's push for new trade deals. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. loretta lynch heads to capitol hill wednesday for her confirmation hearing. we hear from ms. lynch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. thursday the committee hears from other witnesses about the nomination of ms. lynch at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. she would a position from 1999 to 2001. ms. lynch is a graduate of harvard university and is 55

years old. this sun, dr. frances jenson on the discovery of the teenage brain. >> they can't reason and cause and effect of actions are not clear to them. their frontal lobe is not readily accessible. the connections can't be made as quickly for split second decision making. a lot of hormones are changing a lot in in the body of the young men and women. the brain hasn't seen these yet in life until you hit teenage years. the brain is trying to learn how to respond to these new hormones that are rolling around and actually locking on the receptor receptors receptors. they're trying to, it's sort of trial and error. i think this contributes to this very roller coaster kind experience that we watch as

parents. members focused on the transpacific partnership which is being negotiated with the u.s. and pacific asian nations. this hearing is 2 hours.

the committee will come to order. good morning. it's a pleasure to welcome everyone today oos's hearing on our trade agenda. i want to thank ambassador froman for being here today. the trade agenda is looking up since the last teem you testified. things seem to be improving with our ongoing trade negotiations. for example, significant gaps remain the administration seems to be inching ever closer to the transpacific partnership agreement. morale at the office after a long period of decline is beginning to rise. first there's still a lot to be done. even in that regard things seem to be looking up. compared to this time last year the administration is much more engaged at all levels of making the renewal of tpa.

president obama's strong call for tpa in the state of the union was welcome. in my opinion, it was long overdue. i hope that you'll follow his latest call to action with a real concerted effort to help us get tpas through congress. here in the finance committee we're doing all question to help in this effort. the bill i introduced last year received broad support. i'm currently working to see if there's way to address some additional issues raised. we're working with chairman ryan as well. while there will may be some improvements we can make to the bill shs bill, i want to make one thing clear, the time for tpa is now. tpa empowers our negotiators to get the best deal possible for american workers. we will need an all out effort

to make the case for why tpa is so vital to fairly engage in international trade an enhance the health of our own economy. simply put trade means jobs. today 95% of the world's consumers live outside the united states. these customers account for 92% of global economic growth and 80% of the world's purchasing power. maintain a healthy economy we need in these markets. right now the united states is engaged in some of the most ambitious trade negotiations in our nation's history. the first, which i already mentioned is the transpacific partnership or tpp. renewal of tpa is key to the success of this agreement. without tpa the administration will not be able to bring back the high standard agreement congress needs to ensure its enacted. it will be a grave mistake for

the addministration to close tpp. jeopardizing the prospects for passage in congress. there are also some outstanding issues that need to be resolved in tpp. as i've stated in the past my support by no means ensures that i will support just any version of tpp that happens to be submitted to congress for approval. for me the agreement must achieve a high, a very high standard pr the protection of intellectual property including 12 years of data protection and strong trademark protections. provision mustards the theft of trade secrets and insure effective implementation.

it's also critical as is real market access for u.s. exports. there are other major negotiations that are ongoing. i'm confidence that renewal of tpa will help and will help bringing those to success. most notably there's the transatlantic and trade investment partnership. it must be a comprehensive agreement and include provisions of financial services, regulation and strong investors dispute settlement mechanisms. the agreement must achieve a high level of protection and address the geographic indications to create market barriers. i expect to see progress in advancing the negotiation of the trade and investment services agreement and environmental

goods agreement. all of this represents a very ambitious agenda for your office and for the administration as a whole. if i haven't been clear up to now, let me restate. tpa, must be considered an essential element for all these endevours. i believe congressional renewal will unleash new energy on the international trade agenda helping to propel to greater growth an prosperity. history shows that trade agreements create new economic opportunities and importantly higher paying american jobs. this year we truly are at the precipice of opportunity. the only question is whether both parties of congress and the administration can work together to put in place the necessary tools to seize this opportunity. i certainly think we can, and i will do everything in my power to ensure our mutual success. i look forward to your testimony

today and to working with you to advance a strong pro-growth trade agenda. now i'd like to turn it over. >> thank you very much. it's good to be working with you and have the ambassador here. today's global economy seems to mover at a million miles an hour. clinging to yesterday's out dated trade policies is a loser for the millions of middle class american workers counting on political leadership to create more high skill, high wage jobs. trade aagreements need to bulldoze the trade barriers and open new markets to exports made by america's middle class. the things we grow or raise build or forage. done right trade agreements can help grow the paychecks of middle class families. that can help take our economic

