U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–569 2011

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TRADE POLICY AGENDA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2011

Serial No. 112–04 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

CHRIS LEE, New York 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of February 9, 2011 announcing the hearing ........................................ 2 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Jim McDermott ............................................................................................... 29 

Ambassador Ron Kirk, U.S. Trade Representative .............................................. 7 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Wally Herger ................................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Kevin Brady .................................................................................................... 33 

Hon. Devin Nunes ................................................................................................... 38 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 74 

National Pork Producers Council ........................................................................... 84 

National Association of Manufacturers .................................................................. 89 

National Association of Wheat Growers ................................................................ 101 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce .................................................................................... 107 

Emergency Committee for American Trade .......................................................... 119 

American Jewish Committee .................................................................................. 129 

National District Export Council Inc. .................................................................... 130 

California Table Grape Commission-1 ................................................................... 133 

California Table Grape Commission-2 ................................................................... 134 

National Oilseed Processors Association ............................................................... 135 

National Potato Council .......................................................................................... 142 

California Chamber of Commerce-1 ....................................................................... 144 

California Chamber of Commerce-2 ....................................................................... 149 

Retail Industry Leaders Association ...................................................................... 150 

United States Council for International Business ................................................ 159 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association-1 ................................... 164 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association-2 ................................... 175 

International Dairy Foods Association .................................................................. 188 

Association of Global Automakers, Inc. ................................................................. 194 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ................................... 195 

General Electric Company ...................................................................................... 203 

American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations ............ 208 

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch ..................................................................... 212 

American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition ................................................. 222 

U.S.-China Business Council .................................................................................. 232 

Intel Corporation ..................................................................................................... 242 

UPS ........................................................................................................................... 255 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TRADE POLICY AGENDA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dave Camp presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Chairman Camp Announces Hearing on President 

Obama’s Trade Policy Agenda 

Wednesday, February 02, 2011 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R–MI) today announced that the Committee on Ways and Means will hold a hearing on the status 

of President Barack Obama’s trade policy agenda. The hearing will take place 

on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, 

beginning at 10:00 A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear the witness, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from the invited witness only. The sole witness will be United States 

Trade Representative Ron Kirk. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by 

the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

International trade has been vital to U.S. growth and prosperity in the post WWII 

era. The United States is the world’s largest economy, manufacturer, and trader. 

The future success of American workers and business, and the growth of America’s 

economy, require continuing America’s strong commitment to finding new markets 

and expanding existing ones for U.S. goods and services. 

The United States signed trade agreements with three close allies in 2007—Colombia, Panama, and South Korea—and all three are still awaiting Congressional 

consideration. The independent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has estimated that the combined effect of the three pending trade agreements would increase U.S. exports by at least $13 billion. President Obama has repeatedly stated 

that increasing U.S. exports by 1% could create 250,000 jobs. The ITC has also estimated that implementing the three pending agreements would increase U.S. exports 

by at least 1%. The hearing will provide an opportunity to address the resolution 

of the outstanding auto issues in the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement and to discuss plans and timetable for consideration of all three of the agreements. The hearing will also provide an opportunity for the Administration to explain its response 

to China’s trade restrictive practices and non-tariff barriers that prevent U.S. companies from competing on a level playing field. The hearing further provides an opportunity to monitor progress in areas such as the National Export Initiative, the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations and WTO accessions, as well as other efforts to open new markets 

to U.S. agriculture, goods, and services and address bilateral and multilateral trade 

disputes and concerns. 

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Camp said, ‘‘In these challenging economic times for Americans, opening new markets to U.S. exports provides 

a proven way to fuel economic growth, create well-paying jobs here at 

home, enhance consumer choice, and raise our standard of living. An important first step is to consider all three pending trade agreements in the 

next six months. In this increasingly globalized economy, we must work together to maximize American competitiveness and prevent us from falling 

behind. I look forward to hearing Ambassador Kirk in his first appearance 

before the Committee as he lays out the President’s trade priorities.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on current trade issues such as: (1) the pending trade 

agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea; (2) addressing the full range 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

of issues impeding American companies from selling U.S. goods and services in 

China and distorting trade flows through unfair trade practices; (3) the ongoing 

Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations; (4) the prospect for trade expansion in agriculture, industrial goods, and services through the Doha Round negotiations at the 

WTO and the issues surrounding Russia’s efforts to accede to the WTO; and (5) 

management of trade disputes and concerns and other trade issues. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on 

Wednesday, February 23, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the change in 

House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to 

all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, 

please call (202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/

f 

. 

Chairman CAMP. Good morning. The committee will come to 

order. We are opening the hearing on President Obama’s trade policy agenda. I want to welcome everyone here, and also extend a 

special welcome to our guest, United States Trade Representative 

Ambassador Ron Kirk. 

Ambassador, this is the first time you have been invited to appear before this committee, so we are looking forward to a thorough 

discussion of the Administration’s trade policy agenda, and particuVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 065569 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\65569.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65569

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

larly the path you see forward on the three pending trade agreements. 

International trade has been a cornerstone of United States foreign policy for the past 60 years. We must have a robust trade 

agenda to ensure our economic future and create U.S. jobs. While 

the President has often spoken about the merits of trade over the 

past 2 years, there is little to show for it. The American people are 

demanding more and more, and deserve more from this Administration when it comes to the job-creating potential of our trade 

agreements. 

Now, we have seen some steps in the right direction in recent 

months, and I appreciate your work and the President’s work on 

the South Korea agreement. But there is much more we need to 

do, and I fear we are ceding our influence and authority to the European Union, China, and countries that don’t have our best interests at heart, diminishing our influence on the international economy, foreign policy, and security issues. 

Most pressing on the trade agenda are the pending agreements 

with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. As I noted, the President’s leadership has helped move the South Korea deal forward. 

But there has been no similar action with regard to the Colombia 

and Panama agreements. 

Where is the path forward for these agreements? Why isn’t there 

a clear identification of the outstanding issues, an outline of reasonable steps that must be taken to address those issues, a time 

frame for resolution, and a commitment to action? 

While the President made positive reference to completing the 

agreement with South Korea in his State of the Union address, Colombia and Panama were mentioned only briefly, almost as afterthoughts, with no action plan or commitment, characterizing them 

as items the Administration intends to, and I quote, ‘‘pursue.’’ 

But we already have trade agreements signed three and a half 

years ago. And Ambassador, I hope you will provide clarity on what 

the President meant and lay out today a concrete timeline for consideration of all three agreements. And as I have said repeatedly, 

I would like to see all these three agreements considered by July 

1st. 

And frankly, the lack of commitment on these critical, job-creating agreements is hindering the rest of our trade agenda, most 

notably ATPA and TAA. The President’s unwillingness to engage, 

especially on Colombia, has ground everything else to a halt and 

our workers are suffering as a result. 

The Administration’s strategy makes no sense. These agreements 

are important to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and they 

will help support jobs here in the United States—250,000 jobs, according to the President’s own measure. And given that our unemployment rate has been at or above 9 percent for the last 21 consecutive months, we must explore all possible opportunities to sell 

to the world and create and support existing jobs in the United 

States. 

I am equally concerned that the failure to move these agreements will severely disadvantage U.S. business, workers, farmers, 

and ranchers who now sell their products in these markets. Other 

countries recognize the value of these markets and are signing 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

agreements that lower barriers for their exports and seize our opportunities. 

In addition to our pending trade agreements, we must focus on 

enforcing our rights worldwide. Take China. It is now our secondlargest trading partner overall and our third largest export market. 

While China presents the potential of 1.4 billion customers for our 

exports, China purposefully impedes market access for U.S. goods 

and services, and blatantly steals the intellectual property of American businesses. The litany of China’s trade-distorting policies is 

deeply troubling and cannot be allowed to stand. 

