-- ill hold iris learner in contempt of congress. we may hear speeches today about the 200 girls in nigeria who in kidnapped. saying it is time to bring back our girls, we demand action to bring innocent schoolgirls and i give back to see the -- to safety. why not to the house floor. -- like not to the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: the united states house of representatives will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room,

washington, d.c., may 6, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable john adney culberson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise

davis.brate the -- dr. he is a graduate of moorehouse school of religion. under dr. davis' leadership, they have greatly expanded its reach and increased its ranks. dr. davis is the ninth pastor in the church's history but has led that church almost a third of that century. dr. davis has followed in the church's greatest traditions and led it as the most visionaries community of faith in the region. to dr. davis, his wife, beverly, and to the entire baptist community, i extend the hardiest of congratulations on this milestone and wish you many, many more. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five

minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the dedicated public service of the honorable henry y. cool, a great patriot, family patriarch, public servant, businessman and close friend who for 35 years has served as chairman of the hunterton county republican committee. henry will retire from his position this june, leaving a legacy that will stand the test of time in the history of new jersey. henry's love of country, our state and county has served as the foundation of his beliefs and his devotion to our system of government in the united states. based on faith in god, respect for the individual, self-reliance, free enterprise

and service to the larger community. henry's record as republican county chairman is unparalleled. during his distinguished tenure, he has led an organization that has been overwhelmingly successful in producing winning majorities r federal, state, county and municipal canned dates. henry has -- candidates. henry has also been a delegate to 10 republican conventions, helping shape the direction of our party under the leadership ford, dents nixon, reagan, george h.w. bush and george w. bush. i have known henry my entire life. he's a respected mentor and ally, and our family's paths have crossed for more than a century. his late father, paul cool, and my late father, wesley lance,

were life-long friends. henry's devotion to public service has been matched by his devotion to his family, church, community and business. he and his beloved late wife, elsa, raised two fine sons who today are raising with their spouses their own families. a dedicated member of the flemmington presbyterian church, henry has been involved in many charitable endeavors. he's a proud alum niss of flemmington high school and -- alumnis of flemmington high school. cool corporation is a world leader in manufacturing egg washing and our patented equipment. based on the agricultural community of the county and of the cool family when the republican committee reorganizes following the june primary election, henry will assume the role of chairman

emeritus and continue to advance the causes to which he has dedicated his life. me in , heidi, joins thanking the honorable hen wee y. cool for his service of hundredington county and the state of new jersey. i know he will be an esteemed leader for many years to come. based on the great tradition of the american people, friend helping friend, neighbor helping neighbor, citizen helping citizen. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes. mr. waxman: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning our nation's leading climate scientists released the country's third national climate assessment.

the report confirms that climate change is real, is being caused by humans and is already harming communities across america. the report tells us the scientific evidence is unequivocal. the impacts are being felt in every region and they're growing more urgent and they are going to get worse if we don't act. a record drought is destroying crops in california. torrential rains have flooded florida. wildfires are getting more intense. coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise. no sector of our economy from moisture hatcheries on the west coast to syrup producers in new england are untouched. even allergy sufferers are affected as pollen season starts earlier and lasts

longer. the national climate assessment concludes that unless we act now to cut carbon pollution, these impacts are intensify. no state, no community, no congressional district will be spared from climate change. we will all be affected. so -- and so we are at a crossroads. one path is to listen to the scientists. we can protect our environment by curbing carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries. we can lead the world in developing the clean energy technologies of the future, like solar and wind energy. e can meet our moral obligation to preserve our fragile atmosphere for our children and grandchildren. the other path is to deny the science, ignore the growing

threat of climate change. we can watch our coastlines flood, our forests burn and our crops wither. we can let the chinese and other countries dominate the trillion-dollar market for the clean, renewable energy of the future. it should be an easy choice, but the special interests that profit from fossil fuels are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to obscure the issues. the koch brothers, the oil companies have joined forces to stop any action to address climate change in congress. consider this -- earlier this year virtually every republican member of the house voted to block e.p.a. regulation of dangerous carbon pollution. they even voted to deny that climate change is occurring.

i'm the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. this committee has jurisdiction over our energy's -- our nation's energy policy. over the last three years, representative bobby rush, the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, and i have sent over 30 letters requesting that we hold hearings on climate science so we can make informed decisions. not even one hearing on the science has been held. thankfully president obama is not waiting for congress to act. the president is listening to the scientists. he recognizes the danger of uncontrolled climate change, and he's using his authority cut existing law to carbon pollution. the president is absolutely right to act. his climate action plan is reasonable, it's affordable and it will protect our atmosphere

for our children and future generations. it accelerates a transition to a clean energy economy that will create millions of jobs. the president has said he's willing to listen to other ideas, but republicans have offered no alternatives. i've repeatedly asked the house -- the republicans, if you don't like the president's plan, what is your proposal? but i've never gotten an answer because they don't have one. saying no to every solution is not a plan. doing nothing is not a plan. denying the science is not a plan. no one can accept what the scientists are telling us, and fail to support a plan of action. if republicans aren't going to offer solutions, the president must continue to act. he deserves our support. we still have time to avoid the

worst impacts of climate change presented by the national climate assessment, but the window is closing fast. we must act now to stop carbon pollution and invest in the clean energy technologies of the future. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p. county d

bridges, and municipality for municipal roads and streets. host: the person responsible for heading the select committee for benghazi will be trey gowdy from north carolina. here is more about the committee. a staffer joining us on the phone. caller: -- guest: how are you? host: when do we expect a vote? end of the week, although we have still not seen a legislative test on what the committee would look like -- how many republicans, how many democrat. congressman trey gowdy of south carolina will be chairman of the committee. host: why him?

gowdy? an, why trey guest: he is on the oversight committee now, and is a former federal prosecutor in south carolina. by republicans, particularly conservatives, for his tenacious style of questioning witnesses. he gives passionate floor speeches during house debates. that with the background of the federal prosecutor is something that john boehner was looking for. he was very involved in the underzi investigation darrell issa of the oversight committee. scope,hat will be its how is it different from other committees, and what is the length of committee going to be those are questions

we are still trying to get answers for. it is still being worked out whether there will be a deadline for the committee to report its findings. they expect -- i think the first several weeks, if not months, they are trying to get more cooperation from the white house, because the reason this committee has been created is that republicans are accusing the white house of stonewalling, as with the release of the e-mail from benjamin roads last week under the freedom of information act request, and republicans are asking why wasn't that e-mail released earlier when various committees asked for documents. is question is, what else the white house hiding on this? inre are a lot of subpoenas the early going. what a was going to ask select committee doesn't other committees looking -- what a

select committee does from other committees looking into the matter? they want to consolidate all that work into one and streamlined. theit is not clear what our select committee might have that the other committees do not. they are going to be able to issue subpoenas, but beyond that it is more of a consolidation of the process, an extension of the time period. keeping the issue in the media spotlight for several more months. ultimately, what does the select committee have to find out regarding benghazi? the key question republicans have been asking is, when did the white house know that it was a terrorist attack and not related to the video and the protests going on in egypt

at the time? what theof course talking points on the sunday about after the attacks. some republicans are saying that the white house deliberately misled the public on what the attack was all about and who was behind it because they did not generate criticism of president obama's foreign policy two months before the election. the e-mail from ben rhodes was saying we do not want to focus on the broader foreign policy failures because of course obama was taking credit at that time for dismantling al qaeda. i think what they are trying to find out, this was all a pre-election cover-up. of course the democrats in the white house dismissed those claims. senator barbara boxer sent out a tweet saying benghazi is a

tragedy, not a scandal. ' hearings ares about politics, not the truth." mark meadows -- "it is clear there was a systematic effort by the obama administration to keep in ghazi documents from being made public -- keep benghazi documents from being made public." it has not been said whether they would do so. it is just a statement this morning from nancy pelosi to makeon the speaker the committee equally divided between democrats and republicans as opposed to traditional committees in the isse have -- whichever party in the majority has more members than the minority, and where equallyomes crucial is divided democrats and republicans, and democrats would -- whatever some