re re recovery from walk to a sprint. many export driven jobs from precision weldsing to engineering design offer higher pay and more generous benefits than jobs that are not tied to exports. american workers who dine and build products like machinery electrical gear can get into the winner's circle when the goods they make are exported. it's easy to understand why many american workers are frustrated when they haven't seen a meaningful pay rise in decades. when discouraged americans argue they've been hurt pi trade those voices must not be

ignored. those vises have to be heard and those who favor a trade agenda that takes on the challenges of a higher competitive global economy have a responsibility to make the case it's going twork for the middle class. i'm raising that issue because the president said during the state of the union address, past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype, end quote. i'm looking forward to the ambassador out lieping how the administration plans to change that. it's al important to hear what safeguards will be in place to ensure that any workers impacted by trade have basic says to retraining, health coverage and other sources of sporlt that connect them to new opportunities.

the face of unfair schemes by government. trade enforcement is essential. just ask anyone with hundreds of workers who work in my state at solar world. when the chinese made an end run around our trade losses and threatened solar world the company fought back and won. that victory preserves 900 good paying oregon jobs. american trade enforcers have to keep at it. china and other governments won't stop trying to get around the trade laws any time soon. those are bedrock elements of a

trade agreement and they cannot be ignored or pushed tothd eded to the sidelines. the second issue to address is technology. the internet is changing trade in the 21st abling more efficient ways to change goods and services. three decades ago an entrepreneur with big dreams in a town like mt. vernon oregon didn't have the internet. today the entrepreneur does. the nation's trade policies must take advantage of economic areas where there is clearly advantage usa. that means promoting an protecting a free and open internet. keeping open, is in my view, shipping lane of the 21st century. the last point i want to mention is transparency.

the american people have made it clear they are not foing to accept secretly written agreements that don't see the light of day until the last minute. that was too often the way things work in the past. it's not good enough anymore. nor is it enough to respond to important questions with the same inadequate refrain. somehow, some way people will benefit. the american people have the right to know what's at stake. our trade policies are stronger when the american people are part of the debate and when elected officials can conduct vigorous oversight. once it's ready that bill must be available to the public.

finally, whatever member this committee feels with respect to trade, let's have a serious debate and work together on a bipartisan basis to find as much agreement as possible. my focus will be on finding new opportunities to sell red, white and blue overseas. thank you for the opportunity this morning to discuss these important issues. we're dpladglad the ambassador is here. i look forward to his views. >> appreciate you working this area. we're highly hopeful question continue to work in a bipartisan way to do this very important work. we're so happy to have you here. i don't think you need an introduction beyond we're very pleased to see you working in this area.

you're one of the best people we've had. you come here with a lot of credentials. we're looking forward to working with you. we'll turn the time over to you. >> thank you, chairman hatch, members of the finance committee. thank you. as a central part of the president's overall economic strategy our trade agenda committed to supporting good jobs. we're advancing those goals by knocking down barriers to u.s. exports and leveling the playing field for american workers and businesses for all sizes. as we work to open markets around the world -- >> people the truth. we no the transpacific -- you're trying to rush us.

>> let's have order. remove this person. >> we're not going to allow us to protect our workers. you're not going to get past what the american people -- no trade deal. >> no tpp. >> no one super size. >> sir. >> who are these people? >> we don't want it. we believe in democracy not secrecy. >> no tpp. >> no tpp. >> no tpp. >> no tpp. no tpp. no tpp. >> all right. let's take them out. if committee will be in order.

comments from the audience are inappropriate, out of order. if there's any further disruption the committee will recess until the police can restore order. i understand that some people have strong feelings about the subjects we're talking about today. that's fine. we have to allow civil discussions to occur in the context of this hearing. for the people that are protesting i ask that you respect the rights of others. we're not going to put up with it. if we have to recess this committee we will which will be shame. we'll recess until order is restored. let's have no more of that. i ask our capitol hill police to make sure that we don't have anymore of this type of

activity. we turn the time back to you. you're not representing your people. >> i am. >> no you're not. take him out. >> this is wrong. corporate secret deals. >> you're not helping your case. i'll tell you that right now. >> to open markets around the world -- >> if any signs go up again we'll throw you out of meeting too. let's stop the cheap politics. >> as we work to open markets around the world we're enforcing our trade farmers ranchers get the full benefit of the economic opportunities the united states has negotiated over the years.