Part of our strategy for addressing these issues should include 

resumption of our bilateral investment treaty negotiations. I 

strongly support the Administration’s efforts to promptly conclude 

an ambitious Doha Round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, and hope that renewed efforts over the past few months 

will lead to success. 

I also strongly support the Administration’s efforts to negotiate 

the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I hope the President will be able to 

conclude a high standard agreement when he hosts the APEC leaders in nine short months. Such an agreement would show our commitment to the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region as well as create 

American jobs by opening markets. A robust trade agenda puts 

U.S. business, workers, farmers, and ranchers back on the offense. 

Let’s seize this opportunity. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony, Ambassador Kirk, on 

the Administration’s ideas on how to kick-start the U.S. trade 

agenda. I will now yield to the ranking member, Sandy Levin, to 

make an opening statement. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Ambassador. 

I am disappointed that we start today’s hearing without action 

to extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance program scheduled to 

expire in just a few days. TAA has been a good-faith effort for nearly 50 years to assist workers who have lost their jobs through trade 

and globalization. 

As a result of the 2009 reforms, an additional 170,000 workers 

are eligible for TAA, which will help them secure new good-paying 

jobs. Starting Tuesday, tens of thousands of displaced workers in 

our country will be affected, and I strenuously urge my Republican 

colleagues not to let this vital program lapse. 

Congressional Democrats have been actively working to shape a 

new trade policy that is responsive to the changing dynamics of a 

global economy. We rejected the passive hands-off approach of the 

last Administration by embracing expansion of trade in ways that 

assess its impact and broaden the benefits from expanded trade. 

Carrying out this new policy, we succeeded in pushing for the inclusion of enforceable worker rights and environmental standards, 

beginning with their incorporation in the Peru FTA. We have 

fought for vigorous enforcement of basic rules of competition with 

our trading partners. We have insisted that trade must be a twoway street, not a one-way street, in critical areas of trade. 

This is in sharp contrast to the approach of the last Administration, whose view was that trade was good in and of itself and that 

more trade automatically was better, regardless of its terms. As 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

President Obama responded, and I quote, ‘‘We just went through 

a decade where we were told that it didn’t matter. Just keep on importing, buying stuff from other countries, and everything is going 

to be okay. But it was built on a house of cards.’’ 

The Obama Administration has undertaken a vital effort to implement a new and improved trade policy, for example, a commitment to the enforcement of existing trade agreements and trade 

laws. That was clear from the China safeguard action on tires. The 

previous Administration, on four occasions, refused to use that 

safeguard. Recent data indicates that the safeguard action has 

helped to make possible an increase in U.S. production and employment in U.S. tire manufacturing. 

The commitment to enforcement is also clear from the filing of 

the first case ever on labor provisions in the trade agreement with 

Guatemala. 

A commitment to two-way trade was embodied in the President’s 

insistence that we go back and change the Korea Free Trade 

Agreement to finally knock down the barriers there, where automotive trade accounts for 75 percent of the $10 billion U.S. trade 

deficit with Korea. This would not have happened if the Republicans had succeeded in their earlier insistence that flawed agreements be approved. 

Likewise, in the case of Panama, the Administration pushed for 

an agreement to address Panama’s status as a tax haven, and we 

understand Panama is working to ratify and implement that agreement now. This Administration has also been working on efforts 

started several years ago to ensure that Panama’s labor laws comply with basic international standards and with its FTA obligations. Because of our efforts, there are now important labor law 

changes pending before the Panamanian legislature. 

With regard to Colombia, as we have pointed out repeatedly and 

as indicated consistently in the State Department and ILO reports, 

there are serious outstanding issues relating to the Colombia FTA. 

Colombian labor laws fall short of ILO norms, and workers struggle 

to exercise their rights to associate and collectively bargain. 

Persistent problems include abuse of cooperative and other forms 

of contracting, employers’ direct negotiation with workers when 

unions are present, and prohibitions on the right to strike. Moreover, enforcement of labor laws is weak. 

Union worker violence in Colombia remains unacceptably high, if 

not the highest in the world. Limited progress is being made in the 

investigation and prosecution of those responsible. Additionally, reports indicate that threats against union workers and others have 

increased. To date, there has been little concrete action to date to 

pursue these cases. 

As I observed during my five-day fact-finding trip in Colombia 

last month, the new Santos administration has now articulated a 

different approach from its predecessor that provides an opportunity for serious discussions between the two governments on 

these concerns. But we should be very clear that the burden is on 

the Colombian government to act and address these concerns that 

have been made abundantly clear to them for years. The only adequate measuring stick is progress on the ground. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

There are other areas where I believe we can do more to change 

U.S. trade policy. Mr. Camp, the chairman, has talked about China’s distorting, trade-distorting policies. I also urge that the Administration take a more assertive stance to address China’s currency manipulation. 

As I conclude, let me just say that we are already taking action 

on many fronts. Republicans have expressed impatience with 

changing U.S. trade policy and have called for us to return to the 

failed policies of the past and approve flawed trade agreements. 

So let me be clear. We will not go back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Today we are joined by Ambassador Ron Kirk, the United States 

Trade Representative. Prior to his work in the Obama Administration, Ambassador Kirk had a distinguished career in both the private sector and government. Notably, he was the mayor of Dallas 

from 1995 until 2001, at which time, I should add, he saw firsthand the benefits of trade agreements and was a strong proponent 

for NAFTA. 

Ambassador Kirk, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony. I would ask that you keep your testimony to 5 minutes. 

And Mr. Ambassador, your full written statement will be made 

part of the record. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR RON KIRK, UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Ambassador KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Levin, members of the committee. It is indeed an honor 

for me to have an opportunity to visit with you today. 

In his State of the Union address, President Obama told America 

that the future is ours to win if we rise to the consulting. To compete for and win the jobs and industries of the future, America 

must out-innovative, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the 

world. 

USTR is doing our part to keep America globally competitive, 

and our work is producing results. U.S. goods and services exports 

through the first 11 months of 2010 were up $239 billion over the 

same time period in 2009, and we are on pace to reach or exceed 

President Obama’s National Export Initiative goal of doubling exports by the end of 2014. 

To ensure that American firms continue to generate jobs and economic growth, opening global markets and efficient America’s trade 

rights must remain key components of our economic recovery effort. 

After extensive consultations with the business community, with 

labor, Members of Congress, in December we concluded a U.S.- 

Korea trade agreement that is better for America’s auto industry 

and better for America’s auto workers, and it is winning widespread support here in Congress. 

To bring home its promise, which is billions of dollars in exports 

and tens of thousands of jobs here at home, the President will submit the U.S.-Korea trade agreement to Congress in the next few 

weeks, and looks forward to working with you to secure its approval this spring. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

But we aren’t going to stop there. With that same engagement 

and cooperation, we want to work to address outstanding concerns 

relating to the Panama and Colombia trade agreements. If we are 

successful, we will move these forward as well. 

I can tell you today that the President has directed me to immediately intensify our engagement with our partners in Colombia 

and Panama with the objective of resolving the outstanding issues 

as soon as possible this year, and bringing those agreements to 

Congress for consideration immediately thereafter. 

But I must make it clear. There remain serious issues to be resolved before these agreements can be submitted for congressional 

consideration, and some of these issues go to our core U.S. values 

and interests, such as the protection of labor rights. Any timetable 

will be contingent on the successful resolution of these issues. 

For example, with regard to Colombia, it will be imperative to resolve issues regarding laws and practices impacting the protection 

of internationally recognized labor rights, as well as issues concerning violence against labor leaders and the prosecution of the 

perpetrators. 

Colombia and Panama have begun to take important steps, and 

we think that is a good signal. But more remains to be done. We 

will be consulting closely with you and major stakeholders, including labor and human rights groups, throughout this process. 

We will not be left behind, however, as others open markets and 

take our market share. The President has made one thing abundantly clear, however. We will not sign agreements just for agreements’ sake. They must be enforceable and of the highest standard 

and in the interests of America’s workers, farmers, businesses, and 

entrepreneurs. 

