rights proposal, policy proposal that is now open for public comment. and we are in the process of providing comments on that draft proposal. and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done and copyright in trade secrets, as well as in the area of patents. i believe we've got a good dialogue going now with the new government. >> i hope you'll follow up on that. china's leadership continues to pledge that the market will play a greater role in china's economy. yet, if the government continues to use laws instrument of industrial policy, this is increasingly pronounced in the use of china's antimonopoly law. now, how will you ensure china administers the law in a nondiscriminatory and transparent manner. >> well, this has been an area of strong interest of ours. at the recent joint commission on commerce and trade that we

held the secretary, held with china in december, this was one of the issues of very much on the agenda, and we've made some progress in moving ahead on the application of anti-monopoly law that we think should be applied to deal with issues of competition, not issues of industrial policy. so we are engaged with them as are our competition authorities and the ftc to work to encourage them to apply the law as it's intended to be applied. >> i know these are tough areas. canada's creation of a heightened standard for patentability, for pharmaceutical patents is a serious problem for our u.s. innovators. this standard -- to obtain and enforce patent rights in canada. also inconsistent with the world trade organization and under the nafta.

>> we have raised this concern directly and repeatedly with the canadian authorities. that issue is now being litigated, and i believe the canadian authorities are looking to see how it proceeds in litigation as we continue that dialogue with them. >> ambassador, from our remarks 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 set up local data centers as a condition of doing business in their markets. new trade agreements need to fix this problem. do you agree it's important that all u.s. industries, including financial services providers receive protection against data localization requirements in ongoing trade negotiations?

>> i do agree. and this is a key area right now in our tpp negotiations. whereas ranking member wyden mentioned, the digital economy is playing an increasingly important role in trade. and we want to through tpp secure agreements and commitments to maintain the open flow of data cross border so that our small businesses, for example, can be based here and sell into markets abroad. but also to ensure that there were not localization requirements which require the construction of redundant infrastructure making companies build infrastructure in each country in which they want to service. >> i'm going to be strong on enforcing the five-minute rule so everybody can have an opportunity here.

>> i quote here past trade agreements haven't always lived up to the hype. and my sense is based on my town hall meetings has come up repeatedly, what middle class families are going to ask is so, what's going to be different this time? i think it'd be helpful if you'd spell that out. >> well, thank you. thank you, senator. >> and what that meant was to make labor and environment not side issues and make them enableen enforceable like any other provision. consistent with what congress and the previous administration worked out on the may 10th agreement. that's exactly what we're doing through tpp. labor, there will be strong

labor environmental protections access to their products, creating new disciplines on the issues affecting real workers and real production right now. like state-owned enterprises. right now, state-owned enterprises in other countries compete against our private firms on an unlevel playing field. tpp will put disciplines on state-owned enterprises for the first time and require those state-owned enterprises if they're 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. so in all of these areas we're working to make sure and trying to use every tool at our disposal to drive more production and more manufacturing to the united states make the u.s. a production platform of choice.

>> let's talk about transparency next. i think this is another area where the public looks at the internet and says hey, 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. so there has of course, been a concern about transparency and the transpacific partnership discussion. and the concern here is that the president would sign a tpp deal that would be protected by fasttrack. 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 to consult with our trading partners to understand what their processes and

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

vietnam, malaysia canada and others. also dealing with issues like sanitary standards and making sure that other countries are applying sps standards consistent with science. it also goes back to an issue that the chairman mentioned with geographical indications making sure we can sell our high-quality products. trademarks. so packaged as a whole we're working to make sure it benefits our dairy farmers. >> so the president basically said that if america is leading in writing the trade rules in the asia pacific region china will. with which countries in the asian-pacific area does china either seek or already have a trade agreement and how specifically would those agreements disadvantage america's middle class workers? >> well, my understanding that china has negotiated 14 ftas

since 2002. one with asean, ten countries in total, hong kong, iceland, korea, macao, pakistan peru, singapore, switzerland and taiwan. and right now, they're engaged in the negotiations which is 16 countries, spanning from india, all the way to japan. i think what's important about this is these are the fastest growing markets of the world. right now, there are about 570 million middle class consumers in asia. but that number's expected to grow to 2.7 billion over the next 15 years. and the question is, who is going to serve that market? is it going to be made in america? grown in america products? or is it going to be products made by china or others? other trade agreements, are things like labor and environmental standards. having strong intellectual property rights protection and commitments to access.

putting disciplines on state owned enterprises. that we be the ones to create a fair playing field to protect our workers and jobs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> looks like china has a robust trade policy. senator grassley. >> first of all 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 important. also, i want to since you talked to the president probably more frequently than i do on trade, give a little bit of advice. i know that the president's very much a believer in trade and once 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 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 to get us to the 60-vote threshold. now, i'm going to ask the first question a little bit along the lines of what you discussed with senator wyden. when you were at the iowa state fair with me last august, meeting with iowa farmers, you stated and i hope i'm quoting you accurately. that you would know a good deal for agriculture when you saw it. my question for you is simple. how close do you think we are to seeing a good deal for agriculture with tpp? and more specifically 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 on agriculture and including on pork. we're not done yet. we still have work to do with japan and other countries. and we've been saying, working very closely with our stake holders in this area, the pork producers and others to ensure 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 we're making good progress and we hope to close out a very positive package soon. >> just to emphasize something from history as well as things i've related to you in the past. 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, good agriculture agreement tends to be the locomotive that brings along

everything else. and i hope manufacturing and will help along that line, as well. the european union continue to drag their feet on biotechnology traits. in some parts, from the lack of regulartorial 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 are science based regarding biotechnology? >> well, that thank you, senator. that's very much our perspective on this. to encourage other countries to engage in sps based on science. let me take the two examples you gave separately. with regard to china in the run-up to the jcct in december, we had a series of dialogues with them.

various ministries on their side to work on the improvement of their overall process for biotech 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 over the course of 2014 they didn't approve any biotech events. there's a backlog of biotech events that have been designated as safe by the european food safety agency. and we're encouraging the new commission to take those up consistent with its wto obligations and to approve those. >> yeah. i've had a number of u.s. companies visit with me about the need to address currency manipulation and tpp. has that been raised in negotiations? >> well, this is an issue of top importance to the administration. and we've been pursueing it from

the president on down directly with countries such as china but also through the g-7 and the g-20 to imf to encourage countries to move toward market determined exchange rates. and i know you'll be seeing secretary liu here soon. he obviously has the lead on those issues. it's something that he and i are consulting on and continuing to engage with others about. >> is your answer that it's being negotiated with individual countries from the president interest and your interest? or -- and is that saying that what my question was referring to that it's not being done through tpp negotiations? or is it being done through tpp negotiations? and that's my last question. >> at this point secretary liu who obviously has the lead on this has been having conversations in the context of these other mechanisms bilaterally and with the g-7, g-20 and the imf. >> okay.

but not through tpp? thank you. >> senator schumer? >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you, ranking member. ambassador, i think you know what i'm going to say, but i'm going to keep saying it until the administration actually hears me. 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're going to help middle class incomes increase when all the evidence shows they help decrease, i've got 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. say take us to court. and we lose. all the litigation goes on our people get clobbered and our workers lose jobs. and streamline adjudication. when u.s. businesses are taken advantage of by state-owned monopolies and i hope you'll work with me on some of these ideas. if you're going to have hope of gaining support on this agenda for 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 unilaterally, that's a whole new world unilaterally enforceable mechanisms in place to show the world that we're going to protect our workers and our economy. it also must agree with those countries, particularly china, i know you can't have that in the agreement, but we can have two things go alongside one another. i for one is china continues to manipulate currency throwing millions over the years throwing americans out of jobs unfairly. don't want to go through with another trade agreement if we're not going to address this issue. and with all due respect, he's great and talks to me but the administration hasn't done very much for me here. they've never called china currency manipulator when it's

plain as the nose on your face that they are. and japan and other countries part of tpp distort their currency exchange rates. to push up their trading surpluses. and i'm disappointed to hear your response to senator grassley 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 foreign currency manipulation cost america between 1 and 5 million jobs. increase u.s. gdp by 200 billion to 700 billion and add 2.3 and 5.8 million new jobs. i've long been the advocate here. i was alone when i talked about this issue. very proud when both the "wall street journal" and "new york times" editorial pages condemned me for it.