subpoenas are issued. it is likely the republicans are going to grant the request. there are already comments from spokesman, from speaker john boehner, who are pointing out that when speaker pelosi formed her own select committee on global warming, it did not have any division between the parties, but more democrats than republicans. host: >> and on that contempt of congress vote likely to come up this week, "politico" is urging members to vote against holding lois lerner in contempt. minority whip steny hoyer said this on monday. he said they would oppose the contempt vote which is scheduled to reach the house floor this week. ms. lerner, who retired from the i.r.s. last fall, was responsible for the agency

division that targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought a tax exemption. that reporting from "politico." >> the glass-steagall act was a very clear line between the speculative versions and services and things that a bank can do and the deposits it took and the services it provided to regular individuals and small businesses. there was a very, very clear distinction. the bankers were on the same side as f.d.r. the population was on the same side of f.d.r. and things became stable for many, many decades, several decades after that. you contrast to what happened in the wake of the 2008 crisis, which has been a much more expensive crisis for the general economy, for the actual unemployment level, not the

sort of tag line unemployment level, for what was lost to individuals throughout and relative to the bailouts and the subsidies that have been given since, and dodd-frank came along and did nothing remotely like dissecting speculation from depositors and traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationship between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street. saturday night at 10:00 eastern, and sunday night at 9:00 on "after words," part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. and online our book club selection is "it calls you back" by former gang member luis j. rodriguez. join other readers to discuss the book at booktv.org. >> u.s. trade representative michael froman testifies next about the administration's trade agenda. he appeared last week before the senate finance committee.

he said there's progress between the trans-pacific partnership between the u.s. and other latin american and other nations. senator wyden chairs the committee.

>> the finance committee will come to order. for decades, american trade policy has been a story ofed a aptation and change -- of adaptation and change. in particular, the extraordinary economic changes of the last generation demonstrate how important it is that future trade policies are reformed to reflect the times. for example, consider how technology has transformed the american and the global economic landscape. in the 1990's an entire month's worth of internet traffic data would sit on a single hard drive that can you buy for 50 bucks at any electronic store. more than two billion people log onto the net regularly du vietnam has a law on its books that calls into question the ability of u.s. businesses to move their data in and out of that country. governments in china, brazil and europe are also considering

developing systems that would effectively build digital barriers to trade that nobody could have foreseen a few decades ago. and when it comes to enforcing our trade laws, a key priority, enforcement officials used to watch out for criminals fleeing offices with trade secrets printed on sensitive documents. now, hackers can break into a company's server and steal data from the comfort of their own desks in classrooms or military facilities thousands of miles away. next, a generation ago american workers and businesses competed against a smaller, very different china. today, bolstered by enormous advantages provided by state-owned and internet-run enter prices, chinese-backed steel and solar firms are able to take entire segments of the american economy out at the knees. they can do so because they sit

on seemingly bottomless wells of cash, hide their paper trails with opaque accounting and dodge the risks in borrowing costs that american companies face. a third transformational change wased advent of policies like indigenous innovation, the target of american innovators. in the 1990's, india and china have limited technological capacity and now they can advantage their domestic firms and extract american companies' intellectual property for their own use. and it's a shakedown, plain and simple. fourth, over the previous decade, currency manipulation has re-emerged as a major concern for our economy. china made commitments to follow global trade rules when it joined the world trade organization in 2000, but when it comes to currency, as in so many other areas, china is

keeping a finger firmly planted on the scale and undermining those commitments. pick a product manufactured in china and imported to our country, pick any product and currency manipulation makes it artificially cheaper. that is hurting our workers' ability to compete. finally, unlike 20 years ago, the american people expect to easily find online the information they want on key policy issues like trade. yet, too often there is trade secrecy instead of trade transparency. it's time to fully inform americans about trade organizations and provide our people more opportunity to express their views on trade policy. bringing the american people into full and open debate on trade agreements that have the

effect of law is not too much to ask. at present, many americans are questioning if trade developments have contributed to persistent long-term unemployment, stagnant wages for far too many and students with good degrees unable to find high-quality jobs while they're saddled with debt. last week's report showing that america's middle class is no longer the best off in the world produced additional questions, responding effectively to the trade changes of the last generation is absolutely essential to instilling more confidence that trade policy will be good for america's working families and bring more of those middle-class americans into the winner's circle. now, i'm going to wrap up by saying that fortunately america has big advantages to work with in the trade area. we have the most skilled, productive work force in the

world. one that foreign students want to join. the dollar remains the dominant currency of the global marketplace, and with the internet's big bang and the boom in high-speed networks, the u.s. exports $350 billion worth of digital goods and services each year on what amounts to a new virtual shipping lane. the internet also makes it easier for a craftsman from, for example, from oregon, where i was recently, population 470, or a barbecue sauce maker in memphis, tennessee, to reach their customers around the world. so policymakers have a lot to work with. we do have classic issues that remain. there are overseas barriers to bring down. we had an open market so clearly if you do this right, when america negotiates we can get more of an advantage out of it than other trading partners. that is particularly good for

american products like wheat and dairy and footwear that need to compete on a level playing field. colleagues, the new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation has to be addressed with imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious job-generating trade agreements. they have to reflect the need for a free and open internet and strong labor rights and environmental protections. nations don't dismantle protectionist barriers or adopt these rules on their own. they do so with agreements hammered out through negotiation, and america has to establish new rules to reflect today's trade norms and enforcement. we're looking forward to hearing from ambassador froman. i just want to thank my colleague, chairman hatch, since i've been chair of the committee, he's consistently tried to reach out and work in a bipartisan way. i'm very appreciative of that.

and senator hatch, we welcome your opening state and then we'll have an introduction from ambassador froman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i feel exactly the same about you. i think we have a real opportunity to have this committee do its work in the way i think most people in the committee would appreciate under your leadership. appreciate you holding this hearing. i want to thank you, ambassador, froman, for appearing here today. as you know, we hope to hear from you over three months ago when the committee held a hearing on the importance of trade promotion authority. now, while i am still disappointed that you declined my invitation to participate in that hearing and glad you're able to be with us today. i appreciate you coming. president obama's trade agenda is extremely ambitious. if it succeeds, it will help shape global trade pad earns for decades to come. if it -- patterns for decades to come. if it fails, it will result in billions of dollars of missed economic opportunity for american workers and for

american job create hors. of course, the president's term is not over yet, and the jury is still very much out. even so i am concerned. first and foremost, the fact that t.p.a. is not renewed creates a serious and perhaps fatal flaw in the president's trade agenda. i do not believe you can conclude high standard agreements that will meet congress' approval without t.p.a. i'm not the only one who holds this view. indeed in recent months administration officials like agriculture secretary tom vilsack and the chairman of the council of economic advisors said that t.p.a. is a necessary component to conclude and implement our ongoing trade negotiations. ambassador froman, i have no doubt in your capabilities or those of your staff. in fact, i believe in those capabilities. but history tells us very clearly that without tarp your trade agenda will -- t.p.a.