In the Trans-Pacific Partnership, now the world’s most dynamic 

regional trade negotiating market, we are moving forward to 

unlock the Asia-Pacific through a 21st century trade agreement. In 

the Doha talks, we seek an ambitious outcome in which all countries, including the advanced emerging nations, provide market access commensurate with their global economic roles. 

And our efforts to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization will include working with you this year to grant Russia permanent normal trade relation status so that U.S. firms and workers 

fully benefit from Russia’s accession to the WTO. 

This year, the United States will host the 21 economies of the 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. With them, we will work 

to make it cheaper, easier, faster for our firms to trade in a greener 

regional economy. And we are doing the same with our partners in 

Europe and throughout North America. 

Aggressive enforcement will continue to accompany these efforts. 

We have kept our promise to hold our trade partners accountable, 

from steps to address a harmful surge of Chinese tires, to important wins at the WTO for our aerospace and agricultural sectors, 

to the first labor enforcement case ever brought under a U.S. trade 

agreement. 

Our agenda will only succeed if we make clear to the American 

public what is at stake in global markets and if we keep faith with 

America’s workers, including renewing trade adjustment assistance. We are also asking Congress to keep faith with some of the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

world’s poorest economies and create American jobs by renewing 

the generalized system of preferences in the Andean Trade Preferences Act, and let’s do so for a longer period of time than a few 

months. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that we 

can use common sense to find common ground on trade. And I look 

forward to working with you, and I look forward to taking your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of The Honorable Ron Kirk:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 001 here 65569.001
10 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 65569.002
11 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 65569.003
12 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Well, thank you very much, Ambassador. 

As I listened to your testimony, I first want to say I appreciate 

your comments on the South Korea trade agreement. It was signed 

in June 2007. Korea is the world’s eighth largest economy. The 

E.U. agreement with Korea is expected to be effective July 1st, so 

I think your timeline of a few weeks is a very important one. 

In terms of the other agreements with Panama having been 

signed in June of 2007—they have signed this tax information exchange agreement—they recently signed trade agreements with the 

E.U. and Canada. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here 65569.004
13 

With regard to Colombia, it was signed in November 2006. Since 

that time, our exporters have paid over $3 billion in duties to Colombia. Canada will implement a trade agreement in June. The 

E.U. is soon to complete. Colombia is our largest export market in 

South America. 

So with regard to those agreements, I appreciate the language 

that you want to complete those by this year. But frankly, those 

are statements I would have expected two years ago. We are seeing 

other countries move forward dramatically. We are losing market 

share in those countries as they develop trade relationships with 

other places. We need specific, concrete steps. 

Can you tell me what specific things or items need to occur with 

regard to the Colombia and Panama agreements that would allow 

the Administration to move forward? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, let me assure you we share your concern with respect to the competitive 

market that is developing in South America and their very aggressive efforts to sign other free trade agreements. 

But we also share a very firm belief, and an unshakeable belief, 

that the only way we can go forward in a manner that I think all 

of us would like to is that if we work together collaboratively, just 

as we did on the Korea FTA, and not just hear from those that, 

frankly, want me to cut the gas line and put the pedal to the metal 

and go forward; and not just those that, frankly, are stomping on 

the brake and say, do nothing. We have got to find a way to find 

common ground on some of those core values that, at least for the 

Obama Administration, we won’t compromise on. 

And we want to get these done, but we want to get them done 

in a way that we address the underlying concerns about labor 

rights. This is a little bit different than Korea in which, frankly, 

we were addressing issues of market access. These are more fundamental issues. 

But what we want to do, and what we will do, is intensify our 

engagement over the next several weeks, I am sending a team to 

Colombia next week. As you know, Ranking Member Levin, I 

think, visited Colombia during the January recess. Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is going to go down. We will then meet 

with all the stakeholders, human rights groups, and come up with 

a workable plan, and sit down with our partners in Colombia to address those. 

Chairman CAMP. When you say ‘‘we,’’ are you planning to go to 

Colombia and Panama as well? 

Ambassador KIRK. I don’t know that I am going to go. USTR is 

sending a team. I may go, and I may wait and see what the plans 

are, as they evolve, for the President’s visit to South America later 

this spring. 

Chairman CAMP. Well, I guess my point was that the time for 

generalities has passed, to say, we need to continue to work forward on these. We really need specifics. And we need an action 

plan of benchmarks that we can meet to move this forward. 

I think these have languished long enough, really far too long. 

And to the extent you can shed light on any specific items, I think 

we would all be enlightened. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, I want to do that, Mr. Chairman. But 

we are using the same approach as we did last year when—I think 

it was in June at the G20 Forum—President Obama directed our 

office to sit down and negotiate with our partners in Korea. We 

were able to do that in a reasonably efficient period of time. 

We want to take that same approach with respect to Panama 

and Colombia. The issues are different. As I said, in Colombia 

there are longstanding concerns in terms of the rights of workers 

and violence against union organizers. In Panama, we have made 

good progress on a number of the issues in terms of addressing 

some of their labor law concerns. 

As I understand, they have worked with our Department of the 

Treasury to address the issues of their having been labeled a tax 

haven by OECD, and are moving on the tax information exchange 

agreement. 

Chairman CAMP. With Panama, is there anything left for the 

Panamanians to do? 

Ambassador KIRK. There are still a couple of concerns over some 

recent changes to their labor law. But we have been in consultation 

with the Panamanian government in trying to get those resolved 

to our satisfaction. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Levin may inquire. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think that your question has helped to frame the issue. You said, ‘‘the time for generalities’’. They weren’t generalities. The issues with Korea were very 

specific. 

The way it was negotiated did not assure access to the market 

for our automotive goods. You worked on this. It was very specific. 

They were shutting us out, shipping 500,000 cars a year. We were 

shipping 5,000. Hyundai has 1500 dealerships here, I think. Ford 

has one. Our automotive producers and their suppliers insisted 

that trade be a two-way street. It was very specific. 

If the Republicans had had their way, or the Bush Administration theirs, we would have approved the Korea Free Trade Agreement essentially having a major part of our economy shut out from 

their market when they had complete access to ours. 

As for Panama, we started discussions. The issues were very specific. They related to the violation by Panama of basic international 

standards, as outlined in our State Department reports and in the 

ILO reports, in terms of worker rights, and its states as a tax 

haven. We tried to work with them, but then they elected someone 

as the Speaker of the House who had an arrest warrant out for him 

for killing an American, and those discussions stopped. It was very 

specific. 

When it comes to Colombia, Mr. Ambassador has laid out the 

areas where there are issues. And we have been discussing these 

for years with the Colombians. The ILO and State Department reports have spelled these out year after year after year. 

Now, there is a new administration in Colombia which says that 

it now wants to address these issues that were not satisfactorily 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

addressed by the previous administration. And now the Ambassador has said that there is an effort to see if common ground can 

be reached. 

So I think there isn’t a lack of specificity. There has been a lack 

of a willingness to work with us to resolve basic important economic issues. 

Let me just ask you, if I might, Mr. Ambassador, about TPP and 

proceeding. You intend to table something next week, do you, in 

terms of TPP? And I think it is important we proceed, but in the 

right way. There will be a tabling of some proposals next week? 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes, there will. As you know, we have had 

four rounds of talks. We are moving very aggressively to meet our 

own goal, which is aspirationally, to craft a trade agreement for the 

21st century with the highest standards in every area across the 

board. We will be meeting in Chile next week for the first round 

of more intense negotiations, and we will begin tabling proposals 

in certain categories at that time. 

Mr. LEVIN. Everyone should note that we have trade agreements with most of the participants in TPP. It is the newcomers 

in terms of a trade agreement, Vietnam and now Malaysia who 

raise some important issues, not only in terms of worker rights, 

which is important, but in terms of agriculture, et cetera. 