taken together the efforts have contributed greatly to america's economic comeback. since 2009 exports have grown by nearly 50%. during the most recent year on record, 2013 u.s. exports reached a record high of $2.3 trillion and supported a record breaking 11.3 million jobs. at a time when too many workers haven't seen their paychecks grow in much too long these jobs typically pay up to 18% more on average than non-export related jobs. i've heard many of the stories behind these taststatistics. across our country i've heard the same resounding message, confidence that workers and

businesses can win. these companies are able to increase their sales and payrolls. this success is all the more impress ifr when you consider the united states is an open kpli economy and other countries aren't playing by the rules. that's why we're working harderen than ever to bring home trade aagreements that will unlock trade and investment while raising other important standards across the board. the contours of a final agreement are coming into focus. we made important progress in the market access negotiations and in addressing a number of 21st century issues such as digital trade computation with

state owned enterprises and labor and environmental protections. if we build upon the $1 trillion dollars. in november president obama and eu leaders reaffirmed their commitment to an ambitious and high standard t tip agreement. it could cover roughly 1 trillion dollars in trade. this will be a critical year for trade. we look forward to continuing our efforts to engage the

public, stake holders and members of congress in creating opportunities for american exports. how we're ensuring the government will regulate while giving americans abroad to guarantee. as we move ahead we're committed to providing maximum transparency consistent to negotiate the best agreements possibly. we look forward to working the committee and others to achieve that goal. there's no other area that flekt reflects coordination. to further strengthen that as the president made clear last week we look to congress to pass bipartisan trade promotion authority. tpa puts congress in the driver's seat to define

goerkting objectives and strengthens congressional oversight throughout the goerkting process. the previous legislation was passed over a decade ago. tpa establishes the time line and process for the trade agreements we bring home to be reviewed. the administration looks forward to working this committee and the new congress as a whole.

we can only accomplish these shared goals and priorities through strong bipartisan cooperation between congress and the administration. together we can assure that our trade policy continues unlocking opportunity for all americans. once again thank you for the invitation to testify. i'm happy to take your questions. >> last year i expressed my disappointed you refused to bring a case against india for continuing to undermine u.s. intellectual property rights. i've long feared if you did not act more problems would emerge. less than two weeks ago india's pa tent officer refused to grant patent on important drug that treats hepatitis c. the rationale is based on a patent ability standard that is

out of step with the rest of the world in which many believe is inconsistent with india's obligations under the world trade organization. would you express your plan to take meaningful action of india's breaches of our various companies. >> we have expressed -- we have been concerned about the deteriorate of the environment in india. we have engaged with the new government since they came into office of may of last year. i just returned from india yesterday, as a matter of fact. in all of these areas we have laid out a work program with the government of india to address these and other outstanding issues. recently the government of india published a draft proposal policy proposal that's open for

public comment. we're in the process of providing comments on that draft proposal. we're committed to engage to underscore areas worveg that needs to be done in as well as in the area of patents. i believe we've got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we're kplited ed greater role in china's economy yet the government continues to use laws, an instrument of industrial policy. this is increasingly pronounced in the use of china's anti monopoly law. how will you make they are they administer their anti-monopoly law in an indiscriminate matter. >> this is been an interest on

the commission we held with the secretary in december. we made some progress in moving ahead of the application of anti-monopoly law that we should think should be applyied to competition. so we're engaged with them at the department of justice and ftc to work to encourage them to apply the law as it is intended to be applied. >> canada's creation of a heightened standard for patentable utility for pharmaceutical patents is a serious problem for our u.s. vaet or innovators. this undermines the ability of u.s. innovators to obtain and enforce patent rights in canada. it is also inconsistent with canada's obligations under the world trade organization and under the nanta. what are you doing to insure canada's patentability standards

are consistent with its international obligations. >> we've raised this concern directly and repeatedly with the kan addian ian canadian authorities. that issue is being litigated. i believe the canadian authorities are looking to see how it proceeds in litigation as we continue that dialogue with them. >> thank you. ambassador ambassador, last june, you highlighted data localization requirements as a significant problem for u.s. services companies. now some foreign governments require u.s. financial services providers to is the up local data centers as a condition of doing business in their markets. new trade agreements need to fix this problem. do you agree that it's important that all u.s. industries, including financial service providers receive protection against data lekocalization requirements in ongoing trade negotiations. >> i do agree.