your trade agenda will almost certainly fail. that's why i'm so disappointed in the president's passive approach on this particular issue. and i'm sure you can remember the enormous political effort president clinton put into 1ke68 implementation of the north american -- into the implementation of the north american free trade agreement and president bush to renewing t.p.a. back in 2002. in those cases, war rooms were established and each cabinet secretary made congressional approval of those initiatives made public priority. put simply, we are not seeing that level of commitment from president obama which is disappointing to me and i think a lot of others as well. and without more effort on the part of the administration, i just don't think we can succeed. in addition, i am concerned about the president's enforcement record. despite a myriad of clear violations, we have yet to see a single case brought against russia and the world trade organization. this despite the case the fact that the administration told

congress during consideration of pntr that one of the major benefits of having russia in the w.t.o. would be our ability to bring them to dispute settlement. i'm also profoundly disappointed that the president refuses to bring a w.t.o. case against india for its continuing efforts to undermine u.s. intellectual property rights. india knows better. we know better and we ought to be forceful about this. i think it would help them as well. this with regard to india exemplifies the pattern of gross neglect within this administration when it comes to enforcing american intellectual property rights. countries around the world are taking note of the president's failure to act in this area, and this is feeding the perception that they can refuse to protect and even actively violate u.s. intellectual property rights with impunity. finally, i'm deeply concerned about the office of the traved

representative as an institution. ambassador froman, i sincerely appreciate the hard work and dedication of you and your staff. i have a high opinion of, as you know. i am also deeply impressed by the caliber of your staff and their work to the ustr. yet, despite your best efforts, the agency still ranks dead last in employee job satisfaction amongst all agencies. part of the problem -- excuse me -- is ustr's failure to effectively play its traditional role. too often during the interagency process, regulatory agencies are just saying no to cooperative participation in international trade negotiations. for example, with the department of health and human services, the need for so-called, quote, policy space, unquote, resulting in ustr's proposal to simply carve out tobacco products from the

trans-pacific partnership negotiation. it was the treasury's insistence in -- to pre-existing forms that resulted in the position that financial services should be carved out of our trade negotiations with the european uniyofpblet and despite the strong support of u.s. agriculture and food provide sessor groups for fully enforceable chapter in t.p.p., it was the food and drug administration's fear of dispute settlement that resulted in a weaker ustr proposal which excludes certain disciplines from dispute settlement. there is a clear pattern here. if this does not change, i am worried that any negotiation this administration negotiates will not have high standard 21st century agreements. of course, the history of this administration's trade agenda has yet to be written. and there is still time to correct the course. make no mistake, the time is limited. i want to help.

that is why i work with my house and senate colleagues for almost a year to negotiate the bipartisan congressional trade priorities act. a balanced bipartisan compromise which will empower our country to negotiate high standard agreements that will get the approval of congress. over 160 leading business and agriculture associations and companies have come out in strong support of this legislation. like them, i strongly believe that approval of our t.p.a. legislation will help our nation succeed in its ambitious trade negotiations. that being the case, i'm asking once again that the president redouble his efforts and help us get this legislation signed into law as soon as possible. the political clock is ticking. it won't be long until we will lose the small window we have to pass significant trade legislation this year. ambassador free-throwman, i have high regard for you, as you know. -- ambassador froman, i have

high regard four, as you know. i appreciate your testimony today and will be working with you to achieve a successful orn conclusion of a -- conconclusion of a pro-growth agenda. sorry i took a little longer. >> thank you, senator hatch. ambassador froman, thank you for your patience. i also understand that you have your family. why don't you introduce them to all of us? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have my parents are in town. abe and suzanne froman. my wife, nancy goodman. and our longtime friend brenda schaefer, are all here in town. >> welcome. we're glad you're here. [applause] public service is not for the faint-hearted and we really appreciate having family here. ambassador froman, i know you have been talking out to senators. appreciate it. why don't you make your opening

remarks? >> thank you, chairman wyden, ranking member hatch, members of the senate finance committee, thank you for having me testify the trade policy agenda. the economic strategy is to create jobs, promote growth and strengthen the middle class. and through our trade policy we're contributing to that strategy for opening markets for made in america exports, leveling the playing field for businesses by raising standards and fully enforcing our trade laws and our trade rights. we're unlocking opportunity for american workers, farmers and ranchers, for manufacturers and service providers, for entrepreneurs and innovators. and we're doing so in a way that promotes both our interests and our values. the obama administration has made great strides in promoting u.s. exports and creating jobs here at home. we increased exports to a record high of 2.3 trillion dollars in 2013, contributing to a third of our total economic growth.

11.3 million americans now owe their jobs to exports. 1.6 million of those jobs have been created in the last four years and those jobs pay 13% to 18% on average than nonexport-related jobs. building on the success, the administration is pursuing the most ambitious trade agenda in decades. with the negotiation of a high standard trade agreement in the asia pacific and with the european union. together, these negotiations would allow us to access economies representing nearly 2/3 of global g.d.p. last week, during the president's visit to japan, the united states and japan crossed an important threshold in our bilateral market access discussions. in doing so we've identified a path forward on agriculture and autos, two of the most challenging areas of our negotiations with japan. although work remains to close the garnings this milestone achievement, spurred on by the president's direct engagement, will provide significant momentum to the overall t.p.p. negotiations. through these negotiations, we're working to ensure that

t.p.p. will open markets for .s. goods and services, have environmental commitments, complu ground breaking rules on issues like state-owned enter prices and the digital -- enterprises and the digital economy. looking across the atlantic, with make steady progress the european union. and we'll host a fifth round of negotiations. in w.t.o. in march, we notified congress our intent to enter negotiations on an environmental goods agreement with countries representing nearly 90% of this 1.4 trillion-dollar market. we'll move to conclude the trade and services agreement and expansion of the w.t.o. information technology agreement and work to have a comprehensive review on the african growth and opportunity act which expires this year. we look forward to working closely with you to revitalize that program.

to our trade policy we promote sectors that are vital to our economy. in 2013, our farmers and ranchers exported a record $148 billion in food and agricultural goods. in 2013, we exported nearly $1.4 trillion in manufactured goods and nearly $700 billion in services. and this year the administration aims to help our farmers and ranchers, our manufacturing workers and service providers build on this record. as the chairman has said, we want to make it here, grow it here and sell it around the world. the united states is an innovation economy and the obama administration is committed to protecting intellectual property rights so that our inventors and creators enjoy the fruits of their labor. just yesterday we released our 25th annual special report, a tool through which we identify and resolve intellectual property rights' concerns around the world. 30 million americans' jobs rely on intellectual property, and will continue -- we'll continue

to use our trade agenda in 2014 to defend the intellectual property rights of our creators and innovators while ensuring access to affordable medicines and a free and open internet. the obama administration also placed an unprecedented emphasis on trade enforcement. since 2009, the administration has filed 17 w.t.o. complaints, doubling the rate of cases filed against china. in fact, a little over a month ago the united states scored an important victory on fair access to rare earth minerals that are essential to maintaining the u.s. manufacturing competitiveness, including in the area of clean technology. and to our ongoing enforcement effort, we're leveling the playing field and keeping markets open for agricultural producers, manufacturers and service providers. as we pursue this agenda, we're committed to consulting with congress and seeking input from stakeholders, advisors and the public. with 1,250 meetings congress about t.p.f. alone and that does not clue -- t.p.p.

alone. and our congressional partners preview our proposals and give us critical feedback every step of the way. any member of congress can review the negotiating text and receive detailed briefings by our negotiators and many have. we're taking steps to further diversify our advisory committees, including opening up our advisory committees for broader representation and launching a new public interest trade advisory committee which provide stakeholders focused on consumer, public health additional opportunities to inform our trade policy. and finally, let me say a word about trade promotion authority. the last legislation was passed over a decade ago and much has changed since then. from the may 10, 2007, bipartisan agreement on labor, environment, innovation and access to medicines to the rise of the digital economy and the increasing role of state-owned enterprises and the global economy. we believe these issues should be reflected in a new t.p.a. bill and we look forward to

working with this committee and congress as a whole to secure trade promotion security with broad bipartisan support. we also look forward tory nug rade adjustment a-- to trade adjustment and we urge congress to expeditious renew authorization of the g.s.p. program. in conclusion, our trade agenda will create growth, support well-paying american jobs and protect and strengthen the middle class. at their core, our trade agreements include strong, enforceable rules that promote u.s. values and u.s. interests. and we look forward to continuing our close bipartisan cooperation with congress to accomplish our shared goals and ensure our trade policy creates opportunities for all americans. thank you, again, for this opportunity and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. i simply at this point want to say to all our guests that there strong views with respect to trade and certainly everyone

has a right to exercise their first amendment rights but i'd like to ask our guests in the back, in the green shirts to sit down now so they can respect the rights of others and i think it's also worth noting, i intend to ask right now about some of the transparency issues that i know people feel strongly about. mr. ambassador, first of all, and i touched on this, this is going to generate a lot of heated opinion. i think we all understand that with respect to trade. the reason i describe the changes that we've seen over the last generation is that i think it's going to be important on a bipartisan basis to find fixes to deal with those challenges. and right at the heart of it is what i believe is a need for unprecedented transparency on the trade issue. so let me ask you about a couple of specifics on it. first of all, i want to make sure there is enough time to