we still don't do anything about it. administration after administration, unfortunately yours as well as president bush have taken the position that it can be dealt with by country to country negotiations rather than legislative changes. reef had enough negotiations in over a decade under democratic and republican administrations. a new statutory law that includes objective criteria that can find and enforce against currency manipulation. i will not support moving this trade agreement forward. 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. >> all things come to those who wait. >> would you care to comment on the comments? >> thank you on this issue and we look forward to working with you on it. we brought 18 cases before the wto and the case against china. we have won every single case that has been brought to conclusion, and -- whenever we

find there is a problem to be had and we can make a case and when. and we look forward to working with you. we set up the interagency trade enforcement center that has allowed us to bring more resources from across the government and have a whole government approach to trade enforcement that has allowed us to bring more complex and sophisticated cases. we look forward to working with you on the kind of enforcement actions taken going forward. we agree with you completely it's important it's not two strikes and four strikes. if there's a level playing field and we do everything we can under laws and consistent with our international obligations to enforce our trade rights. i'd like to join senator grassley in expressing my appreciation for your outreach on both the tpp negotiations and tpa. i have to think that if --

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 -- of these trade agreements when you consider the fact that 80% of the purchasing power in the world lies outside our shores. and selling our manufactured goods and things we grow and produce here in america to those markets abroad seems like an unequivocal good thing for the american middle class and for our economy and economic growth. i'm going to ask basically two questions. one really has to do with something outside of your immediate purview. but it's something i want to make sure you're aware of. and the other falls squarely within your purview. there's been a prolonged labor dispute 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 and poultry a month to key asian markets in 2014. it was roughly 8.4 billion that cleared west coast ports. i know the federal mediator has gone to try to facilitate negotiations there. even if that dispute in the port of oakland was concluded tomorrow or today, it'd take 30 to 45 days to clear the backlog. and 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 suggested that the two, the parties to the dispute asked for federal mediation, and that is now happening. and we do hope that it will be successful and we'll get this resolved as soon as possible. >> well, i appreciate that.

i hope you will 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 engaged in selling poultry, pork and beef to asian markets. and the -- and who recognize the important impact that has on our economy. conversely, the negative impact it would have that they start rotting at our ports on the west coast. the second issue has to do with the critical importance of protecting intellectual property for biologic medicines in the tpp. as you know the founders of our great country thought it was so important to protect our intellectual property in terms of advancing science that it -- there's provision article 1, section 8 known as a copyright clause in our constitution. yet a number of the countries we're negotiating with basically

offers zero protection to the intellectual property rights in their countries. and i'd just like to hear from you about the administration's commitment, particularly in -- on the issue of biologic medicines to making 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. biologic specifically as you suggest, there are of the 12 countries in tpp five countries have zero years four have five years of protection, two have eight years, and we have 12 years. and 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, appreciate your good work and we look forward to continuing to work with you. >> >> isaacson coates and carter. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i want to join the praise to you for your 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. and the challenge is that tpp is so far along the way, normally we would've had a tpa enacted. we would've voiced our negotiating objectives. you would have come back to us with consultation on those trade objectives, negotiating objectives. and we would've 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 mentioned 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, as it relates to any corruption issues. we are dealing with countries that are challenging in tpp. brunei, where the lgbt community has legitimate human rights

concerns in brunei and malaysia and in vietnam, their record on labor is very suspect. and on anticorruption, they could pass laws, but they don't have the institutions, the independent prosecutors and courts that give us confidence that they would enforce those laws. my priority from the beginning, i think i've 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, anticorruption, and as senator schumer said enforcement. because if it's not enforceable under the trade sanctions, it becomes very difficult to see whether we really elevated. and for those who are concerned as i know some of my colleagues are about mixing trade and human rights, let me remind you.

it was the u.s. leadership that spoke to the soviet union and their human rights on immigration. 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 and 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. deal with ttip as you've already pointed out. and there's a growing concern with our european partners that they are sympathetic to bds legislation.

dealing with boycotts divestitures and sanctions. and i'd be interested as to 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 ttip as an opportunity to protect against such legislation. i'd be glad to hear your comments on both of my points. >> well, thank you, senator. and thank you for your leadership on -- strong governance in anticorruption provisions in them. and it's one of the innovations of tpp to make that a core part of the agreement. and it really goes throughout the whole agreement with regard to transparency, regulatory transparency and across the board, and -- we agree with you you -- >> on the kinds of issues that

you've mentioned. >> but also what kind of capacity building, what kind of practice is necessary to really have changes on the ground. and it's only because of tpp that we have the opportunity and to have that kind of dialogue with the malaysia and brunei. and we're working very closely with the state department, which has the lead on the human rights issues. but with the opportunity the tpp gives us to engage with them about their practices and ensure that what they do is consistent with their international human rights obligations. so i am -- i feel good that through tpp we'll be able to make progress in all those areas and tpp will set a new milestone

in terms of good governance, anticorruption. we're happy to follow up with you and look into it. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator grassley. welcome, ambassador. for senator carden's benefit, i was with the ambassador two years ago on the negotiations with the aeu and watched him hold them hold accountable for rights. i've seen this man firsthand look out for exactly what you're talking about. and might add that mcc compacts have strongest anti-corruption language of any agreement the united states has. and i think the fact that tpp is talking about including that as a big benefit because it has worked in millennium challenge. it has held people accountable in the past. and that is an excellent, outstanding point. and you do a terrific job.

i'll pile on with grassley and others to thank you for the job you have been doing. i have a couple of questions. question number one is you and i talked a lot about poultry. traveled to south africa a year ago. trade rep, not industry representative i think his name is davies i met with at length. and yesterday he was quoted as saying, there's an offer on the table regarding poultry between south africa and the united states to the extent that as an negotiator, you can talk in public about that. is that a misleading quote or an accurate quote? >> i saw him a few days ago in switzerland. he handed me a letter from the south african poultry association to the u.s. poultry association. we have not yet heard back from our poultry association what their reaction to that is. we've made very clear to south africa that resolving issue is around poultry is going to be critical to moving ahead a whole range of areas. >> well i appreciate that. because that is very important to my state of georgia.

but the senator and i from delaware have joined in a joint letter reinforcing our position that you use the opportunity and the leverage it brings to be sure that we breakthrough the impasse regarding poultry. and with regard to enforcement that senator schumer was talking about, i think nobody's mentioned it yet, but your work with india and the case we took to the wto in terms of poultry prove to be successful. we've just recently run that and i thank you for doing that. on commodities, there's another great product of my state and it's cotton. cotton was at 80 cents to 85 cents a pound. not too long ago it's 55 to 57 cents a pound. china is basically hoarding buying cotton and hoarding and stockpiling it. and they're subsidizing their producers at twice the market price. what can be done to enforce through the wto and through any agreements we might otherwise have to keep them from

manipulating the cotton prices and suppressing the market? >> well i think it's an important point more generally which is that the whole pattern of agricultural subsidies has changed a lot over the last 10 or 15 years. when the round was first started, really the united states and the european union. but in both of those areas, subsidies have come down while subsidies from china and india and the agriculture area have increased. and china's the largest subsidizer of cotton. we're engaging with them. conversations in the last couple of days about that and about taking a fresh look at where subsidies are being provided, how it's distorting the market and how that should play into global trade negotiations. it's important to update our view on what impact it has. if you're a poor farmer, in africa doesn't matter whether the subsidy's coming from the u.s. or china, it matters that the subsidy exists. we're hoping to engage with china on this and create

disciplines around this. >> would that case have standing in the wto if a case was brought? >> we have -- we're looking at all of our options there. we have not yet 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 made and i repeat, again, the respect that negotiators have for your ability and engagement. one of the problems we've had in terms of market access. on the one hand, europeans will talk about giving market access for example, to poultry. but on the other hand, they'll say, but, we won't take any poultry washed -- that's the way it's produced in the united states of america. what are you doing to try to avoid that happening again? >> market access is not meaningful if it's talking about tariffs and not talking about the other barriers that can

exist. and our perspective on this with regard to europe is 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. and we're encouraging them to ensure that decisions on sps standards reflect science reflect the evidence as based on safety. >> thank you for your service to the country. >> thank you, senator. >> thanks senator grassley. welcome, ambassador. it's great to see you. and others have said this, but we very much appreciate your responsiveness. and frankly your short, crisp answers are welcome too. i was talking to one of my sons earlier today, two boys 24 and 26. when they were little kids growing up, i say there's nothing wrong with making a mistake, let's make sure we don't make the same mistake over and over again. and they're probably better at not making the same mistake over and over again than i am today. i think it sunk in.