And as we have discussed, I hope very much that before those 

proposals are tabled, that there will be further consultations with 

this committee regarding the specifics, including those relating to 

investment. 

Ambassador KIRK. We will. And we have—and I think as you 

know, Mr. Chairman, we have had the most extensive consultations with this committee and your companion committee of jurisdiction in the Senate, as well as all of the stakeholders on TPP as 

we have ever done before, and we will continue that. 

But this is an opportunity in which, one, I think we have all benefitted from the fact that we are starting with a blank sheet of 

paper, so to speak. We aren’t burdened by some of the arguments 

that have derailed some of our trade agreements in the past. 

But it is an opportunity for the United States to be in the lead 

in crafting the architecture for what we hope will be the most advanced trade-liberalizing free trade agreements in one of the most 

dynamic regions of the world. 

Mr. LEVIN. More consultation is needed. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. I just want to comment that I was 

concerned about market access on the South Korea agreement from 

the beginning. But that really sort of begs the question. I am not 

really interested in why these agreements weren’t passed two and 

a half years ago. I am interested in why they are not being passed 

now, given all that has happened. 

So with that, I will recognize Mr. Herger for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a timeline here of key President Obama Administration 

statements regarding the Colombia trade promotion agreement. 

Unfortunately, I won’t have time to go through all of it in my 5 

minutes. However, I will like to have it included in the record, and 

I will just touch on some highlights. 

[The information follows The Honorable Wally Herger:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 005 here 65569.005
17 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 65569.006
18 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 65569.007
19 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 65569.008
20 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 65569.009
21 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 65569.010
22 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 65569.011
23 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 65569.012
24 

f 

Mr. HERGER. Ambassador Kirk, the President’s 2009 trade policy agenda released in February of that year two years ago stated, 

‘‘We are in the process of developing a plan of action to address the 

pending trade agreements in consultation with Congress. We plan 

to establish benchmarks for progress on that Colombia FTA.’’ 

In April of 2009, during a speech at Georgetown University 

School of Law, you stated, ‘‘We are looking for new solutions to the 

issues that have dragged on in existing free trade agreements. At 

the Summit of the Americas, President Obama instructed me to 

lead a review of the Colombia agreement to deal with outstanding 

issues there.’’ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 65569.013
25 

Now let’s skip to about a year later, in March of 2010, and your 

testimony at Senate Finance hearings. You stated that the pending 

FTAs were a priority, and that USTR was working to resolve the 

outstanding issues so that they could move forward with the agreements. 

And in response to a question on the Colombia FTA, you stated 

the following: ‘‘We are hopeful we can come to some solution with 

Members of Congress over the next several months so we can go 

back to Colombia with specific goals. What we don’t want to do is 

keep moving the goalpost. This agreement is almost singularly to 

the benefit of the United States.’’ 

Moving forward a few months to July 2010, in announcing the 

establishment of the President’s Export Council, the President 

again reiterated that the Administration was working to resolve 

the ‘‘outstanding issues’’ with the pending FTAs with the goal of 

submitting them to Congress ‘‘as soon as possible.’’ 

Now, in 2011, during a speech at Third Way, Mr. Ambassador, 

you stated, ‘‘We took the time to do the Korea FTA right. And so 

we think it is important: Just as we have done with Korea, let’s 

not short-circuit that process with Panama and Colombia. They are 

just as important to us.’’ 

Mr. Ambassador, how much longer will the wait continue until 

the Colombia agreement is ready for Congress? It has been two 

years since the Administration announced its plan to develop 

benchmarks on Colombia. We waited a year. And then the Administration again stated that it is working on a list of recommendations for the Colombians. 

Where are these recommendations, these benchmarks that the 

Administration wants to see in place? And again, how much longer 

do we have to wait until the Colombia agreement is ready? 

Ambassador KIRK. I appreciate your recitation of our commitment on that. We are firm in that. And hopefully, Mr. Herger, it 

won’t be much longer. 

We share your concern. We want to move forward on these 

agreements. But the reality is there is a very wide—you can tell 

from this committee, there has been a very wide divergence of 

thought as to how we ought to proceed. And one thing President 

Obama instructed me was to sit down with those on both sides of 

the aisle, stakeholders of every opinion, about how we are to go forward and see if we can’t find a common way forward. 

But we also made a firm commitment, when we came into office, 

that we didn’t feel it was our responsibility just to pick up all of 

these trade agreements as they were and move forward. We took 

the time to take a step back and take a strategic look at how we 

wanted trade to fit into our overall economic policy and our number 

one goal. And that is how we get this economy going and how we 

create jobs. 

And that included not only looking at and examining these free 

trade agreements, but the work that we have done on enforcement, 

the work we have done to engage labor and communities and business to come up with a plan that will allow us to do as we have 

done with Korea. And as I announced today, the President has directed us to do that same thing in the coming months with our 

partners with Colombia and Panama. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
26 

As Ranking Member Levin noted, we have new leadership in Colombia. Vice President Garzon was here last week. We have met 

with him. There is a renewed sense, I think, of urgency on both 

parts. And we will be meeting with them in the coming weeks and 

months to address those issues. 

And it is different in the case of Korea because it isn’t just related to market access. It goes to some of those core values that 

I think many Americans want Congress to take into account as it 

relates to how we treat and respect the rights of workers. And that 

is an issue that, at least for the Obama Administration, we won’t 

compromise on. 

Mr. HERGER. Well, Mr. Kirk, I appreciate that. But that sounds 

very much like we have been hearing for the last two years. 

Chairman CAMP. And the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Johnson is recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to welcome my friend from Dallas. Too bad you weren’t there; the Super 

Bowl might have been a better place to go. 

Ambassador KIRK. Unfortunately, I was there, sliding around. 

But I didn’t go to the game. 

Mr. JOHNSON. God bless you. Ambassador Kirk and I have 

known each other for a long time. I am glad he has finally had the 

opportunity to visit here on this committee. I would like the committee to know, for the record, he and I used to bet dinners, and 

he still owes me one. 

Now, Mr. Ambassador, as a former Dallas mayor, I know you are 

well aware of the benefits of trade to our area. And I am sure you 

know the Dallas area is the ninth largest metropolitan exporter in 

the United States. In 2008 alone, Dallas exported almost $7 billion 

to both NAFTA and CAFTA. The numbers go on and on. 

In 3 years before the U.S.-Australia agreement, exports from 

Texas to Australia averaged $800 million. In the three years after 

that trade agreement, Texas exports averaged $1.3 billion per year, 

an increase of 66 percent. 

Before the U.S.-Chile agreement, Texas exports to Chile were declining. Since the agreement, Texas exports to Chile have increased 

by 107 percent. 

You know, those numbers just tell me that we are spinning our 

wheels. This agreement was signed in 2007, and this is 2011, and 

we still haven’t finished them. Now, I would like to know why we 

are delaying because other nations in the world are taking our 

place in the trade environment. And it is because you haven’t been 

able to finish the job. And most of it, you are telling me, is laborrelated. 

I would like to know your opinion on that and what you intend 

to do. And I will tell you what. You get these three agreements 

done, you don’t have to buy me a dinner. 

[Laughter.] 

Ambassador KIRK. Sam, I have enjoyed your friendship, and we 

have shared a lot of plates of Mexican food over the years. And it 

would be loath for me to quarrel with a good friend in public, but 

I am not so sure who holds which last dinner. But we won’t make 

dinner contingent on these agreements. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

Let me say this. I was incredibly honored and humbled when 

President Obama asked me to serve the Administration in this capacity. And frankly, Sam, you know there were a lot of people who 

were a little bit skeptical of me coming from Dallas, for the reasons 

you articulated. 

We believe in trade. We understand it. We have seen the impact 

of it in our city and our state. Texas is the number one exporting 

state in the country. So you don’t need to convince me how important these agreements would be to our economy. 