review a trade promotion authority agreement before the has it resident available to the public in advance of the president's signing it. >> mr. clarme, we completely agree there needs to be a robust engagement strat tree to involve the -- strategy to involve the public in trade policy. that's why we work so closely with congress. why every one of our proposals is previewed by this committee, among others. why we work with the connelly mandated advisory committee system and are broadening the member of that committee to be more representative, why we created a public interest advisory committee and why we engaged stakeholders more broadly to having stakeholders in our discussion and broader stakeholder calls and putting more information out to the public about our negotiating positions. so we certainly agree on the importance of robust engagement there. on the particular suggestion you mentioned, those sorts of timelines have been part of

t.p.a. processees in the past. we look forward to -- we're glad there is a discussion of this. we want to look at past practices. on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, work with you and the rest of this committee to determine what the right timetable is. >> so the public can walk out of this knowing that the text of the t.p.p. agreement would be available to the public in advance to the president signing it, believe is yes? >> as i said, i think those sorts of time tabbles have been part in the past. there has been a range of practices in the past. we'd like to work with you on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to figure out what the right timetables are. >> the public ought to be able to go to the trade representative website to find out what's going on and not to hear about it through leaks and in effect what is a rumor mill. can you pledge this morning to provide a clear and comprehensive description in plain english of the trans-pacific partnership so

the public can be informed about these negotiations? and this needs to be posted, again, online promptly and i believe within 30 days, can you commit to that? >> yes, mr. chairman. we believe it's important to have public information out there. we've been experimenting with different approaches. we put out blog posts on investment issues and environmental i shall ufmentse we publish a description of objectives. we tweet from the negotiation rounds. we try and find lots of ways to ensure that the public has information about that. we're happy to provide a summary of the t.p.p. negotiations. >> one other issue on transparency -- i will leave this with you -- i will ask a t.p.p. question as well. there is a point person for intellectual property there is a point person for agriculture, there is a point person for a variety of different matters. it seems to me to give transparency more prominence there ought to be a specific person within your agency

accountable. you can call him a transparency officer. you can call him whatever you want. i just don't want transparency to get short-shifted every again. can you commit to that this morning? >> we have a variety of ways to try to create transparency in our agency. we have an office of public engagement that's actively involved, reaching out to stakeholders and office of public affairs that is putting out information for the public. and frankly each one of our negotiators, when they're not negotiating, they're either up here consulting with you and your offices or engaging with stakeholders and the public. so your suggestion is one of many others that we need to best ensure robust consultative and process -- >> let me ask you about t.p.a. and particularly the relationship between t.p.p. and t.p.a. it seems to me an upgrade in our trade policy is going to require an upgrade to trade promotion authority. and you and i have talked a bit

in the past about what i call smart track that i think would allow us to have that upgrade in the trade promotion area, greater transparency, more strategic enforcement, a variety of other steps. seems to me when the substance is right, the time will be right for t.p.a. and what we want to do is make clear to our trading partners that this committee is taking on t.p.a., that we're going to work for the right t.p.a., we're going to work on a bipartisan basis to get the right trade agreements through congress. so my question is, will you commit this morning to work with me and the committee on a bipartisan basis to make sure that a strong, 21st century trans-pacific partnership agreement will be met with a dwally strong t.p.a. agreement so we can -- equally strong t.p.a. agreement so we can lay out how these two work together? >> yes, mr. chairman, i'm happy

to work with you on this basis with your colleagues in the house to develop t.p.a. with broad bipartisan support as possible. >> very good. senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador froman, you're negotiating an ambitious trade agreement. yet, the administration does not have t.p.a. or trade promotion authority. in my opinion, this is hurting agreementes that will again gain approval of congress. we introduced a bipartisan, bicameral bill in january which is supported by 160 leading businesses and agriculture associations and companies. a bill which secretary of commerce said will, quote, help expand access for american business, ensure a level playing field for companies selling their goods abroad and support the creation of american jobs. now, if we're going to succeed in renewing trade promotion authority this year, i believe we need to act by june of this

year. for that to happen, we need to see a greater sense of urgency and much more public engagement from the public and the administration. now, can you work with me and others on this committee to help persuade president obama to make renewable trade promotion authority a top priority for congressional action within the next two months? >> well, senator, we welcome the introduction of that bill in january. we look forward to working with you, with chairman wyden and with the house ways and means committee to, as you pursue your legislative process to develop trade promotion authority and get a bill that has broad bipartisan -- >> well, in his january state of the union speech, in the next day someone on the democratic side we're not going to do that. so -- >> well, we are prepared to work with this committee when it will have a legislative process around trade promotion authority to move that forward in a way that can get broad

bipartisan support. >> ok. now, intellectual property is fundamental to the u.s. economy. i'm very concerned that u.s. intellectual property rights are under attack around the gloib and that your office is not doing enough to fight back. india has been pursuing trade policies that undermine u.s. intellectual property in order to promote its own domestic industries. whatter in doing seems to me to be a clear violation of their world trade organization obligations. i believe that enforcement action at the w.t.o. may be the most effective tool that we will get india to change its behavior. closer to home, canada has embraced policies and patent rules na undermine research and development -- that undermine research and development investment, of course, i believe -- i believe their actions violate canada's

obligations under nafta and w.t.o. now, in your testimony to the house ways and means committee, you spoke about the importance of enforcement. you said, quote if this administration's view has been it is enough to negotiate an agreement and to implement it, you need to make sure that it is being enforced as well, unquote. you also said that the administration has, quote, brought an aggressive agenda to the w.t.o.. i don't understand how you can say this when this administration las not brought a single w.t. -- has not brought a single w.t.o. case involving intellectual property rights. so my question is, why hasn't this administration brought a single case in the w.t.o. on intellectual property? and in particular, why hasn't the administration brought a t. wmplet t.o. case against india under w.t.o. case against india and what is this administration

doing to make sure that canada, a potential t.p.p. partner, complies with its current international trade commitment? >> nor, first of all, thank you for your leadership on i.p. issues and for your encouragement on the enforcement front. with regard to those issues, we have remained extremely concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in india. we have been raising this at the highest levels and throughout our dialogue from the india government about heir policies on patents, on compulsary licensing and we have been encouraging them to enter into a dialogue with other mechanisms for addressing legitimate concerns about health care in india and about access to medicines that do not violate our intellectual property rights. india, as you know, is in the midst of an election and transition and we look forward to engaging with the new government of india as soon as it's in place to pursue this issue with them.

similarly, on canada this is an issue we've raised with the canadians directly. it's now at the subject of litigation in canada and we're continuing to engage them bilaterally and in the context of other intellectual propertyual property rights we have with them as a way to move this forward. >> thank you. my time's up, mr. chairman. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador free-throw froman. you have a tough -- ambassador froman and you have a tough job. so thank you for your service here. i want to talk a little bit about currency manipulation. a bipartisan majority of both the senate and house have made very clear we want strong and enforceable currency manipulation included in any t.p.p. agreement. strong language on currency manipulations are a vital first step to earning democratic support on passing t.p.p. in the senate. we have to take a close look at every aspect of the deal, but i think nothing can give t.p.p. a fighting chance of being passed

better than strong currency reforms. japan and other countries regularly distort their currency exchange rates. to push up trading surpluses with us. in the last year alone, the yen has fallen about 25% against the dollar. china is not part of t.p.p., but if we do this it would send a warning shot that if they eventually want in t.p.p. they have to reform their currency as well and might get them to move on their own if they see we made a strong stand. it has real consequences for jobs here at home. a study by the peerson institute of international economics found that foreign currency manipulation has already cost americans between $1 million and $5 million jobs, ending the manipulation would reduce the trade deficit by as much as $500 billion in three years. increase annual g.d.p. by between $300 billion and $700 billion and create 3.2 million to 5.8 million new jobs.