nafta's been mentioned here before today. if we had to negotiate nafta all over again, we'd probably do some things differently. and the point 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 issue. how do we -- people say nafta hasn't been that helpful to the u.s. i think has been very helpful to mexico. they have a vibrant middle class. probably as many mexicans going into mexico as they are mexicans coming into the u.s. today. and there's -- i think arguably it's been pretty good for the mexicans. not entirely bad for us. but sort of a mixed bag. in terms of poultry, we have a real problem in nafta with canada as you probably know and that's one we can fix. drill down on, the things, what we know now about nafta.

what can we do differently what are we going to do differently? >> well, thank you. look nafta was 22 years ago. and like you said, there was a lot we learned from. that experience. there's a lot that's changed in the global economy and the global trading system. so first and foremost, one lesson we've learned is that labor and environmental issues need to be core to the agreement, need to be fully enforceable like any other provision of the trade agreement. and that's exactly what we're doing through tpp. but not just with canada and mexico. with 40% of the global economy. so we're spreading those enforceable labor provisions to over half billion workers around the world. and that reflects a very meaningful evolution of the global trading system when labor and environment were considered to be literally side issues. now they're central and they're going to be fully enforceable. also given us an opportunity to go back and address market access issues that we couldn't address in nafta.

we are still negotiating, we have a ways to go. but made clear on poultry with canada this is an area we're going to want to see progress in tpp. and there are other issues that have arisen since. some of the intellectual property rights issues that have evolved over the time or the digital economy issues that have emerged since that time before there was an internet economy. this gives us an opportunity to renegotiate and update our approach in all of these respects. >> all right. thank you. senator schumer raised some serious concerns about enforcement mechanisms. there's an old saying the latest justice denied. and i think you mentioned we brought about 18 cases or so to the wto. those resolved have been resolved in our favor. can you give us a breakdown of out of 18 how many have been resolved and how many are stimoutstimll outstanding. >> i believe seven have been resolved. all of them in our favor. we recently won the case with argentina on import licensing.

we won a case on poultry with regard to india. they're now appealing that case. we have won up until now. we feel confident in our approach. some of the others we're resolving, trying to resolve through consultations to sell the case. and we're waiting for the other ones to make their way through the system. >> is there something we need to do in the congress in order to expedite the amount of time it takes to resolve these issues? >> the key thing with tpp, we're able to have our own among countries. and we have a strong dispute settlement mechanism we're negotiating with our partners and one with firm timetables and schedules in which we hope we'll find expedited resolutions. >> all right. the reason why senator isaacson yours truly, mark warner, continue to focus on poultry, it's a huge industry on the del marva peninsula.

we only have three counties in delaware sussex is the third largest in america. and we use the soybean and the corn we raise on the dell marva peninsula. and we want to make sure we can sell them to as many markets as possible. the last thing i want to say, i want to reemphasize a point made by senator cornyn on biologics. maryland, delaware, pennsylvania, other states, new jersey, right along this row here have huge interests. a lot of tens of thousands of jobs it's depended on our ability to have a fair settlement, fair agreement with respect to biologics. and i would continue to raise that issue with you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator coates i apologize. i passed over you to call on carper. i didn't mean to do that. thank you very much for being patient for me. so i call on senator coates, and then it would be thume, roberts,

in that order. >> no apology needed. i'm happy to yield to my friend and colleague from delaware. >> i'm new. trying to figure out the rules here in terms of -- i rushed over here to be here on time, get my name on the list. then i thought, i got the rules wrong. that's fine with me. any event, i appreciate your apology, not necessary. ambassador, thank you first of all, for diligent work on a very tough subject. but a very important issue for the economy and the future of our country and for many, many people. from my state and from many states that rely on trade for their well being and their lifestyle and for our economy. in indiana we are big export state. getting this right means a great deal to many many hoosiers.

several hundreds of thousands approaching a million. whose jobs are there because we're able to export agricultural products, steel auto products, pharmaceutical products, medical devices and a whole range of other products that are produced in my state. i wish you nothing but success. i am a strong supporter of trade. want to affirm that some of the reservations that have been expressed here by my colleagues relative to making sure we have a level playing field and we've established the rules. my question to you was this. state of the union, one of the things that brought the republicans to their feet faster than anything else. his announcement he wanted to go forward to gain trade promotion authority and move these trade agreements forward.

it's got to be above politics. done in a bipartisan way. reservations raised about proclamations from the white house in terms of what they'll support and won't support. and i want to make sure that we can get this all done. here in this committee and the ways and means committee in the house. our colleagues have to work together to bring this home and the president and the administration. you had the support you needed from your administration in order to work with us to get this accomplished. >> yes, senator. the president made clear publicly and privately and he's been meeting with folks privately, as well. we also have a structure now at

the white house. organizing a whole of administration effort. to promote the overall trade agenda. what's in tpp and addressing their concerns and questions and talking about the importance of moving ahead on a bipartisan basis with trade promotion authority, as well. so i have a great deal of support from the president on down. it's a priority for him. make sure we're addressing concerns of democrats and republicans as we move this forward. >> i'm happy to hear you say that. >> i think the voters sent a strong message to all of us. this ranks close to the top. a measurable improvement in terms of economic growth and providing jobs for people. so thank you for that. wish you nothing but the best, and we look forward to working with you. >> thank you, senator.

>> senator thume? >> senator from kansas has been waiting. i'd defer to him first. he's after me. >> ranking member. senator roberts, i'm sorry. >> well, i want to thank senator thune. and that is remarkable that you would -- well, as a matter of fact, i just appreciate it. senator coates has pretty well summed up what i was going to say at the first of my comments. and -- heard it with a strong statement from senator widen who represents the great state of oregon but born in kansas. you heard it with pertinent questions with senator grassley. asked you this and this is of

interest of the chairman of the sometimes powerful agriculture committee. what's soon? >> well the market access negotiations are proceeding in parallel with negotiations over the text over the rules. and literally as we speak, negotiators are meeting with the other 11 countries. on both sets of issues. the market access negotiations on agriculture are done on a bilateral basis. so we meet with the other 11 countries one-on-one and have our areas. >> i know that. but what's soon? what do you think? >> i know it's hard to predict and i'm not trying to put you on the spot. >> our view is that obviously the timetable should be set -- we think everyone is focused on trying to get this done in a short period of time. in the next, you know, small number of months. >> all right. you say that, but here we have have -- i'm not going to schumerize you. you know, i want some questions

back and forth. the gis you really have made issue on this issue with china at the end of the year making our argument on trademarks much stronger. but we had 43 mbz of the senate write you a letter on the gi issue the geographical indicators by prohibiting the use of common generic food names such as parmesan and bologne and feta. thank goodness we don't have an italian community named cheese. last year i wrote you along with the 43 want to thank you you and your supporters for your steadfast support but where are we on the gis? >> this is one of the toughest outstanding issues still in ttp because we and the eu are die diameterly opposed system. there are 18 trademarks for parmesan riggiano and europe

sells hundreds of millions of dollars of cheese in the united states and we don't sell any in europe. we have been out there fighting hard to make clear that we can have a system where countries can take into account common names and trademarks before they grant any geographical indications and that's the only way to balance the perspectives of the united states and the eu. our challenges our trading partners are negotiating with us, but they want to negotiate and have good relations with the european union. they're stuck in the middle and we're trying find a middle path to protect those trademarks and common ground. >> i appreciate that. let me bring up the biotech situation. there are currently 12 products awaiting. the queue is growing. i'm more concerned the new european commission announced its intention to -- pending final improvement approval will not advance. the eu is like calling for