But when I raised my hand and took that oath, I agreed to be 

United States Trade Representative for the entire country. And 

like the congressman over here, my wife is from Detroit. And so I 

brought with me not just our passion for exports that we have in 

Texas, but I also brought with me the concern and frustration of 

all of my in-laws in Detroit, in Cleveland, in Pittsburgh, who when 

I showed up and told them I was going to be the Trade Representative, thought I was a two-headed monster because they believe they 

haven’t benefitted from trade. 

And so what we have committed ourselves to doing is trying to 

find that common ground because the only way we can go forward 

in a way that allows our farmers and ranchers and manufacturers 

and states that want us to go is we have to keep faith with the 

rest of America that wants to know we have a trade policy that 

works for everybody and not just for some of us. 

You know I like African proverbs, and one of my favorites is pretty simple. And it says, ‘‘You should take no comfort from the hole 

in my end of the boat.’’ And the problem of too much of our trade 

debate is in places sometimes like Texas or Florida or Washington, 

we just look at our heads and say, poor Pittsburgh. Poor Carolinas. 

Poor Detroit. And we aren’t going to get there. 

That is why these agreements were stalled. I don’t have to tell 

you there are strong differences on this committee whether we go 

forward or not. What we have been doing is trying to not only craft 

trade policy that allows us to have open, fair access to these markets, address that asymmetry we have with many of them, but also 

helps us restore the American public’s faith that trade can work for 

us, that we can create jobs here. 

That is what we did successfully, I think, with Korea, and that 

is what we are working to do with Panama and Colombia. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It will create jobs. Right. 

Ambassador KIRK. It will create jobs. But—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But how about getting it done, all three of them? 

All three of them. Can you tell us you will do that? 

Ambassador KIRK. I can do it if I can get this committee to come 

together and agree that just as important as it is to open up markets, it is equally important to make sure that we keep faith with 

America’s workers and we don’t compromise on our core values of 

standing up for workers’ rights. If we can come together on that, 

we can do anything. We did it on Korea. We need to do it on Panama and Colombia. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Stark is recognized. 

Mr. STARK. I would yield to Mr. McDermott. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. McDermott. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ambassador. Good to see you here. On a historical note, I would point out 

to the Members of the Committee, who want specifics. In 5 days, 

the TAA program ends. 150,000 American workers will be ending 

their trade adjustment assistance. Now, I wonder if you are serious. It was on the calendar yesterday, but you took it off the calendar. It is not on the calendar today. This is Wednesday. 

Is it going to be on Thursday or Friday, and be passed through 

the Senate by Monday, so that 150,000 workers in this country do 

not lose their assistance? If you are serious about trade and you 

want to make it all about somebody else out there and ignore the 

people in the United States, the workers, you are going to have a 

tough time. 

But let me move to another issue because there are other things 

besides Colombia and Panama. How are we going to work and 

move forward on intellectual property protection in China? How 

are we going to keep the focus on this issue in China? I know when 

the Chinese were here, with respect to the piracy of business software, they continue to be long on promises and very short on performance. 

It practically didn’t come up when President Hu was here, and 

it doesn’t appear that the Chinese are stepping up to address the 

massive piracy which is underway in their enterprises, including 

the state-owned enterprises which put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. 

It seems to me that the Chinese are very clever in how they have 

moved around. The Chinese audit authority has the ability to track 

how much money in the China procurement system is being spent. 

That is helpful, but it doesn’t end the piracy. They don’t check as 

to whether or not the software used in their government is legal. 

Now, what is the plan? What do we need to do to help you enforce the good words that come out of Beijing? They are nice words. 

I appreciate them. But we would like to have some help from you 

about how we can help to enforce that. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JIM MCDERMOTT 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 65569.027
30 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 65569.028
31 

f 

Ambassador KIRK. The issue of piracy and copyrighting of America’s intellectual goods and work product is one of our key concerns 

at USTR. It is a key component of our enforcement efforts, and it 

is a key part of our dialogue with China. 

And I would only add one correction, perhaps, to your introduction of this subject. This issue did come up in President Hu’s visit 

with President Obama. He addressed it directly. 

As you know, we recently concluded the Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade, which Secretary Locke and I take the lead, 

in December. We did get a commitment from the Government of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 65569.029
32 

China to begin to address more rigorously the absence of using legitimate software in their government procurement. 

During President Hu’s visit, we got two additional important 

commitments that, one, they are going to provide money for it. The 

Chinese have said they would do this a number of times, but they 

didn’t give their governments and sub-governments any resources 

to purchase legitimate software. For the first time, they have committed to do that. And secondly, we did get them to make a commitment to audit that. 

But as you know, our engagement with China is important. It is 

complex. There is a reason that we have regular engagements with 

China through the JCCT as well as strategic economic dialogue. 

And we will be as diligent as you say the Chinese are crafty in 

pressing them to make sure they honor and respect American intellectual property and copyrights because that is an extraordinary 

opportunity for our industries to grow into that market. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I would like to also just thank you. I appreciate that. If there are things that we can do, I hope you will let 

us know because I think this committee would be interested in trying to support the USTR in their enforcement efforts. 

We know that the Bush Administration, Peru passed, the free 

trade agreement, after the agreement made on May 10th by Mr. 

Rangel and Mr. Levin with the President and the USTR in that 

Administration. 

You are about to table something in Chile, and I hope that you 

don’t weaken the things that were agreed upon in that May 10th 

agreement that made possible the Peru agreement, particularly the 

access to medications. I think that is one of the issues that gets 

slipped under the table. We think of environment and we talk 

about labor, but sometimes the access to medication provision in 

there gets lost. I hope that that will be a part of what you table 

on Monday when you get to Chile. 

Chairman CAMP. If you could just respond briefly because time 

has expired. 

Ambassador KIRK. I would say I don’t know that we are to that 

point we are tabling on access. But I would say, for us, the value 

of our Administration, the May 10th agreement represents a good, 

sound bipartisan agreement among Democrats and Republicans. 

And that is certainly something that we are going to reach for in 

every one of our agreements. 

Now, we have the opportunity, from what we have learned over 

the last 7 years, that there are some areas that weren’t addressed, 

like indigenous innovation and state-owned enterprises. But that is 

something that we are using as something we are striving for, certainly in something as aspirational as we hope to achieve through 

the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

The Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady, is recognized. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to ask consent to insert my statement for the record. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of The Honorable Kevin Brady.] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 65569.014
34 

f 

Mr. BRADY. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. The way you build bipartisan support for trade is by shining a light on this job-producing issue. And House Republicans, especially this committee, are going to conduct a very aggressive 

trade agenda, focused on three areas: finding new customers, and 

opening new markets in a level playing field for American workers 

and companies; secondly, resisting protectionism, both here and 

abroad, so that we can tear down barriers for American producers 

and companies; and thirdly, working both within the United States 

and with our trading partners to find innovative ways to move 

goods and services faster, better, and cheaper around this world. 

Your presence today, Ambassador, we think is key to those goals, 

and we look forward to you as a partner in all of those. We will 

be not just a willing partner but an insistent partner moving forward on trade. 

I appreciate, one, your openness and willingness to consult and 

listen and talk about all of these issues these past 2 years. I congratulate you on successful improvement of the South Korea Free 

Trade Agreement. I very much applaud the joining of the TransPacific Partnership. I think that is key to both job production, setting a state-of-the-art agreement, and getting us directly into China’s back yard in that growing market. 

Three points I hope you will take with you today from this committee. One, the time is up for Colombia and Panama. They have 

not only done all that we have asked, they have gone far beyond 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 65569.015
35 

it, signing the original agreement with the United States, a contract with us. 

Then they amended it at the direction of Democrat members and 

Republican members in a bipartisan May 10th agreement. Both 

agreed to improve labor standards, improve environmental standards, improve intellectual property rights standards, a whole host 

of demands that have been levied upon them, and they did it. 