this is a key area in our tpp negotiations as ranking member widan mentioned the digital economy is playing an increasingly important role in trade. through tpp we want to secure agreements and commitments to maintain the open flow of data across boarders so our small businesses for example can be based hoor edd here and sell into markets abroad but also that there's not localization requirements which require there redundant infrastructure so this is a key part of our tpp peg oeshiation negotiations. we hope it will set a new standard for bringing trade rules into the digital economy. >> thank you very much. i will be strong on enforcing the five minute rule so everybody can have an opportunity here. senator wadan.

the president said in his state of the union speech, past trade agreements haven't always lived up to the hype. my sense is what middle class families are going to ask is so what's going to be different this time? i think it would be helpful if you'd spell that out. >> well, thank you senator. look i think the president has made clear that as we pursue a new trade policy we need to learn from the experiences of the past. that's sermcertainly what we're doing through tpp and the rest of our agenda. for example, when he was running for president, he said we ought to renegotiate nafta. what that meant is to make labor and environment, not side issues that weren't enforceable, but bring labor and environment in the core of the agreement and make them enforceable just like any other provision of the trade agreement. consistent with what congress and the previous administration worked out on the so called may 10th agreement. that's exactly what we're doing through tpp. there will be strong labor environmental protections in the core of the agreement and

they'll be fully enforceable consistent with the rest of the agreement. that's important because it's port of part of our effort to level the playing field strengthen intellectual property standards and access to their products and creating new disciplines on the issues that are affecting new workers and production. right now state owned enterprises in other countries compete against our private firms on an unlevel playing field. tpp will put disciplines on them for the first time and require the state enterprises if they are engaged in commercial activity to act on a commercial basis and also as you mentioned the digital economy, updating our trade agenda to reflect changes in the global economy. in all of these areas we're working to make sure trying to use every tool at our zploezdisposal to drive trade to the u.s. >> let's talk about transparency next. i think this is another area

where the public looks at the internet and says, we can find out a lot of information that you couldn't have for example back when the trade deals were being discussed in the 1990s. there has been of course a concern about transparency and the transpacific partnership discussion. the concern here is that the president would sign a tpp deal that would be protected by fast track and then you'd have middle class families saying we don't know what's in it. now, you and i have discussed this before and i think it would be helpful if you could address the question of whether you expect the president to sign a transpacific deal before the agreement is made public for the american people to see. >> well, certainly in the past the practice has been for it to be public before it's signed. that's our expectation here. we need owe consult with our trading partners to understand what their processes and domestic constraints are but we're beginning that

consultation process with that expectation in mind. >> good. >> on the issue, again, looking at some of the sector pass specific questions that you and i have discussed. there's a lot of concern with respect to diary. this is a very important issue in the pacific northwest and we, of course, have both defensive and offensive interests with respect to diary. for example, we may be willing to open our market to more diary goods from australia and new zealand but only if japan and canada canada's market is more open to our diary products. how are you going to insure that transpacific agreement on balance is a better deal than what the industry has now? >> well, whether it's diary or our other agricultural commodities, we want to make sure that tpp creates additional opportunity for them. that includes both market access getting access to markets abroad like japan, vietnam, malaysia, canada and others. also dealing with issues like

sanitary and phyto sanitary standards making sure they are applying sps issues with standards and also making sure we can sell our high quality products from the u.s. and have the trade marks in the common names rooer inspectespected in other countries so as a whole we're making sure it benefits our diary farmers and the same could be seen about other commodity groups. >> one last question. it addresses what the president touches on with repektspect to china. the president said if america isn't leaning on writing the trade rules in the asia pacific region. china will. which countries in the asia pacific region does china seek or already have a trade agreement and how specifically would those agreements disadvantage america's middle class workers? >> well, my understanding is china has negotiated 14 ftas since 2002.

1 with ten countries in total. australia, chile, costa rica, new zealand, pakistan peru switzerland and taiwan. right now they are engaged in negotiations with 16 countries spanning from india all the way to japan. i think what's important about this is these are the fatteststest growing markets the world. right now there are 570 million middle class consumers in asia. that number is expected to grow to 2.7 billion over the next 15 years. the question is who is going to serve that market. is it going to be grown in america products or is it going to be products made by china or others? what are the rules of the road for that reasonablegion going to be? the big difference between what we're doing is in tpp and other trade agreements is raising environmental standards. having strong interllectual

property right protections putting into the digital economy, rules like the free flow data and information that come from the real economy. these don't exist in the other trade agreements that's why it's so important for 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.