instant replays on every play. and that's just not going to work. would you comment on that, please? >> well, we share that concern. we've raised it in our meetings with the european union. i've had now three meetings with my new counterpart, the trade commissioner. we made clear these are products their own european food safety agency has determined are safe and that they have an obligation under the wto and even under their european court justice system to move ahead and we're encouraging thome move ahead as quickly as possible. >> thank you for answering these questions. i would like to repeat what senator coates said again. i think we have a unique opportunity here. and you've done some excellent work. and i thank you for that. i think you know every member of this committee is behind you. each of us have our own initiatives we're interested in, but i worry that the president's

state of the union seven veto messages but as senator coates said we were on our feet on the trade issue to help the middle class. so, we're in. i know you're in president is. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your efforts to engage the chinese and agricultural biotech issues over the last year. it's critically important to american farmers and to associate myself with senators from can and senator from iowa who spoke to this issue earlier both with regard to china. and we continue to emphasize how important those issues are and then with the agreement with the eu it's going to be very hard i think, to get that agreement through and this would give american farmers more kernt with regard to the approval process for biotechnology products. anyway, i want to make that

point. i also want to just speak to an issue. last year in brookings, south dakota, we welcomed the opening of of a state-of-the-art cheese plant by bell brands usa, employs 250 people with the hope of more in the future. especially if we can bring down what are very high barriers to u.s. dairy products in canada. as you know canada's dairy market was not opened under nafta. so i want to strongly urge you to continue pushing on our friends in the north when it comes to market access for cheese and other dairy products. i would appreciate any thoughts you might want to share on that subject. >> well, this has been a high priority for us. and before canada joined tpp, we had a dialogue with them about this. this was going to be an important part of a successful outcome. we are engaged with them on a whole range of outstanding issues.

they know this is very important to us. we're working towards hopefully a successful conclusion there. >> it would be very helpful. dairy business in places in the midwest, especially processing, is starting to explode in some ways. we certainly want to see that and all the jobs that come with it. but these tariffs are pretty prohibitive. you made remarks last year in which you highlighted data localization requirements as a significant problem for u.s. service companies to expand into foreign markets and compete globally. i agree with your view on that matter. i'm concerned about tpp not fully addressing those types of barriers for u.s. financial services companies such as banks and insurers. specifically, i understand tpp won't explicitly prohibit our trading partners from requiring u.s. financial service firms to set up local data centers as a condition of doing business in their markets. that's a serious concern.

and i'm i'm wondering if your office can work with my office to ensure this isn't repeated such as ttip and tisa. >> we're happy to work with your office on that. we are continuing to pursue our efforts to put disciplines on localization and to ensure free flow of data across borders but we're happy to work with your office on that. >> it's a big issue. europeans in particular it's an area they're really -- for reasons unrelated to trade, really trying to create some of these barriers. and i think that would be a big mistake and certainly make it more difficult for a lot of our businesses, service industries and financial services being a good example to continue to do business in that part of the world.

part of overall discussion in ttip about areas of cooperation to try to bring that to a conclusion as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i would echo what's already been said. we really need to get tpa done. and i hope that the president talks about it, talks about it in the state of the union address but we really need the administration engaged up here trying to help us as we push this across the finish line. thanks. >> senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman ambassador furman, thank you for being here. thank you for your service on a tough issue, which we all have

deep concerns about as it relates to not only our states but the country overall. i wanted to start with a premise -- or a foundation upon which i will make determinations about these agreement and that is in my home state of pennsylvania, despite promises and assertions in the lead-up to trade agreements too often our state has gotten the short end of the stick. we can debate how that happened. we can debate the reasons for that but i have real concerns and real skepticism, which i know we've talked about. and at the same time when it comes to what i call the short end of the stick, either job loss or dislocation or workers not getting basic fairness when it comes to these agreements, that's bad enough in and of

itself. but then they see very powerful and well financed special interests in this town especially but in other places as well, who don't get the short end of the stick. they do quite well. so, i have that concern that skepticism. and, frankly it's more than skepticism. it's real worry. then when we come to the question of, well, let's try to mitigate that somehow by remedies trade recommend disthat play out in the trade cases that are brought, and even when we're successful it seems we're never where we ought to be as it relates to those workers. so i have real concerns. and i know you understand that that the playing field is never seems to be level when it comes to our workers. i know earlier you spoke to -- or spoke in answer to a question from the panel that the

improvement to labor rights or environmental protections or ip standards, but the question i've got to get to is a question of jobs. just when you look at the context of china, here's just some data between 2001 when china joined the wto in 2013, just roughly 12 years the trade deficit with china increased by 240 billion -- or 20 billion a year. when that plays out for pennsylvania, we rank fifth in total net job loss -- or net jobs displaced by trade with china. so how do you answer the question that these -- these agreements and the path that you're on is good for workers in pennsylvania? >> well, thank you. thank you, senator. you know pennsylvania's goods exports are $140 million.

they've grown by 150% over the last ten years. more than 00000 pennsylvanians are employed by export-related businesses. 15,600 firms export from pennsylvania. almost 90% of them are small and medium sized businesses. with these trade agreements we can create more opportunities for those kind of businesses. you talk about china and the trade deficit. if you take all of our fta partners as a whole, we have a trade surplus. and that surplus has grown. our trade deficit, as you note is largely comprised of countries with whom we do not have trade agreements. so, trade agreements are our way of shaping forces of globalization, of opening markets, because our market is already quite open. our average applied tariff is 1.4%. we don't use regulations as a disguise barrier to trade but other countries do. if you look at pennsylvania's exports, the top five areas of our export, chemicals, 35%

tariffs in some of these markets. pennsylvania exported $45 billion of these products. those tariffs would go to zero. minerals and fuels 30% tariffs. pennsylvania exported $4 billion of those products. that tariff will go to zero. metals and ores, 35%. it goes on and on and on. what we'll do through this trade agreement is open market, level the playing field and ensure a fair and level playing field by raising labor and environmental standards, raising intellectual property rights standards and enforcement, making sure we're putting disciplines on the type of practices by state-owned enterprises, that pose a real threat to woeshgz of pennsylvania. >> i have no doubt about your intention. the problem is some of this we've heard before. you mention some industries or some economic sectors in our state, but when i look at whether it's sugar or solar

panels or tire or paper probably the best example would be steel which is iconic as it relates to our state, we've had time and again promises made to trade agreements. and then efforts after the fact to bring enforcement cases that have never been commence sue-mens rat with the problem that was made. and as much as you want to level the playing field, i hope you could level the playing field long before we have trade agreements in place. but we'll continue to talk. and i appreciate your time. >> thank you senator. we'll now go to senator coakley. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate you're being here, investor furman, and i appreciate what you do every day. what -- and the service

providers i represent. we had some discussion earlier from folks in the audience about how this affects people who are frustrated about the lack of wage growth, concerned about whether they're going to have a job at all going forward. all i can say is i think you answered the question well with senator casey f we're not selling to 95% of the world outside of our borders, we're letting our people down. and we do have relatively low barriers, as you said. the rest of the world has a lot of barriers. what you do every day to knock down barriers is what we want more of. and i'll give you one example in akron, ohio, you work with us, we just opened up the japanese market for them for their processed meat product. they were getting shut out. these are workers in akron, ohio, who now have a chan for a job. these jobs pay on average 18% more. they also have better benefits. the agreements that we talked

about today people say some agreements are good, some are bad. i'm sure we can improve all the agreements we've made. the reality is, we send 45% of our exports or more to the world because we only have trade agreements with 10% of the world. we don't have a trade agreement with china. we don't have a trade agreement with japan or europe. and we've got a surplus with these countries. we have to figure out, you know a better way to open more markets. it's unbelievable to me we haven't had the ability to open any markets since seven years ago. because trade promotion authority, expired. every president since fdr has had the ability to open markets until this president. and he's now asked for it. we as americans ought to say americans, independents, whatever, we want the president to have an open market. over the years 107 trade agreements negotiated. we're left out of all of them. you mentioned china. out of that 100, chin noo na at

least has 14 agreements they've negotiated during that time period. maybe some com came just before that. one, by the way s with ten different countries. and we're not part of it. our workers are getting left out. i don't know how we're going to make progress in terms of affect this concern on stagnate wages lack of benefits high expenses unless we do a better job of selling to those countries all around the world. our exports per capita were between tonga and ethiopia. nothing wrong with tonkaga and ethiopia but we're not a strong trader. we're looking at a great opportunity to expand trade, do if in the right way and continue to make progress on leveling that playing field. we've also got to do a better job on imports coming in. you've been helpful to me on this. we have a couple good successes. one with china, one with korea, and others on tubular products, on sealed pipes we make in ohio.