Then both went beyond that, reaching in Panama to the tax information treaty addressing more labor issues. They have done everything we have asked of them. It is time for Panama. 

Colombia has done the same, spending a decade improving their 

rule of law, their labor rights, creating a peace where there was violence. They too have been waiting to jump, frankly, to meet our 

demands so that we can be actual trading partners. And I think 

it is embarrassing that we have not moved forward on them. 

And so I hope you will understand, this isn’t about—these three 

trade agreements need to be submitted in the first six months. It 

is not about embarrassing any party or the White House. It is 

about making sure America doesn’t further embarrass itself by 

turning its back on our trading partners and our workers in the 

meantime. 

The second point is that Russia, indeed—I think there are tremendous benefits to moving them into a rules-based global system, 

and I applaud your work in that area. But as a priority, I think 

it is important to know that there is virtually no chance that a 

Russia PNTR will be moved ahead of Panama and Colombia. 

I think it is critical that those be signed by the President before 

we take that up. Russia’s progress can be measured in months. 

Panama and Colombia’s efforts can be measured in years and 

years, and they deserve movement now. 

Final point. The Administration is looking at reorganization of 

trade and exporting efforts. I think that is very important. But 

USTR is unique. It is a very lean, entrepreneurial, nimble agency 

in an economy worldwide that requires all that. 

I am not interested in turning USTR from a cougar into a hippo 

on trade issues. Stay nimble. You will get great support from all 

of us. 

I would like your comments on those points, and as well on TPP 

as a job opportunity looking forward. I know you are working hard 

on that. Can you address any of those issues? 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes. And I am aware of the time constraints, 

Mr. Chairman. Just let me say, Congressman Brady, we very much 

look forward to working with you and your leadership on the subcommittee. 

Being from Houston and understanding the importance of that 

port, the one thing I would tell you, in TPP, also with our partners 

in North America, we really are looking at the logistics side of all 

of these, those non-tariff barriers, to make it easier and cheaper to 

move those goods around. So that is a big part of what we are 

doing on that. 

I hear your concerns and those of members of both sides on Panama and Colombia. I assure you we are ready to get started. We 

want to try to get those resolved. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
36 

With respect to USTR, I am exceptionally privileged to lead, I 

think, an agency that provides the best bang for the buck to the 

American taxpayers. There are only 230 of us. We do an extraordinary service in negotiating agreements, enforcing America’s 

rights. And that does make our work special and we want to keep 

that. 

But at the same time, having been in business, you and I know 

if you don’t examine how you do what you do every three or 4 or 

5 years, you are losing ground. So we welcome this review under 

the President’s commission. But we will also make sure that we 

don’t lose what makes USTR special, and our ability to help go out 

and create jobs with what we do. 

Mr. BRADY. As a fellow Texan, thank you very much. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Nunes is recognized. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kirk, welcome to the committee. And here, virtually everyone on this side of the aisle has asked you about specifics as it relates to Colombia and Panama. And we still haven’t heard any specifics. The ranking member, Mr. Levin, mentioned that these specifics do exist, although we still don’t know what they are. 

I did hear you specifically say—you mentioned something when 

Mr. Johnson was questioning. You mentioned the communities of 

Pittsburgh, Detroit, and the Carolinas as not benefitting from 

trade. So I thought that was getting close to specifics. 

And I just wondered, how do those communities not benefit from 

the Colombian or Panama trade agreements? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, first of all, if I said that, I misspoke 

myself. I think all Americans benefit from trade because, first of 

all, every family benefits when we make it easier and cheaper to 

put food on the table to feed your families, when we make it easier 

to provide the most advanced electronics to help your kids with 

their education. 

But there are communities—and I know you won’t find it a surprise—that feel like that our trade policy has not operated to their 

benefit, that they have been harmed more than they have been 

helped. And it is a very broad brush. You get west of the Mississippi River and most of the members that I talk to, Democrat 

or Republican, are wanting me to move forward. You get into the 

Rust Belt and there is a little more cynicism about it. 

And it isn’t just that. Our concern is an overwhelming majority 

of Americans now disagree with the proposition that trade has 

been good for us. We have to work—— 

Mr. NUNES. Right. But when it comes specifically to Panama 

and Colombia, those countries have access into our market and we 

do not have access into their market. We would under these trade 

agreements if they were advanced. 

Ambassador KIRK. That is correct. 

Mr. NUNES. So if that is true, then why don’t we—all we want 

are specifics. I think all Colombia and Panama are asking for is, 

specifically, what do you want us to do? They have gone beyond the 

labor chapter in the Andean Trade Preference Act. They have explicitly incorporated the International Labor Organization declaration into this agreement. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

So all we want are specifics as to what is the Obama Administration asking Colombia and Panama to do before the President will 

submit these trade agreements to be approved by the Congress? 

Ambassador KIRK. Let me make it plain. There are different elements involved in Panama and Colombia. They are not the same. 

With respect to Colombia, we are decidedly focusing on the issue 

of labor rights, the violence against workers. There has been some 

progress, and obviously some of you are reading from perhaps different hymn books. But I would say there is a fairly strong divergence of thought on this committee, and among a number of our 

stakeholders, how much Colombia has—the progress they have 

made in putting in place the necessary changes to their labor law 

to just provide those basic rights, to organize and such—we are not 

asking them to mirror our rules here in the United States—and to 

strengthen their judiciary, and the law enforcement, to bring those 

that have perpetrated this violence to justice. 

Those are the issues that we are trying to focus on. We want to 

take advantage again of the fact-finding mission of your ranking 

member. Again, Chairman Baucus is going to go down. We are 

sending a team. We are going to do everything we can to expedite 

that, Mr. Nunes, so that we can agree what—— 

Mr. NUNES. But Mr. Ambassador, aren’t these matters outside 

the confines of the trade agreement that was signed on May 10, 

2007? 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes. In many cases, they are. But I think 

they are issues that the American public believe are sacrosanct for 

us. I mean, again, the reason I gave you that recitation about my 

experience around the country, part of the American public’s frustration, the biggest thing I have heard, is one, nobody else plays 

by the rules but us. And it wasn’t just China. They felt like our 

trading partners weren’t playing by the rules, and we wouldn’t 

stand up and enforce our rights. We have addressed that. 

But the other thing is people’s concern that we will sign an 

agreement with anything. If somebody has benefitted, we will sign 

it, and we don’t care how they treat their workers or if it undercuts 

our workers or creates an unlevel playing field. 

And that is why we think it is important to address that, not just 

to find a way to go forward, but to begin to get Americans’ confidence that trade works for us. We can create jobs here, and we 

aren’t creating incentives to just move production to another country that may not respect the rights of those workers. 

Mr. NUNES. Well, I know that President Obama is going to go 

down to South America. He is going to visit Brazil. And I just think 

before we go on—and I don’t have a problem with him going to 

Brazil; I think it is a positive step. 

But with Colombia still sitting out there, and he is going to that 

hemisphere, and for that trade agreement to be sitting out there, 

I just don’t know what credibility the President will have or the 

Administration will have when we still have pending trade agreements from 2007 and we are operating outside of the confines of 

those trade agreements asking for things that, quite frankly, Mr. 

Ambassador, go outside of all the rules of engagement on making 

these trade agreements. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

And I will submit—I want to thank you, Ambassador, and I will 

submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record a question on the Mexico 

trucking issue. 

[The information follows The Honorable Devin Nunes:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 65569.016
39 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 65569.017
40 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 65569.018
41 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 65569.019
42 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 65569.020
43 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 65569.021
44 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 65569.022
45 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 65569.023
46 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 65569.024
47 

f 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. Mr. McDermott is recognized. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Stark, for giving me another 5 minutes. 