so it matters a lot. i've long been an advocate against this type of activity that japan and china and others do when it concerns this. senators stabenow, graham, sessions and collins on the other side of the aisle have joined with us. if we brought our bill on the floor of the senate it would pass again with broad bipartisan support. we could take legislative action today and win. but the administration -- but administration after administration, including regrettably yours, as well as president bush, democrat and republican, have taken the position that this issue can be better dealt with through country-to-country negotiations than through legislative changes. it's been 18 years since the treasury department has designated any country can a currency manipulator. what vehicle do we have at our disposal to combat this type of activity, which everyone says is wrong, with regard to t.p.p.? i hope the president raised

this with the japanese prime minister last week? i want to make very clear, i cannot and will not support a t.p.p. agreement that does not include objective criteria to define and enforce against currency manipulation. you wouldn't agree to play a game of baseball where your team only got two strikes at-bat and the other team got four. but if we enter into a t.p.p. agreement without strong currency language, if nothing else was in it, that is how we would be hamstringing ourselves. currency manipulation hurts our exports and advantages their exports to us across the board, not just in an industry here or there but every sector of the economy. any country taking this sort of action that is so detrimental to our nation's economy should not at the same time be granted preferential access to our market. so i guess my question is, has currency manipulation been

discussed in the current negotiations on t.p.p.? and what do you think the outlook is for getting something real in the t.p.p. bill, because it's of great concern to many of us? >> well, thank you, senator, and thank you for your long-standing leadership on this issue. .

>> singapore, malaysia, korea, kitchen places as you and i have talked. let me talk about japan. we are doing specific negotiations with japan and as you know that japan has not

directly intervened in the foreign exchange markets in more than two years, but the yen has greeshated significantly against the u.s. dollar. and while the greeshation hasn't shown an impact on the number of uffs us imports of vehicles, you and i shared information with me on the numbers, it does provide a an advantage for japanese auto makers. in fact at today's exchange race there's an estimate benefit of $5,700 on every vehicle. it's a windfall in operating profits. it may end up in advertising. it may end up in research and development. it may end up in cutting prices. it may end up in cutting prices on vehicles in other markets where u.s. auto makers are directly competing with the japanese in other markets around the world.

i guess to add insult to injury on japan, china, and everything else even though japan is not currently intervening, and i would ask you if they are not currently intervening in exchange markets, why would they not support enforceable currency provisions in t.p.p.? i'm not sure why they wouldn't, and aren't you concerned about the competitive trade advantage that these kinds of numbers show . >> yes, very much we are concerned about currency and making sure there is a level playing field. it's been important to the world that japan get back on a path towards economic growth. it's the third largest economy in the world, and it growing means there is a market there for our products as well. it's been important that the g-7 has expressed to japan the importance of them pursuing

domestic demand growth and being focused on the domestic part of their economy. we are concerned as i mentioned to senator schumer, this is one reason why from the top down we have made focus on demassic growth, rebalancing the economy, brothe in our bilateral discussions and through institutions like the g-7 and g-2 a key part of our overall ational economic policy. >> this is important. let me also say nearly 2/3 of the trade deficit with japan is auto mowive goods as you know. we also talked, i appreciate the focus on nontariff trade barriers. this administration oversaw a highly successful restructuring of the automobile industry. saving over a million jobs directly. we are now in a situation where

we can't even get into the japanese markets. if you're an auto dealer in japan, you can't put an american vehicle or any foreign vehicle on your business, on your car lot. i grew up on a car lot, i would call that. but i guess in closing, i would just ask that you continue very focused negotiations there as well. it does in the take the place of currency, but it is incredibly important that we open up those markets as well. >> thank you, senator. as you know we both negotiated up front an agreement with japan about the phasing out of our tariffs, being the longest staging any tariffs in t.p.p., being back loaded and substantially longer. and we have a parallel negotiation ongoing about addressing the nontariff barriers to japan's auto market which has been historically closed. we are making progress in dealing with issues like standards and distribution.

dispute settlements. we still have work to do but we are making progress. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cantwell. mr. chairman. thanks for holding this hearing. i know we tried a couple times and it's been glade. i appreciate your focus on transparency because holding th. i know we tried a couple times and it's been glade. i appreciate your focus on transparency because i think this is a key word of our generation is to have ransparency. i would like to say before jefferson sent lewis and clark to the northwest we were already trading with china. so our region of the country looks at this a little differently, probably one in three jobs are related to trade. i certainly support the re-authorization of the ex-im bank. as we aproshe this mixed re-authorization, hopefully we don't find a consternation of people who don't want u.s. manufacturers to export and get help in getting u.s. products overseas. i support the re-authorization

he and expansion of the program for the small business called step. helping u.s. manufacturers and other small businesses export product, get access to export markets. i support the trade promotion authority. since our authority has lapsed, they have done something like nine agreements, the european union 11, japan eight. korea six. without trade promotion authority, our hands are tied. the key thing that i'm interested in and after is this news article about the rising middle class around the globe. to quote this article, it's going to grow from two billion to almost five billion by 2030. the world market, that is again to quote this article, global middle class spending will rise from $21 trillion today to $51 trillion in 2030.

most of this is outside the united states of america. if we don't have these agreements, then how do we get our products into these markets? i wondered if you could comment on that, and then comment on the point that when you have tpa, it becomes the standard. you could do lots of individual long-term agreements. my point is, while everyone else is doing deals, we are sitting here. we know where the growth pportunity is. and, if you do tpa, it can set the standard for these agreements. you have people anxious about the situation. we want to set a standard. is that correct? >> absolutely. i agree. just to throw out another figure. right now there is an estimated 500 million middle class consumers in the asia pacific region, and expected to grow by

2.7 billion by 2030. the question is, who is going to serve that market? made in america products or products built by somebody else? what are going to be the rules of the road for the region? t.p.p. is an opportunity for us to set standards for the asia-pacific and throughout the international trading system. to raise labor standards, environmental standards, to make sure the internet remains ree. to make sure we are putting disciplines on state-owned enterprises and dealing with the challenges of the digital economy. this is our opportunity to help be at the table, take leadership, and set the rules of this important region. as you mentioned, t.p.p. is intended to be a platform. there are 12 countries around the table. there are several more waiting in the wings who said they would like to join when the 12 have reached an agreement and to sign onto the standards we are able to negotiate.

it gives us a chance to open markets for our products in the vital important region which will will see a huge growth in iddle-class. raised by our agriculture products and take our services. and to build a larger and larger platform of countries willing to sign on to the high standards. the alternative is that others are negotiating their own agreements at our expense, getting market access at our expense. those countries don't with the same value we do on labor and environment. while protecting intellectual roperty. about maintaining a free enternet. that's what we are pressing for with our partners. we have willing partners around the table. this is our opportunity. >> market access is a keyword. people don't realize when you lose market share over a long time, and then you try to go in and compete, it is much harder. thank you. > thank you.

thank you for your aggressive leadership on behalf of t.p.p. and trade. think i heard you say in your comments that you met 1500 times with members of congress on trade? >> 1250 times. >> ok. of the 1,250, have you met with the majority leader, harry reid? >> i have met with the majority leader. >> his response to movement on trade or fast-track was? >> i think his position is well known. as a leader he's also worked with the administration and worked on a bipartisan basis to -- >> did he give you any indication there was any wiggle

room we could do something like this in this session like the chairman would like to see and everybody else would like to see? >> we would like to see tpa move forward. we look forward to working with the chairman. >> the chairman is going to do a great job. so will the ranking member and all the rest of us as well. i'm worried about the majority leader. i hope you can fill this glass and make it half full. i'm not going to mention the vice president's meeting -- alleged vice president's meeting with the house and assuring members over there that people worried about union concerns, don't worry, we are not going to have any trade bill. april 4, 44 of us wrote to you and secretary vilsack to express our concerns about the european union's protectionist geographical indications, brand ew concept, or g.i.'s, which

they are insisting upon in trade .egotiations under ttip have its way, common products such as parmesan baloney and black forest ham would no longer be able to label themselves that way. hat is ridiculous. i am not interested in the u.a. dictating what we in america, i.e., the bread basketball to the world, more especially kansas, cannot label its products. you responded to our letter. i appreciate that. what's our negotiating position again with regards to geographical locations and what assurance you can provide members of this committee and more especially the producers of meat, and dairy, and cheese that the final agreement you do will not prohibit these common food names? >> we share your concerns completely. we have made clear to the

european union that we oppose their g.i. system and that is inappropriate for our trade agreements. will give you an example. we have several parmesan products registered here in the united states. the eu exports billions of dollars of cheese and meat under these names. we are not able to export our parmesan cheese. they are able to live quite well under our system. we are not able to live quite as well under their system. we have made clear we think the common name approach and trademark approach that exists here in the ubs is the more appropriate way. >> what was their approach to a logical presentation you have defined? >> i have not yet convinced them. we will continue to work and make clear that the common name and trademark approach allows room for us to have access to each other's markets. >> you might have them read

green eggs and ham. it might do something. have one more question. many who represent agriculture are waiting for a final ruling on the w.t.o. labeling on cool. do you know when we can expect a final ruling? >> i will have to get back to you. it is in litigation. canada and mexico have not dropped their case. >> if united states were to lose the case, large sectors of our economy would be subject to retaliation from canada and mexico. are we taking steps to prevent retaliation if it is found that cool does violate obligations? >> we believe the rule that has been developed is wto compliant. we have argued that to the wto. we await the decision of the wto.