we to want keep making them. we don't want to unfairly subsidize imports coming into our country and that's what's happening. we have a balance here. we have to both get more exports out there and also do a better job of making sure imports are being fairly traded. i have so many questions for you, more than half a dozen. i'm going to commit most for writing since we don't have time to go through them today but they're about ohio workers, ohio farmers, ohio service providers. 25%, a quarter of manufacturing jobs in ohio. factory jobs are now manufacturing jobs. we want that to increase because these are good paying jobs. i want to ask you one question, which will put you on the spot. there is one that concerns me is currency. when i was sitting in your seat i got asked by chuck shirm he did give me a chance to respond before his time was up and this was, gosh almost ten years ago probably but he asked me about

currency. i said, yeah it does affect trade and affects it negatively. i know it's not your bailiwick but i would just ask you today does this new report by larry somers former secretary of treasury and other finance ministers from around the world that says, and i quote, new trade agreements should explicitly include that appropriately tie mutual trade preferences to exchange rates should not be allowed to subsidize one party's exports at expense of others. does that affect your thinking on this? what are your views on currency and what can we do going forward? >> thank you, senator. thank you for so much leadership on trade and being a great source of advice and guidance. currency is of great concern to us and a top priority. there's no difference of opinion about that. we think it's important countries move toward market-determined exchange rates. there's not a misalignment of

exchange rates and the treasury department, the president, everyone on down has been focused on that bilaterally with countries like china where after pushing them to move their currency in 2010 they began to let their currency appreciate and it's appreciated about 15% in real terms against the dollar. not fast enough not far enough. we need to keep on pushing toward full market determined exchange rates but we are making. the g-7 finance ministers got together and said, you know you may want to stimulate our economy but you've got to do it through domestic actions for domestic purposes. and the bank of japan has effectively done so. they've done the same kind of thing our federal reserve did with quantitative easing. i think it's important, this is a very important issue. we need to find the right ways of achieving the results. we're fully committed to doing that in the administration.

there's a wide range of views in congress, even on this committee, about how best to go about addressing the issue. we're looking forward to continuing that dialogue. >> i know my time is up, but i would hope you will put some time and effort into it. again, i know it's a treasury issue but the issue is intervention. i do think currency is something more and more of us on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle are going to be concerned about because it affects our trade affects the level playing field. thank you senator. >> thank you. senator stab now. >> 60 senators sent a letter to you and 230 representatives signed letters supporting the inclusion of strong and enforceable currencies in all future trade agreements. but before i get to that, i

would like very much to raids something that came up this morning in the press. first of all thank you for your enforcement. thank you for continuing to have dialogue. i appreciate that and i do appreciate the aggressive posture of the administration on enforcement. i care about agriculture but i also care very much about manufacturing. and about automobiles. i don't think we have a middle class unless we make things and grow things and sell things sell both of those. the key is to export our products not our jobs. that's the fundamental debate. exports products not jobs. and right now, as you know, 70% of our trade deficit with japan is autos. this morning as reported in the detroit news based on asian reporting, we understand that the administration they're saying, will end negotiations with japan on standards for car imports in exchange for japan's

agreement to import more u.s. rice. i'm all for importing more rice. when you and i talked earlier, you indicated that the auto negotiations were totally separate from agriculture. when we look at the fact that today we couldn't put an american automobile in a car dealership in japan, they won't even allow that. you know all the restrictions in terms of being -- we can't sell to japan right now. so first i want to know whether or not this is true that you have decided not to proceed in opening up the ability for us to sell oobls into japan. >> senator, one thing i've learned in this job is not to read everything you read in the press, particularly the japanese press. it's wrong. we're addressing the nontariff members including standards,

financial incentives regulatory transparency and having strong and effective dispute settlements around that to make sure that we can make sure that japan upholds its obligations. >> thank you. that's critically important. let me go on now to currency. all we're asking for is internationally accepted principles in currency that all countries have agreed to to be enforceable in trade agreements. and over and over again, we've had conversations, you and i. you know the numbers. we're talking about anywhere between 6,000 and $8,000 per vehicle, the price of a vehicle coming in. we've seen numbers where at various points the japanese automakers have made more offered manipulating currency than profits selling automobiles. i mean, this is a huge issue in terms of not having a level playing field. we're talking millions of jobs 2 million to 5 million jobs, if

we were, in fact, to enforce what everybody knows is potential at various points they might not be doing it at this moment, but we know what they're doing with backe of japan, but we know with korea, china, others that we are involved in with this agreement that this is a major issue. so, where are we on this? and are we going to see enforceable currency provisions in these trade agreements? >> look. as i've said, this is a priority issue for us, that the administration and the treasury department in the lead has been addressing since day one. we have been pushing countries to level the playing field by moving toward market-determined exchange rates. we've been using bilateral engagement with china where i think we made some progress. we have been using our engagement through the g-7, g-20 imf. i know you'll have secretary lew

up here next week and i refer you to him for further discussion of it. >> as you know, this is an absolutely critical issue in terms of making sure that american workers and american people are getting a good deal on trade agreements and so far i've not seen any indication that, in fact, we will see currency issues address either in tpa or ttp or other agreements and that's a serious flaw. i would encourage you to continue to do everything you can and to actually give us some specifics. >> thank you, senator. your time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you very much for holding this hearing. ambassador froman thank you for your erts. thank you for being here today. i know you touched on this in the hearing today and i appreciate you mentioning colorado and their exports. no more important than is -- in our agriculture sector.

it's hugely important to our state's economic well-being. our states export 80% of what they grow and through the droughts and tough time they've had they continue to grow. about a year ago senator grassley sent you a letter. i wondered if you could offer some more details. sent you a letter to urge you to negotiate in a strong fashion with japan to make sure that market was really open to our beef producers, to dairy wheat. i wonder if you would speak in details about what are the hurdles that remain and what do you hope to achieve in the coming weeks in the closing of your negotiation? >> thank you. thank you, senator. really since the better part of a year now.

and it's been an ongoing process of going through the 1800 tariff lines of agriculture including their sensitive products, what they identified as their sanctuary products and working with them and our stakeholders to, first of all get agreement that all products will be covered. so even beyond our agreement with korea, all products will be covered in our tpp agreement with japan. and then to go line by line through those prujts to maximize the number of products where there will be full tariff elimination. where there can't be full tariff elimination, but to have dialogue about how to achieve -- stakeholders. that's the process we've been going through. we made substantial progress in a number of areas but we have a number of work to do. those discussions are ongoing. >> well, i think that certainly in my case, the outcomes are important to deciding whether or not to support what's going

forward. do they include the sanctuary products and the products that are part of the negotiations? >> yes yes. all products will be covered. it's a question of how. that's how we worked very closely with our xhoddy groups, our stake holder groups to get the best understanding from them as to what their priorities are and what can create commercial meaningful market access for them. >> thank you for the work you're doing. thank you, mr. chairman, for giving me a chance. >> i think we completed the run. maybe i can answer a question or to. >> senator froman, last year i expressed my concern that despite russia's serial violations of the wto, you have not brought a single discussion. this is despite the fact that the administration told congress

during tmpr one of the major benefits to having russia in the wto would be our ability to bring them to dispute settlement. could you explain why you have not brought a case against russia? >> we've been exploring all the various issues around areas of trade friction with russia. we've been consulting with other parties such as european union and others. all the options are on the table we are concerning where best to address the issues. it is an area we're keenly focused on but one not yet we have brought a case on. >> well, i suggest you consider that. it's very important the transpacific partnership agreement provide for transparency and procedural fairness ands regarding pharmaceuticals.