I would like to go on with the question of China. In Section 301, 

the green technologies issue, there was a letter from us, 178 Democrats and three Republicans, asking you to look into what was 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 65569.025 Insert offset folio 26 here 65569.026
48 

going on there in terms of their green technology and wind turbines. 

It is my understanding you have decided to find a case on the 

wind turbine issue, and we are very much pleased by all of that. 

You said, in doing that, that you lack the tools and the resources 

to uncover all the evidence within the statutory time frame. 

Tell us what you need to make it possible for you to do this in 

other areas and in a more timely fashion because we want to work 

hand-in-glove with you to make these things work for our workers, 

for our economy. 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, first of all—and we do appreciate your 

letter, and as you know, a 301 petition was filed last fall regarding 

China’s industrial policies in a number of the energy areas. There 

were five different complaints alleged. 

The good news is we were able to successfully resolve the overwhelming majority of those by directly engaging and confronting 

China through our office at USTR, but also through JCCT. We did 

initiate consultations through the World Trade Organization on 

China’s, we think, illegal subsidy of projects in the wind area. We 

are beginning consultations there. 

I want to be careful in this environment in which I know at the 

same time this committee is meeting, your budget committee is 

meeting. And you are in a horribly constrained environment. And 

we are asking American families to tighten their belt and make decisions, and I know it is too easy sometimes for all of us to just 

come and say, give us more resources. 

Now, having said that, we have a very strong team at USTR, but 

we are not all lawyers. That 223 employees is everybody, from top 

to bottom. And if we are going to have the robust enforcement that 

we have committed ourselves and engaged on, one of the things we 

are going to be looking, perhaps, through this organization is how 

we can strengthen our resources there because we have great legal 

talent that understands the law and can prosecute cases. 

We are woefully short, frankly, on the investigative side, so in 

many cases, we have to rely on the resources of other agencies. 

Something as simple as when we take on a case with China—in 

the tires case that Congressman Levin mentioned, we exhausted 

our translation budget in three months on one case with China because of the amount of money we had to spend on translators. 

But we are working with other agencies to see if we can’t address 

that, and we will be happy to come back and visit with the committee on ways that will add the resources to make sure that we 

can stand up for our rights and America’s workers. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Can I ask further? We have talked a little 

about the Korean Free Trade Agreement, and I would like to hear 

from you what you think the positives impacts were. We are arguing or fussing about the timeline and when will it be up here and 

all that. When it happens, give us an idea what you anticipate will 

be the positive impacts on the economy. 

I understand you estimate $10 billion as opposed to $1 billion in 

Colombia, so it seems like a much bigger deal. But where is that 

going to happen in the economy? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, first I want—and I do appreciate that. 

The $10 billion number is one that the ITC estimates. We don’t do 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

the economic estimates. They take that away from us. We think 

that is a fairly conservative number because the way we capture 

trade data right now is much more heavily weighted to manufactured and exported goods. It is not as precise as it relates to services. 

We talked a lot about what this will do to level the playing field 

in the automotive sector. But this is going to be very good for all 

American manufacturers because we are going to see a reduction 

in those tariffs immediately, the elimination of most of them in the 

first 5 years, and 80 percent of our exports to Korea are in the 

manufactured goods sector. 

For those of you from farm states, this is a great win for us. Our 

beef exports are up 187 percent. We are now exporting almost $500 

million worth of beef in Korea. The tariffs on those are going to 

come down immediately. It is also going to help grains and soybeans and others, so those sectors are going to benefit as well. 

Where we really see an opportunity for us to gain market access 

is in Korea’s service market. It is a $560 billion market that we for 

the most part have had very little penetration. For the first time, 

we are going to have access to that. 

So we think the $10 billion number is compelling. The 70,000 

jobs, we actually believe that is a fairly conservative number. The 

other important thing, it gives us a foothold, again, in one of the 

most economically dynamic regions in Southeast Asia and strengthens what is already a very strong strategic partnership between 

the United States and South Korea. 

Chairman CAMP. Alright. Thank you. 

Mr. Tiberi is recognized. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador, for 

your leadership, and thank you for being here today. As you may 

remember, I am from Ohio, one of those Rust Belt states that you 

talked about. I know you have an Ohio connection as well. 

A quick question: The President has talked about doubling exports. Can we do that without passing any additional trade agreements? 

Ambassador KIRK. It would be difficult. And again, one of our 

passions for getting Korea and the others right, Mr. Tiberi, is to 

do that. Now—— 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Ambassador KIRK. I would tell you, to this point our exports are 

running at about 17 percent per annum clip, which is above the 15 

percent needed. But certainly if we can get not only Korea but Panama and Colombia and Trans-Pacific Partnership done, it will 

make that goal much more—— 

Mr. TIBERI. And increasing exports means increasing jobs, 

growing the economy. Correct? 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIBERI. You talked about cynicism, and you were absolutely 

right on. In my state, in my district, there is a ton of cynicism with 

respect to trade, and there is a disconnect between trade and exporting. And I appreciate your leadership. It has been absolutely 

fantastic. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

However, there is a farmer in this room from my district. His 

name is John Davis. And he is cynical as well with respect to 

Washington, D.C., and here is why. 

If you sat at his farm home in the fall of 2008 during the election, you would have seen a Candidate Obama talk about repealing 

NAFTA, how CAFTA was bad, how trade has cost jobs. If you 

would have sat in his farmhouse during the last election in 2010, 

you would have seen more money than I have ever seen spent in 

Central Ohio, as well as in the Cleveland market, in the Cincinnati 

market, about how trade has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in 

our state. Trade is the big bogeyman with respect to how Ohio’s 

economy has suffered. 

And so if you are John Davis sitting in this room and you want 

to hear about cynicism, how do we stop that cynicism when every 

2 years in an election we have people running for office making 

trade the bogeyman? Nobody, nobody, understands that you are 

going to—in my state, at least, other than people who work this 

every day who you talk to who maybe run companies or farm like 

John Davis, that we could, for instance, with Panama, by passing 

Panama, we can double agriculture exports from the United States, 

which means, again, more healthy farmers. 

But that is the minority. It is not the majority of Ohioans because all they see coming from leaders, like President Obama when 

he was campaigning in 2008, that trade costs jobs. That puts a tremendous amount of pressure on you and on me and everybody else 

up here when we try to tell them, no. Exporting and trade actually 

is going to grow our economy. 

And I think the President is disadvantaged when now he says, 

we are going to grow the economy by exporting—and, by the way, 

not talking about trade agreements—because he is one of many 

who has said trade has cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

As you know, Canada is Ohio’s largest trading partner and has 

created a ton of jobs in Ohio. And Canada is a great ally, not just 

a great trading partner. So how do you, as the point person, who 

has been dealt a very difficult hand and has handled it very professionally, help bridge that disconnect with the American people and 

the people in the Rust Belt that no, trade is good, trade can be very 

good, trade can actually grow our economy, exports mean trade, 

and it can actually create more jobs in America and create a better 

America for all of us and our kids? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, you heard Mr. Brady talk about my 

work as a mayor, and I always tried to govern myself with one 

principle, that the truth is always an option. And unfortunately, I 

don’t know that either one of your statements is wrong. 

And one thing we are doing is going to place like Cleveland, and 

going to Detroit, not just going to Dallas and Washington and others, and talking truthfully about what the promise of trade is. But 

it also means then that we have to have a less tin ear to those that 

say we need help. 

So one of the things you do—and I agree; I think it was Congressman McDermott—we do need to pass trade adjustment assistance. And we need to enforce our rights as we did in the tires case. 

And then we can get people to sit and listen. We can make the case 

and help them understand trade can help create jobs in Ohio. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

Mr. TIBERI. Well, Ambassador, I hope that your leadership—— 

Ambassador KIRK. Obviously, Rob Portman made a good case of 

it because he—— 

Mr. TIBERI. Yes. Well, I hope you use your leadership to help 

us get Colombia and Panama across the line as well because if we 

are indeed going to double our exports in the next several years, 

it is critical that we pass Colombia and pass Panama in the very 

near future. 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Kirk, before asking my question, I would like to 

comment briefly on the Japan Post insurance issue, which I know 

you are aware of, which is a matter of serious concern to many of 

us on the Committee. 