as we do in other occasions, we believe it is compliant. >> thank you. >> senator isaacson is next. >> let me start with a complement. i was in ethiopia with you and the african union. i had 48 hours of time to watch you work with the countries. i was impressed and think our country is fortunate to have someone like you as a representative. my comment is that without tpa getting done, have little hope we can get t.p.p. don. what senator roberts said, this is something we have to work on. to try and raise the visibility. let's have that debate. we will have significant differences on tpa, but we ought to have the differences in a debate that results in a result rather than talking about across the board comments.

my two points are this. you mention in your marks, tisa. it's very important to georgia. there are 3.2 service related jobs in our state that depend on good, good, good, and trade services agreement with the world. first of all, what kind of progress are we making on a tisa agreement? what goals would affect t.p.p. in terms of trade services? >> thank you. thank you very much for your involvement and leadership on the issues. we look forward to working with you on the review that's currently under way. on services. we're making good progress in the talks bravely be of countries around the table representing 70% of the arket. we have defined text that is

being worked out now. virtually all the parties are on the table. we are working through those offers. we are making good progress. there is a good work program ahead over the course of the next several months. services are vital part of our economy. we have exported over $700 billion in services last year. they are also a key part of our trade negotiations both t.p.p. and in t tip. we are seeking market access in those negotiations for our critical services. i say one more thing. you mentioned express delivery. in december we reached a w.t.o. agreement. the first multilateral negotiation in the 18 year history. it is an important agreement for reducing the cost of shipping goods around the world. it helps small and medium-sized businesses into the global economy. it is good for those companies involved in shipping and logistics. many have an active role to play.

>> you are working on that agreement in terms of package delivery indicates how important a comprehensive agreement would be for all other types of financial services and products. wto has not been as successful as i would like to have seen over the last years furthering rade agreements. this is going to be important. lastly, i want to bring something to your attention. are you familiar with the greater brazil plan? >> i'm not. >> brazil is putting punitive tariffs on u.s. products and limitations on procurement of u.s. goods and services by governments in brazil and subdivisions of the brazilian government to the extent they are shutting the market out. hundreds of u.s. companies have invested millions of dollars though the facilities in brazil. they employ thousands of brazilians. they build products for the world but include them in brazil. they are being totally shut out from competition in the brazilian marketplace.

it is beginning to hurt. it is a bad precedent for the western hemisphere. if we don't stand up for those countries who made those investments, then other countries will see it as opportunity to do the same thing. i would like to bring it to your attention, which i have, and to encourage you to get involved in the diplomacy world to see if we can ratchet up brazil's attention that we understand what they are doing, and there our consequences. >> i'm happy to follow up on that. we are looking for ways to engage with brazil and brazilians to broaden our economic relationship. we have had a dialogue with them about the localization policies, which we think create adverse barriers to trade. we are happy to engage on the issue. >> the localization policies are a part of the greater brazil plan. i'm glad you are on that. thank you. like senator cardin.

>> it is a pleasure to have you here. you're not going to be surprised on my question on how we are dvancing in good governance in the t.p.p. negotiations. they are diverse group of countries. several have real challenges in good governance. and basic human rights. and in dealing with similar ssues of corruption. i'm going to ask you to give an estimation as how many are dealing. when you're dealing with trade yet country's attention. they are more likely to do things to improve the governance issues and anticorruption matters when they know that it will have an impact on the willingness of the country to open up its markets. we have very strong anticorruption laws here. it is difficult to participate where bribery is a standard practice. anticipating that you might give

me glowing progress reports, you can also respond as to whether you are willing tore us to put into any t.p.a. bill that we might be considering negotiating objectives that are strong on negotiating the rule of law into our corruption and similar matters consistent with the universal declaration of human rights by the u.n. >> thank you for your leadership on these issues. we have worked to address these issues in a number of ways. enerally on good governance. through good regulatory policy, opening up processes that could otherwise be susceptible to corruption. in addition we have specific anticorruption elements that we are still negotiating with our artners.

on issues of rights in particular, our focus has been on labor rights and focusing on the core principles of forced labor, conditions of work, making sure countries committed those and have plans in place to achieve those. this is an important process to bring countries to the table on issues they have not engaged n. we are engaging with them on labor issues, a challenging set of issues for that country. as you know. we have made clear they need to make progress in other human rights issues. they released dissidents. we are encouraging them to take further action to improve their uman rights. >> basic human right's go on the labor issues. the labor issues are important to me. fighting corruption, fighting for the enforcement of rule of

law, making fundamental changes in a country that we are going to be competing with needs to be, and since he did not directly respond, i assume you don't object to a strong objectives in the negotiating to deal with these issues. >> we will look for it in the context of the legislative process working on a bipartisan ill. >> let me talk about labor for one moment. the environment. it was a time when we couldn't talk about the environment in a trade bill. in nafta we said we wop use sidebar agreements. that didn't work very well. we needed to get to the core agreement if we were going to have something that wasn't forcible. in colombia we decided to use the labor rights action plan. i offered an amendment that would be part of the agreement to take action if they did not follow up on it that was not incorporated into the colombia agreement. now we have the congressional monitoring group of labor rights

questioning whether colombia is the labor action plan as it was anticipated at the time. my point is this. if we are going to make progress on the environment, on labor, on basic human rights, good governance, etc., it there needs to be part of the core agreement to be taken seriously. once it is executed, unless it s part of the enforcement that is difficult to get an action we expect. >> we completely agree. i think your description of the history is an important one. now they are central to what we are negotiating. that is an important development. we are able to take these labor and environment standards that four or five countries have committed to and now have 40% of g.d.p. sign on. >> let me thank you for your help on the heavy truck issue in

colombia how their regulations could undermine the intent of the exporting of heavy trucks into colombia. i appreciate the cooperation. >> thank you for raising human rights and rule of law. it is critical to trade enforcement. i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. let me echo what my colleagues have said. i am concerned about reports from our agricultural producers and seed companies about china's unwillingness to approve biotech products. it is a critical market for american agriculture. $60 million last year. we are told according to the feed and grain association it is down 85% from a year ago. corn shipment is being ejected.

resulting in lost sales and reduced prices. given the situation in china, i'm wondering, they would like to see this issue elevated as much as possible. would you support utilizing existing venues such as the u.s. china joint commission on commerce and trade to raise these issues in a forceful way with the chinese government? and perhaps even talk about other steps to ensure that biotech concerns are onsistent? >> yes. absolutely. in december we had a meeting of the joint commission on commerce and trade. this was one of the top issues on the agenda. talking about biotech approval process to become regularized nd more fluid. it is something that we are intending to raise at the highest levels. in china we raised with the vice pamir.