these are crucial elements which build trust in national health care systems. and i consider strong provisions addressing fairness in reimbursement decisions crucial to the final ttp agreement. and i understand some countries such as japan may be resisting these efforts. what are you doing to ensure the strong provisions will be included in the agreement? >> we're working with our trading partners and also our stakeholders here to have a transparency provision that is based off of u.s. law and u.s. practice national coverage determination process that applies to medicare. nothing we're doing was going to require any change of u.s. law. it's not going to affect medicaid or veterans benefits or anything else in our system. it's taking the national coverage determination kind of process, as you say fairness and due process, and encouraging other countries to have that as well. it doesn't affect the level of reimbursement a country might

decide on. it makes sure an individual can raise request that a medical device, for example, be covered by their national health system. we think that kind of procedural due process would be a positive development in this region and we're continuing to negotiate on that. >>. >> transaddtlantic trade -- european union and united states. do you agree that the inclusion of financial services framework of a financial services framework including regulatory -- successful comprehensive ttip? >> our view is -- >> explosion of activity since

the financial crisis. whether it's in the financial stability board the basel committee, g-20 or bilateral. we have a bilateral dialogue with the eu over financial regulatory issues that the treasury department leads on behalf of our regulators. our position has been that that's where we ought to make progress in parallel alongside ttp on financial regulations by looking at and strengthening existing mechanisms. >> thank you. senator widen. >> thank you mr. chairman. ambassador, i want to talk to you for a couple minutes about the importance of a free and open internet. it is obviously critically important to the economy but it's also a platform not just for commerce but for the free exchange of ideas. of course, there have been a lot of battles. a lot of them waged in this room to come up with the policies that will ensure that the net stays free and open. i know that years ago we were

faced with the challenge that if you held a website you could be held libel for something posted on the website, which pretty much meant you wouldn't have social media because no one would be comfortable investing in it. so, what i'd like to hear briefly is how you're going to make sure that nothing in these trade agreements will undermine and an open internet. our challenge here is to buttress what we've accomplished in the united states to keep the net free and open, and then do everything we can to build those principles into discussions and agreements we're having with our partners. i don't think i'm the only one who feels strongly about it. i'd be interested in your views on it. >> that's exactly right, senator. that's exactly our perspective. we view ttp as an opportunity to bring into the digital economy fundamental principles from the real or the physical economy.

including the importance of the free flow of information and data across borders and maintaining a free and open internet. so, what we're pursuing in ttp is based on the approach that has been crafted here under u.s. law. including around issues like isp liability or around technology protection measures. or around copyright. making sure there are strong copyright laws. . is the first trade agreement in history that will put forward that allows for exception of limitations to copyright consistent. our approach has been very consistent with that approach. >> i just think that millions of internet users want it clear and they want it straight forward that nothing is going to be done to undermine an open internet and particularly buttress the victories that have been won here and look to overseas opportunities for the same kind

of policies. let me get into one other area. that is the relationship of tpa to ttp. and suffice it to say, there are a fair number of people in washington scratching their head trying to think through the relationship. we all know that tpa basically tells the president here in effect are the negotiating objectives for a trade agreement. and so people say, okay, that's what tpa's about. then they open up their morning newspaper and the morning newspaper says that ttp is pretty much done or close to being done and the like. i think it would be helpful as we wrap up to have your sense of what are the outstanding issues still left in the transpacific agreement and how does the procedural issue, the trade promotion authority discussion impact what is still being discussed in the transpacific

agreement? >> the ttp is really two parallel negotiations. one on market access and one on a set of rules. on market access as we discussed here, we have made very good progress but we still have remaining issues, whether it's in agricultural access to japan, canada, a few other markets or resolving manufacturing tariffs in a few countries or in the services area, what we call nonconforming measures. we have bilateral negotiations with the other 11 partners to resolve those issues. on the rules side we made very good progress and continue to make progress this week in terms of closing out various issues but there are, i'd say in the intellectual property rights areas a number of open issues in the environmental area. still a couple of open issues. some in state-owned enterprises and investment. those are all areas where we've been working with our partners bilaterally and in groups to try and find appropriate landing zones to close out these agreements.

in terms of the relationship with tpa, we have -- in the absence -- or the expiration of tpa in 2007, notwithstanding that, we have worked with congress to ensure that we are consulting throughout the negotiation and getting input from this committee and from other members about what should our negotiating objectives be? and we've benefitted enormously from that give and take and that feedback. and i feel confident aas we work in parallel on completing ttp consistent with the high standard ambitious comprehensive standards we set out and securing tpa, consistent with the work that has been done and continues to be done to try and build bipartisan support, we'll be able to achieve those objectives. >> thank you, ambassador. that's helpful. suffice it to say, i'm sure you'll get that question in other forms of the relationship between tpa and ttp. i'll tell you, your answer also enforces something you and i have talked about. that is the more information you

can make available in a fashion that's understandable to americans, the more likely, particularly middle class families who have been skeptical of trade agreements are going to say, this makes sense. the days are over when the american people are going to say, hey they can just go negotiate, we'll take their word for it. i think that last point just reinforces how as these discussions go forward, how important it is to make the information that's available, available to the public and to do it in an understandable fashion. >> if i could just comment on that, senator. we completely agree. our objective is to achieve maximum transparency and whether it's with congress stakeholders or the public, consistent with being able to negotiate the best possible agreement. i would say this morning, for example, we launched a new website as part of our increasing effort to increase pans parency. we added a number of procedures. including a new ttp information center.

on the website. this is just one step. we can always do a better job of being more transparent. we're committed to looking at all of you and the best way to do so. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador for your testimony. before i start my line of questioning, i want to say i think you're one of the brighter lights in the administration and very responsive. i appreciate your responsiveness on so many different issues. i know this question's been asked and i've been in between hearings and trying to glean from the tv and meetings your answer, but i still don't quite get it. you say you need fast track from congress to provide you with marching orders to provide you with negotiations and it puts congress in the driver's seat, yet the ttp is almost complete.

so i'm not quite sure how it is the things that some of us who might contemplate supporting ttp but would want to see in ttp ultimately make an effect in your negotiations are almost in place. >> the trade promotion authority i believe this committee and ways and means have been working on is broader than ttp. it encapsulated ttps at the wto. it's intended not just to be for this agreement and -- >> i get that. but ttp is first up at bat. >> one reason with ttp, that's why we spent so much effort consulting with congress this committee, ttp to get more information broadly throughout.

>> you know, some of us are have you concerned about strong labor provisions giving countries like vietnam, bruni malaysia. this is one of my concerns. what's the use of ttp if you have a deal done? let me just join those colleagues, i think including the chairman, who have talked about intellectual property rights which is a critical issue for our country. we lead the world in this regard. and we see it stolen very often with impunity particularly in a state of new jersey, which is the medicine cabinet to the world, the question of pharmaceutical intellectual property including the goal to have 12 years of data protection

for buy logics for ttp as currently stipulated in u.s. law. i know you've talked to that but i want to make it very clear to you that this is a critical issue in my consideration of either ttp or for that fact any individual trade agreement. and if we cannot protect at the end of the day, if we cannot give them a reasonable time to recoup after they make billions of dollars in research sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. then it is -- it's a real problem. let me ask you one other question. getting the details right in ttp is particularly important because the agreement as i understand it, will feature a docking mechanism that allows other countries to join in the future. korea, china taiwan are potential newcomers.

how is that docking mechanism going to work? for example, will the ascension of china in the future require new trade promotion authority or any other role for congress? or will they be able to dock and exceed to such an agreement that's already in place? >> well, as you suggest, senator, ttp is intended to be a platform to which other countries who are able and willing to meet the high standards could potentially join with the consent of all of those around the table. no country would be able to join ttp without congress's involvement and approval. >> so, each future country that wishes to exceed to any agreement that would be had would need individually congress's approval? >> would need congress's approval, that's correct sir. >> on cafta, several of our trade partners have raised concern that the final ttp

includes concessions requested by vietnam short supply list for textile and apparel, it will result in severe job losses and potentially gut the textile and apparel industry in the western hemisphere. as someone who is very concerned about our challenges already with central america, it's stability and prosperity, as we saw last year in those who seek to flee their country because of instability and whatnot, this would be an enormous blow. how do you intend to deal with that reality? >> we've worked in a textile area through the yarn forward rule, the short supply list rules of origin and customs enforcement and cooperation, to take those issues into consideration. we've been working very closely with our textile manufacturers in the u.s. who are part of the supply chain with central america to get our best understanding of what their sensitives are and to take that into account in our negotiations.

>> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator scott. >> thank you mr. chairman. ambassador, how are you today? quick question for you on the ita. as conversations continue surrounding the expansion of the wtos itas, china recently agreed to include multisemiconductors into the agreement. this is a huge step forward as china is largest importer of semiconductors and could represent millions of dollars. considering the importance of the mco agreement to the u.s. and to the ita what is the ustr's plan to bring the ita to completion? >> well, thank you. thank you, senator. we reached a significant breakthrough with china in november along the lines you said, which allows us to restart the negotiations in geneva. we made some progress there.

we're encouraging both parties to come to the table to negotiate. we are each trying to create enough benefit for all the parties on the benefit to sign onto the agreement. we're encouraging china in order to bring ita to a closure. it's estimated to increase global gdp by $190 million, including 60,000 jobs in the u.s. and so we are very focused on trying to resolve the remaining differences. >> thank you. and it is certainly something important to my state of the south, south carolina, perhaps without question one of the states that would benefit the most from such an agreement would be south carolina. but when i look at the president's record as relates to

negotiating on behalf of the nation i turn my attention to things like the iran sanctions negotiations where we've seen delay after delay after delay. i think about the freeing of folks and dangerous terrorist who is seem to really be bent on killing more americans or the deal with china or carbon emissions. we're going to work toward a 15-year timeline and theirs doesn't start until 2030. my question to you is what type of confidence? while i realize it has to come, but the agreement comes back to congress for approval. my question to you really is what kind of confidence should we have on the type of deals that will be structured going into the future with tpa? >> well, we're consulting closely with this committee and other members of congress throughout the negotiations and with stakeholders and with the public to come back with the best possible agreement for the u.s. and i think we have a strong record of doing that, including

for example, when we were renegotiating core russ to deal with the auto issues the president walked away because the deal wasn't good enough. three months later we got a better deal, bring it back to congress and get it approved with strong bipartisan support. so, that's the model we use. we want to bring back strong agreements that promote jobs in the u.s. strengthen the middle class, promote growth here, help create good, well paying jobs across all the areas. manufacturing, services, agriculture, that levels the playing field, protecting american jobs and american workers. we're creating a fair and level playing field and making sure they're fully enforceable. one thing that's important is we really are facing an important choice here because we're out there trying to work on agreement that reflects american values and american interests. and to us that's the greatest prospect of supporting and protecting american workers and businesses here. but there are others out there negotiating agreements that don't have these kinds of

protections. whether it's labor and environment, intellectual property rights or a digital economy. and it's critically important to american workers and american businesses that it's the u.s. that leads and that we don't cede that role to another country. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. i want to thank the ambassador froman for your good testimony and for being with us today. i want to thank all the members who asked questions today and also everyone who was able to attend the hearing today even our noisy friends at the beginning of the hearing. the hearing record will remain open for 48 hours for any members' written questions and with that you'll be happy to know, mr. ambassador, the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we can see your corporate

side. hey, fast trashgs you can't i'd. we can see your corporate side.

coming up tonight at 8 p.m. eastern, today's memorial for former senator edward brooke who passed away earlier this year. mr. brooke, a republican from massachusetts, was the first african-american to be popularly elected to the senate. you can see today's service from the national cathedral from here in washington tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. join us tomorrow when secretary of state john kerry is set to testify about the requested authorization for military action against isis. he'll be appearing before the senate foreigns relations committee and joined by new defense secretary ashton carter. see that hearing live beginning at 9:30 eastern tomorrow on c-span. next a look at the nation's immigration detention facilities. officials from several federal agencies discuss how these centers are created and maintained. and later, a panel featuring representatives from civil liberties and human rights groups.

>> i'm going to call the meeting to order. good morning, everyone. welcome. i'm chairman marty castro of the u.s. commission on civil rights. i really would like to welcome everyone that is here with us today. those who are testifying, members of the audience, as well as those who are joining us via audio link as well as for the first time ever live streaming by the commission of a hearing or briefing. one of our civil rights topics. this is an effort by use to really make our work even more

transparent and open to the public and we hope to continue to grow how we use technology to allow americans across the nation or anywhere else they might be in the world to access us using our technology skills, and capabilities. today we're going to be conducting a briefing on the state of civil rights at immigration detention centers, as well as the condition of the border children who arrived this summer at our borders. today i'm being joined by commission vice chair or new vice chair patricia timmons goodson as well as commissioners narasaki, herriot achtenberg and kladney. commissioner is joining us by phone. and the purpose of the briefing as i indicated is going to be to examine the equal protection concerns that we had raised with the department of homeland security, and immigration customs and enforcement over the treatment of adult and minor detainees in representative detention centers across the country that are being held under federal law.

experts you'll see at the course of this briefing are going to talk to us about both the issues that they face from the government perspective, as well as from the ngo perspective, and other activists and individuals who have information to share with us on this important topic. from a personal perspective, i want to once again reiterate a thanks to all of my colleagues for approving this hearing. this is an issue that's been important not only to me but to the commission. the commission has looked at the issue of immigration for many years, starting in 1980, with our seminal report on the tarnished golden door. again in 2003 we looked at the civil rights of migrant communities. in addition, our state advisory committees have also looked at this topic. we have been committed to ensuring that all individuals in this country, including immigrants, documented and undocumented, have their rights

enforced and due process concerns addressed. under my chairmanship i'm very proud and pleased to say that this is not the first time we have addressed the issue of civil rights and immigration. we went down to alabama for the first time a field hearing in many years to bring forward those individuals who were in favor of, as well as opposed to, the state enforcement laws that were sb-1070 types from alabama from south carolina georgia utah. and we were able to talk not only to the advocates but also to the individuals who were proposing these laws and dig deep down and find the issues and the implications that these laws had, on discrimination on hate crimes, on bullying, and on lack of access to educational opportunities for immigrants. that report will be coming out this fiscal year. we also wrote to the president, and the director of homeland security on the occasion of the border children, the refugee children coming this summer. expressing our concerns not only

about the due process that should be afforded to these children, but also based on allegations and reports and complaints such as this by midwest immigrant justice center or national immigrant justice center and the aclu and others detailing allegations of sexual and physical abuse of these children. in addition, when president obama announced his deferred action, the expansion deferred action and his executive action, a majority of this commission commended him for that action. that will certainly affect civil rights not only of immigrant families, but mixed families of immigrant and u.s. citizens. and finally our state advisory committee has remained very active on this issue. our illinois state advisory committee just issued a report in december on the implications of comprehensive immigration reform to immigrant communities in illinois. so, this hearing today is extremely important to us in the history of our commitment to examining issues of civil rights and immigration. as the son and grandson of mexican immigrants, this is a particularly important topic to

me. while the individuals who are in custody and in detention are as diverse as the world, the parts of the world from which they come, it is clear that many of them, a majority of them are latinos. as the first latino chair on the u.s. commission of civil rights, i feel a personal commitment to look at this issue. but it is broader than that. as a nation built upon immigrants, i think every one of us is just a few generations away from a family member who came from somewhere else. we have a commitment to freedom and to liberty. so, we have to ensure that when individuals are in our care and custody, that to the best of our ability as a nation, we ensure that their civil rights and human rights and human dignity is enforced. we cannot allow that to be outsourced. we do know that there are opportunities when our prison system is being contracted out to private entities that does not allow our government to or our people to outsource and contract out our commitment to civil rights. and today we're going to look closely at that issue as well. ultimately, this is an issue