-- raised with the vice premiere. nd secretary of agriculture. >> some of these venues, are those venues that you think would be appropriate to do that? >> absolutely. the first one you mention is what we do in december. we'll have more opportunity to do that later this year. the secretary has been in touch following that visit to about follow-up on that and other agricultural related issues. >> hope you can keep it a high riority. a lot of us in congress, myself included, have been frustrated by not getting the keystone pipelineit is something i believe is approved. clearly in america's national security interest. i was going to ask questions that you probably answered yes and no. is the ustr providing comments to state as part of the

interagency approval of the pipeline? >> i don't believe we are involved in this. >> there is not anything you are furnishing in terms of comments to members of the committee that is looking at this? >> i will come back to you to confirm. i don't believe we are involved in this. >> if you are, i would be interested in knowing. concerns are being raised on whether or not this would be a challenge under nafta. that if the canadians decided that the ultimate rejection of the pipeline is the outcome they might be able to utilize nafta to raise trade considerations. i would be interesting into what the implications of that might be. i have talked to you about this in the past. i am want to raise the issue of the eu decision last year to impose 10% duty on u.s. ethanol exports.

you indicated ustr is considering a challenge to the eu tariffs at the world trade organization. i wondered if you could comment on where that is in the decision-making progress and what ethanol producers might expect a decision? >> we are continuing to look into that issue and develop our ecision. we have not made any decision. we will consult as we go through the process. >> ok. i wanted to mention one other thing. that is, you have heard this many times, the importance of market access for agricultural and the japanese market. for those of us making sure that the tpp result in significant ew market access opportunities for u.s. agriculture is going to be critical. i'm wondering if you could elaborate on the president's discussions on the topic of the japanese prime minister last week? how would you characterize those negotiations with japan following the trip to asia?

>> thank you. access to the market is critical of our overall initiative. i've made clear that the products we sell into japan, we need to address their historic barriers. it is a market that has had high barriers in the past. the president prime minister engaged on this and other t.p.p. issues. we made some significant progress in our discussions. we reached a milestone in terms of getting to sort out the parameters of how we would deal with market access in some of the mortgage sensitive areas. we have further work to do. we think there was enough progress there to get further momentum to negotiations overall. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you ambassador for your service.

i want to commend you for your our reach and your responsiveness. i can't always get to say that about an administration official. in your case i can. i appreciated. you are aware of my concern with the india pharmaceutical patent violations. and my concern about canada's patent regime. in a special 301 report issued by the department yesterday, you issued fairly strong statements about the need for improvement in both countries' i.p. regimes which i both support and applaud. nevertheless, as we are looking at t.p.p. and other elements, i'm convinced that our economy s based on innovation. i'm looking for the administration to demonstrate that it has a long horizon, whole of government view and strategy on advancing international i.p. policies, one that i and other members can get

behind and support. can you give me a sense of what is the administration strategy in regards to emerging economies? >> first of all, as you know, we issued the 301 report yesterday. we focus on a number of problem areas. as i mentioned, we have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in india. we are looking forward for them to get through their election and engage with new government on that. to have a dialogue about how they can address their public policy while still respecting the intellectual property rights of innovative companies, including from the united states. similarly on canada. we have made clear our concern about their utility approach to patents. we will continue to engage in discussions with them about that and other ip related issues.

in t.p.p. we have a robust intellectual rights agenda and -- enhances innovation while at the same time takes a touch stone on the may 10, 2007, bipartisan agreement which noted that there should be differentiation on countries depending upon levels of development. we are working with individual countries to ensure that they are strengthening their intellectual property rights. and promote access to medicines. we are very much focused on improving the level of property rights protection. >> while you are at the lead of this because of trade that you obviously possess in your portfolio, are there other elements of our government promoting our interest in the intellectual property ights?

>> we work with the department f justice. we work with several agencies on interagency basis in the process of negotiation. >> bangladesh submitted their latest gsp action plan progress eport to the ustr. i understand that it was reportedly discussed during the trade and investment cooperation a few days ago. given recent reports of union suppression, how realistic is the bangladesh government self-assessment of their progress on the action plans irm to ensure members from

anti-union? what is your assessment? >> as you know, we expend gsp based on worker conditions in angladesh. we developed an action plan with them for the steps necessary for hem to take. our view is that they have taken some steps. there is work to be done. we're going to continue to engage with them on the work that needs to be done and encourage them to take good actions. >> finally, our trade policy agenda report of 2014 talked about u.s. good exports to latin in the caribbean increasing, the fastest rate of growth to any region in the world. almost 40% increase over the previous three years. pretty dramatic. are there other opportunities in latin america that we need to pursue based upon that tremendous growth?

>> senator, there are opportunities we could pursue. in t.p.p. we have not only asian countries at the table, but also countries from latin america, mexico, peru, chile. we are following with great interest with the development of the pacific alliance in this region. there are other countries in latin america who potentially would like to join t.p.p. in the future. we are looking for ways to engage with brazil to broaden our economic relationship there. and to build upon the network of free-trade agreements we already have with latin america and the caribbean and to deepen our relationship with them accordingly. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming. it was nice for you to come here and to have his back. thank you. thank you.

i have a number of questions that have been asked. go back to you one and maybe replow some ground but not too much i hope. as we negotiate trade agreements, to reduce barriers and increase the trade and other nations, japan and australia, as you know, a bilateral free-trade agreement earlier this year, many of our negotiations are seeking deals with china and with europe. many of these free-trade agreements may not be as ambitious as the t.p.p. is excited to be. what is the effect of so much negotiation even with our own partners that don't involve our country? hat is the effect?

>> i don't think these are necessarily mutually exclusive efforts. as contruce pursue bilateral or trilateral or other regional arrangements, if it allows them to open markets and liberalize trade it could be a positive step forward. it does underscore, and this goes to the question earlier, the importance is of us being at the table. us being engaged. if we are not engaged at the same time, in helping with our partners to establish the rules of the road going forward, we are going to be left out of the game. we are going to be left on the sidelines. while the rules of the system don't reflect our interests or ur values. if we want a trading system that wants a higher labor standards, higher environmental standards,

protects additional economy and and allows for free internet and market access to the fastest-growing packers in the world, we need to be at the table, we need to be engaged, we need to be showing leadership, because as you point out other countries aren't waiting for us. they are moving ahead without us. it's not a static situation. that's why t.p.p. and t-tip are so important because it's our way of engaging the global economy in a way that is both with our interest and values. >> thank you. i want to talk, i mentioned this. i've never discussed poultry with you. but i do talk about other ubjects. whenever a trade rep is here i turn to poultry. why do you always talk poultry with the trait rep? we live in a state where there are more chickens per capita than any other state in the nation. some 300 per capita. agriculture is a big industry in delaware. we raise corn.

we processed chicken. we sell them all over the country and all over the world. we used to sell one out of every 100 we raised in the u.s. outside of the u.s.. today it is 20. we do that in spite of the fact that countries continued to impose restrictions on our poultry products. australlia, new zealand, japan. expanding enforcement means more income for our farmers in the u.s. and create more jobs here in america. i'm told if we could start selling poultry in the eu, that is a $600 million market. it would be nice to have a piece

, maybe a wing in in that market. as your team negotiates the transatlantic trade, and the transpacific partnership, i hope that opening up agricultural xports, specifically poultry exports is a top priority on this committee. just take a minute to discuss what you and your team are doing to increase market access for agricultural products? can we find an agreement that opens up the poultry market? and how are you preventing nation from erecting new trade barriers to our chickens? thank you. i did meet a squawk so much. >> i would be disappointed if we didn't discuss chick -- chickens. >> agriculture is a high priority in our market access discussions. it is an area of high growth. both in terms of reducing

tariffs and other barriers, but addressing sps barriers that have kept poultry and other products out of certain markets. both t.p.p. and t-tip those are high priorities. >> thank you. >> i'm so appreciative. thank you for your working ogether. i want to start with a yes or no question. i have a number of things i want to talk about. you responded to senator about currency. senator stabenow pointed out strong majority of house members have insisted by signing their names to leather. a strong majority of senators have insisted that currency be part of t.p.p. my question, i don't want you to answer this yes or no, are you repared to not include meaning

agreements in this agreement? >> all i can say is we are continuing to work with the treasury department on this issue and to see how best to ddress the concerns. >> do you plan to include strong currency provisions? i know you say you are working on currency. are you planning to put in this provision as strong as the letters you have received about currency? >> we are continuing to consult with you and other members and stakeholders about how to address the issue. >> ok. that is the best am going to get. i want to talk about investor state dispute settlement. multinational companies conduct risk assessment before they nvest.