that affects all americans. and so as we proceed today i want to thank those of you who are participating today. we want to have a robust and thorough discussion of the issue. and we also want to be mindful of the opportunities where we can explore innovation. we want to be able to ultimately present to the president and congress, as is our right and duty and obligation, a report on what we gather here today to recommend to the president and congress how we can better and how we can improve the opportunities to care for those individuals that are in our care and custody. we do not want to see more people being held in solitary confinement. we want to -- don't want to see the further reports of abuse and trauma that some of the children are alleged to have occurred -- to occurred to them. today we also want to find out from you is being done to address those in the future. so a year from now the system we have in place is better and stronger and fairer as a result of the work of this commission

in collaboration with each and every one of your agencies and organizations. with that said, i'm going to allow one of our commissioners to make a disclaimer of her participation here. and then i'll go through the housekeeping of how the actual briefing will occur. commissioner narasaki. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this. a mraud chairman castro for suggesting this briefing on the state of civil rights at immigration detention facilities. this is a timely and important topic particularly in light of the plans of some in congress to continue to mandate a detention bed quota and the administration's expansion of detention of families with children. last year's temporary but dramatic flow of unaccompanied minors from central america fleeing harm and seeking asylum in the u.s. spotlights the need for the government agencies to be extremely thoughtful about who is detained and how we can better employ alternatives to

detention, particularly when women, children and families are involved. it has also added even greater urgency to the need for government to do everything it can to oversee detention urgency for government to do everything they can to oversee deif he thinks facilities so the conditions of deif he thinks are consistent with international human rights standards federal and state laws and our highest values of compassion as americans. i would like to thank everyone who will be testifying today as well as those who are planning to submit written testimony through the commission's website. i would also like to thank the staff for their excellent preparation of today's hearing. even though i can't ask questions, i did read everything. unfortunately because of federal rules i have to recuse myself from today's hearing because of my relatively recent work on behalf of civil rights, human rights and immigrant rights groups working to limit immigration detention. prior to becoming a commissioner

last july when i was appointed by president obama. while i will not be able to ask questions, i do look forward to hearing everyone's testimony about such a great issue facing our nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner. today's briefing is going to feature 14 distinguished speakers. they are going to provide points of view on this topic. we've asked each speaker to allow us to break it up into four different panels. panel one is going to consist of federal agencies and guidelines and standards will be reviewed there in terms of care provided to the detainees. panel two consists of private detention facilities and care there. panel three will touch on legal challenges associated with the immigration deif he thinks facilities and panel four will

conclude with civil rights associated with immigration detention centers. during the briefing each panelist will have seven minutes to speak. after panelists make their presentations, commissioner will have an opportunity to ask questions. in order to maximize the amount of time, we ask everyone to be as brief as possible, including my fellow commissioners. you're going to notice speakers there's a system of warning lights here. when the light turns from green to yellow, that means you start. two minutes remaining you're going to see a yellow light. unlike when we're driving instead of running the yellow light, you will speed up though, because the red light starts soon. when the red light hits, you have to stop. i know you will help me abide by that. once the opportunity comes, be as concise as possible. finally the record of this hearing is going to remain open for 30 days. if panelists or members would like to submit materials, they can either mail them to u.s. commission on civil rights, office of civil rights evaluation at 131 -- i'm sorry, 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest.

that's 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest suite 1150 washington, d.c. 20425 or via e-mail at publiccomments@usccr.gov. with those business of housekeeping out of the way, let me introduce our first panel. our first panelist, megan mack, director of the office of civil rights and liberties at the department of homeland security. our second panelist franklin jones executive director for the privacy and security offices. our third panelist, anna marie bena principle adviser and director in the office at the u.s. department of health and human services. finally our fourth panelist is mr. kevin landy, immigration customs enforcement at u.s. department of homeland security. miss may. before i do that let me swear

and affirm you all. raise your right hand, please. i ask you swear and affirm the information you're about to provide to us is true and honest to the best of your belief. is that correct? thank you, you may now proceed. >> good morning. thank you chairman castro and to the commission for hosting and convening this important meeting today. i'm megan mack, officer for civil rights and liberties at the department of homeland security. my office is truly unique. it was created by homeland security act to ensure civil rights and liberties of persons are not diminished by efforts, activities and programs aimed at securing the homeland. every day my staff and i work to fulfill that mission. both by providing policy advice on civil rights and civil liberties, issues to department leadership and by investigating complaints and other allegations received by public about the issues. we work collaboratively with u.s. customs and border protection and u.s. immigration and customs enforcement to

ensure civil and human rights and civil liberties are incorporated into immigration related programs, policies and operations throughout the department. complaints related top application detention are the largest share of complaints we investigate. crcl as my office is called, our efforts on immigration detention have been of great importance to me personally. i came to the department from the american bar association where i led commission on immigration there and worked on detention issues including access to counsel and other detention issues. i understand today's briefing is to help you consider equal protection in the administration of justice, in our immigration detention facilities. my colleagues and i will address detention standards and prison rape elimination act which you identified as subjects of interest. in addition since the subject of equal protection including

immigration detention lies at the heart of my office's role. i wanted to spend a moment on two other topics to which we devote substantial resources. language access and appropriate treatment for persons with serious mental or medical health issues or disabilities. on language access, the department recognizes its responsibility to communicate with detainees in a language they can understand. this requires affirmative steps to ensure effective communication. having interpreters and services readily available, having appropriate staff trained to use them and having the right policies and procedures in place for language access. this means avoiding relying on bilingual staff not trained for interception and fellow employees aren't relied on for interpretation. in context of sexual assault and response where stakes are especially high, the requirements of the department's rule under prison rape elimination act for language access are very specific. i note we face a particular

challenge in providing appropriate language for detainees who speak languages spoken only in relatively small communities where commercial interpretation services are more difficult to engage and to detainees who aren't literate in any language and can't be served by translation of written materials. the department has taken steps for as a rulevulnerabilityies of individuals with serious medical conditions in our system. reasonable to detainees with disabilities to ensure they participate fully in the programs and services offered across the department, including in detention. so for example, in 2013, ice issued a directive on segregated housing that ensures review of all long-term placements in a segregated housing unit. a substantial additional requirements for initial and regular review of detainees in segregated housing who have a

serious medical or mental health condition or disability. skipping a little bit because kevin landy is an expert on this topic. i turn bref lie to the prison rape elimination. department wide regulations in march 2014 to prevent, detect, respond sexual assault in dhs confinement facilities. while dhs had components in place before prea to prevent sexual abuse, the dhs regulations created uniformed safeguards against sexual abuse and ice and cbc custody. my colleagues will discuss implementation of regulations within their components in more detail. from my office's perspective, we operate a department -wide working group to facilitate consistency and implementation where that's appropriate and assist components on various prea issues where we can.

crcl involved in isis 2008 and 2011 performance-based standards or pbnds and family residential standards, which accomplish most of the safeguards number rated under prea. isis also revising its standards for additional prea requirements and my office providing other technical assistance. i emphasize we understand and take seriously our responsibility to ensure not only that the right policies in place and prea and detention and real improvement over their predecessors but also we follow the policies and practice and we have the right mechanisms in place to consider policy change when needed. components have policymaking, monitoring, inspection offices and program and crcl provides another form of monitoring and oversight as well as recommendations on policy, practice and training. while our work reaches across he the department a substantial share of the complaints we

receive and recommendations we make involve icp detention. on the subject of unaccompanied children as the commission is aware, the united states experienced a humanitarian crisis along southwestern border last spring and summer particularly in the texas rio grande valley. as tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossed the border. in the immediate crisis dhs focused on getting adults and children, many of whom had undertaken a dangerous journey into a safe and secure environment where they could be processed. skipping more for hhs to cover. while some children remain in dhs custody more than three days we undertook a government wide response to address the crisis which included establishment of unified coordination group that brought assets of multiple agencies to bear on the situation. unaccompan