multinational corporations can purchase private insurance policies to mitigate risk associated with overseas investment, protect themselves, aig for example offers a multinational insurance program with coverage options to address multinational exposures. u.s. overseas private investment corporation's offers political risk insurance to encourage u.s. investment abroad. both services are available in 150 countries. u.s. companies going into these countries are planning for every ind of eventual problem. through insurance, through risk assessment, through studies. they are doing this investment with their eyes wide open.

in addition, we know that investor state dispute settlements has given big tobacco the ability to threaten small developing nations, even the threat of a lawsuit in a small developing not wealthy country has encouraged some of these countries not to pass ublic health laws. we know the presence of isd as has empowered big tobacco to go into the developing world and have their way. we have, with all the other protections that companies have built in the private sector, we have market-based options for these companies to protect hemselves. we have u.s. opic overseas private investment corporation, why do we need isds to protect these companies while we are giving the power to big tobacco

o undercut public health laws? >> we provide to domestic and foreign investors a certain degree of protection under our court system. nondiscrimination. not every country does. our investors have been subject to discriminatory practices or x-appropriation. there are 3300 agreements around the world, a vast majority have some investor state dispute settlement. the u.s. is party to 50 of those agreements. a country all over the world have been signing agreements that have some degree of investor state dispute settlement. the standards vary significantly. what we're trying to do through t.p.p. is raise the standards of he investor stakes regime. provisions that would allow the frivolous cases to be dismissed

or attorney's fees to be awarded. provisions that would allow nonparties to participate in procedures by filing greater transparency around that. provisions to ensure the governments can regulate the interest of public interest and safety and the environment and not be subject to those hallenges. through t.p.p., this is true of labor, environment, we are trying to take what is the status quo and raise standards. improved the standards. try to create new standards that can help strengthen the overall system international. >> thank you. for the record, mr. chairman, opic does provide insurance for ex-appropriationation -- xpropeation. that fight is often raised.

>> i intend to work with the senator on these matters. we're getting to the end. want to get out the enforcement issue and then recap where we are in transparency and trade promotion. a lot of americans, when they hear debate about a future trade agreement, the first thing they say is you people in washington aren't enforcing the ones that we have. why are we talking about new ones before we enforce the ones that we have? too often, it seems that when we have a trade agreement, we honor it. our trading partners don't. there are a variety of excuses. they may not have resources to do it. they may say there are political concerns. at the end of the day we don't have the enforcement effort that is so important. our experience with china and korea, and russia, and others make clear that we lose out if we let agreements go into force before they are able to go

nto. what steps is your office willing to take to put in place a new commitment to trade enforcement? >> we are very committed to trade enforcement and we are happy to talk about what further steps we can take. we brought cases against china twice before. we brought the first-ever case on a labor issue. we are continuing to pursue that. we are creating an interagency trade enforcement center with great support from the commerce department and other departments. that has allowed us to put together more complex cases and -- than we have ever been able to put together before. people from all over the government, with country expertise, domain knowledge, able to put together these

complicated cases and bring them to have a systemic impact. we are focused and agree with you completely that part of the deal of negotiating new agreement is to make sure we are monitoring and implementing our existing agreements. we are focused on doing that. >> there is no question in my mind that you are stepping up the effort to enforce trade laws. i was pleased with the work your people did on the critical minerals issue, which is almost a model for how to tackle major trade enforcement issue. i want you to know that even though i think you are stepping it up, i think there is more to do. the reason why, for those of us who have been supportive of trade, and i have voted for every market opening agreement since i have been in public service, we have to better respond to people who say why are you talking about new trade agreements until you have tougher enforcement of the ones that are on the books. let's recap on a couple of issues where we are.

on transparency, you and i went back and forth on some of the semantics of trade law. the american people are going to insist on being able to review the t.p.p. agreement before the president signs it. so am i. i think the law is very much in ync with that. on the tppa issue, we agree on this. i am recapping now. we need a tpa upgrade in order to reflect the needs of a modern trade agreement. the people that i have the honor to represent at home, 1-6 jobs depends on international trade. they often pay better than on-trade jobs. they reflect a higher level of productivity. as we walked through the issues, the issues of the future, i just

want it understood we are going to be working closely in partnership with you. i think you know there are strong views on this committee. i happen to think we can forge a bipartisan agreement to do trade policy right here in the united states senate. if you would like to have the last word. we are happy to give it to you. you been a patient person today. something of an orthodox day even by senate scheduling. we appreciate your patience. >> thank you. we very much look forward to working with you as the legislative process roceeds. we want to partner with you on that. on the transparency, our goal is to release the terms of the agreement as soon as we can. once we have the agreement we will want to make sure the terms are public as early as possible. of course, that means we have to reach an agreement.

that is where our focus is right now. try to reach the best possible greement for the people. >> i understand that. the reason that i have focused on it, it comes up all the time. it reflects the generational changes that we have seen in rade policy. i remember supporting those agreements in the 1990's. had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. of course, nobody was online and expecting elected officials to give ongoing information. when i talk about transparency, and i want to emphasize, nobody's talking about making available proprietary information. if you're talking about coca-cola, you wouldn't make the secret sauce in coke available. that is proprietary information. the terms of a trade agreement

that affect various policy issues is what i think the american people are going to insist on. based on our conversations, we are going to be pursuing that together and being able to pursue it on a bipartisan basis. the hearing record care main -- the hearing record will remain open until may 5. i thank you again, ambassador, and look forward to working with you in the days ahead. the finance committee hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by ational captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the u.s. house begins work in

just a bit. their legislative week getting under way. they'll come in for short speeches, gavel out, and come back at 4:30 eastern to begin their legislative work this afternoon. the senate's also in today. committees are meeting as well. earlier today the senate armed services committee heard about military compensation and defense department plans to cut pay raises, health care benefits, housing allowances, and commissary locations. the heads of the service branches were all there offering remarks, including army chief of staff, general oderino. >> the all volunteer army has performed phenomenonly during the longest conflicts in our nation's history. but it's imperative we discuss and understand the appropriate level of compensation. not only do recognize the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families but to ensure we sustain the all volunteer force. paying compensation benefits must remain competitive in order

for us to recruit and retain the very best for our army and the joint force. however, pay and compensation must be balanced with end strength, readyness, and modernization of our force. thus it is necessary that we take the comprehensive look at every aspect of our budget. i fully endorse these department of defense proposals that do not directly cut our shoulders' pay, but slows the rate of growth from any allowances that are simply unsustainable. additionally, it's essential that we gain more efficiencies in our commissaries and our health care, specifically tricare. i believe the proposals recognize the incredible service and sacrifice of our soldiers and their families while allowing us to better balance future investments in readiness, modernization, and compensation. these are difficult but necessary decisions. taking care of soldiers is not just about providing them competitive pay and compensation

benefits, it's also about having the right capacity in order to sustain reasonable personnel tempo, invest in the most modern equipment, and maintain the highest levels of training readiness. if the army does not get the $12 billion in compensation savings over the palm, we have to look at a further reduction in end strength. lower our overall readiness posture, and slow even further our current modernization programs. it is my opinion that if congress does not approve our compensation recommendations, then you must end sequestration now and increase our top line. we must keep in mind that it's not a matter of if but when we will deploy our joint force to defend this great nation. we have done in every decade since world war ii, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure our soldiers are highly trained, equipped, and organized. we must balance our resources

effectively to do that. if we do not, our soldiers will bear the heavy burden of our miscalculations on the battlefield. >> all of that hearing available at c-span.org. we'll take you live now to the house as they gavel in for short speeches. in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father con roy. -- conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o godder for giving us another day. please help us to use it well. we ask your bressing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. help them to meet their responsibilities during these days, to attend to the immediate needs and concerns of the moment, all the while enlightened by the majesty of your eternal spirit. the season of graduation fo