Members of both parties are watching closely to see how the 

Japan Post privatization is handled. This issue is very important 

to U.S. insurance companies. I know you have worked hard to encourage Japan to reform Japan Post in a manner consistent with 

its WTO obligations, and I am concerned that the privatization efforts to date may not fully be in compliance with its commitments 

as a member of the WTO. 

Mr. Ambassador, we support your efforts and those of your predecessors and hope that you can achieve a successful resolution to 

this issue soon. I will be submitting a question for the record pertaining to this important issue. 

But for my question today, I would like to come back a little bit 

closer to home, to some of the agreements that have already been 

touched on. I would like to hear your thoughts on the geopolitical 

or geostrategic aspects of two of our pending free trade agreements, 

Panama and Colombia. 

They are key U.S. allies in Central and South America where 

Venezuela’s anti-American president, Hugo Chavez, seeks to undermine U.S. interests and dominate the political landscape. Panama 

and Colombia are also key links in the north-south inter-American 

drug trade. By not implementing these agreements, we are allowing some in Latin America to question our commitment to the region. 

I am not alone in this belief. In May 2008, five former heads of 

the United States Southern Command wrote an open letter to Congress strongly urging support for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In light of the significant U.S. strategic interests in the region, I am concerned that the failure to move these agreements 

could precipitate a setback for U.S. influence in the region. 

Do you share these concerns? And if you do, would you mind 

elaborating on them for a moment? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, let me say that we have examined our 

relationship in Latin America from every standpoint. Now, I am always—I try to be guided by the reality that the only reason the Office of U.S. Trade Representative exists is because Congress mandated that there be someone that looked at these purely from sort 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

of a commercial standpoint, not a strategic one. That is why we are 

no longer housed in the State Department. 

Having said that, we fully understand the strategic importance 

of our relationship with Colombia. We applaud the work of both the 

Uribe administration and now the Santos administration in working with us on the drug interdiction areas. But that is why I think 

it is that much more important that we are willing to try to find 

bipartisan compromise to move forward on these agreements that 

stalled in May 2008. 

In Panama, everywhere I have gone from the Port of Baltimore 

to the Port of Orlando is getting ready and building infrastructure 

here to take advantage of the widening of the Panama Canal and 

the impact it can have on our port facilities here to handle greater 

transshipment of goods back and forth. 

So yes, we have examined all of those elements of the benefits 

of that. And I think it just creates a great imperative for us to 

come together on this other issue so we can allow these agreements 

to move forward. 

Mr. DAVIS. I guess I would like to go to a deeper level on it. The 

concern that I have—and I appreciate, as Mr. Tiberi noted, you 

have been dealt a difficult hand in dealing with this. You understand firsthand the issues of the benefits of trade. 

But when we talk about raising the issues of the ILO standards, 

we talk about various perspectives, out of concern for the Colombians, let alone the Panamanians, we have had their militaries 

come and plead with us, militaries across Central America and the 

Colombians, to bring these agreements about because of their internal security issues. 

And labor leaders in Colombia have come and pleaded to have 

us bring this forth. And those would have are strong organized 

labor advocates in the Democratic caucus have chosen to ignore the 

very voices that they say they are trying to help. 

And I guess my concern is, considering that Colombia is more in 

compliance, as I understand it, with these ILO guidelines than we 

are, don’t you think that this rhetoric is a little bit—not yours— 

but a little bit dissonant? That we need to actually agree that this 

needs to move forward? It needs to move forward urgently both for 

economic and national security concerns? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, we want to address all of the outstanding concerns. I am not going to comment on your interpretation of the Democratic members of this committee’s understanding 

of those ILO commitments. 

And I would say—and I appreciate Mr. Tiberi’s concerns. But I 

enjoy the work that I have, and I think the President has demonstrated great courage and leadership in articulating to the American public how we can win, but we can win by having trade agreements that fairly reflect our values, that open up markets, that are 

enforceable. And if we can work in a manner to get those done, 

then I think we will get to a place that we are not having this conversation next year. 

But the longer we want to sit and try to decide which party is 

to blame for not moving it forward, that is how you end up with 

these agreements being stalled for 4 years. And so I think it is time 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

to look. Let’s find common ground. Let’s stop pointing fingers at 

one another and figure out a way to move these forward. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Before I recognize Mr. Lewis for 

5 minutes, after Mr. Lewis we will go to 3 minutes of questioning. 

I know the Ambassador has to leave at 12:30, and I want to give 

everybody an opportunity to ask a question of you. 

So with that, I will recognize Mr. Lewis for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, I want to thank you for being here today, and thank you for 

your service. 

We have heard a great deal about delay. Wait. Is it better to 

rush and get an agreement, or to wait and get it right? Now, Mr. 

Ambassador, you know I am very concerned about the issue of 

human rights, workers’ rights, environmental issues. Some of these 

concerns and issues are long-seated problems in Colombia. 

You know, it is all right to talk the talk, but sometimes we need 

people to walk the walk. And I am not sure that the leaders, even 

the new leaders, are prepared to walk the walk. There are too 

many killings, too many violations of human rights, too many people disappearing. 

And as you said, and I agree with you, our trade agreements, our 

trade policies, should reflect our core values. Could you just elaborate? What are you going to do to see that the people in Colombia 

do the right thing? As someone said before, the time is always right 

to do right, and if we don’t stand for something, we will fall for 

anything. 

Ambassador KIRK. Congressman, thank you for your question. 

Thank you for your service. You are a hero to so many of us who 

value and respect human rights, and we appreciate your advocacy 

and leadership on that. 

I will say what I have said to others. We think that there has 

to be a way for us to respect the sense of urgency that America 

take advantage of these opportunities to conclude these free trade 

agreements so we can say to that farmer, here is an opportunity 

for you to grow your business. We can say to our manufacturers. 

But we have to keep faith with the American people that want 

us to have a trade policy that reflects those values. And so, again, 

my simple answer is we believe we have to be responsive to both, 

and we can do so. 

I know you have spent years studying and devoted to the issue 

of human rights, labor rights in Colombia. I would tell you we are 

greatly encouraged with not only the rhetoric but the actions we 

have seen of the Santos administration, and that is part of what 

is driving the President to encourage us to intensify our negotiations. 

I know for some there is still an unacceptable level of violence. 

But we do believe, not only under the current Administration but 

under previous Administrations, Colombia has made great strides. 

We think we can build on that and work with the new Administration, work with those of you on the committee on both sides, and 

come up with the path forward that allows us to address their 

sense of urgency but your concerns about making sure we do so in 

a manner that takes care and respects the rights of those workers. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t take my 5 minutes. I think I took about three. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Reichert is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. I have enjoyed working with you, and 

you do enjoy your job, I have noticed that, although it is a tough 

one. 

The bottom line is that we want to sell American, and that is 

really the message. And I think you are delivering that message 

loud and clear. I am pleased to be a part of the Export Council initiative with Mr. Tiberi and yourself and Secretary Locke. And the 

goal, as I understand it, so far in the two meetings we have had 

is to create two million jobs by doubling exports. 

As I have said in some previous trade hearings, we haven’t done 

that, doubled exports, since 1995, between the period of 1995 

through 2007, and during that period of time, we passed nine trade 

agreements. 

So one of the first questions I was going to ask is whether or not 

you thought that passing the Korean Free Trade Agreement, or not 

passing, would impact the doubling exports initiative. And your answer was, it would be difficult. 

So I also want to say that I really appreciate your recognizing 

right up front Washington State’s issues as far as Canada attracting new customers into their ports and not into the Port of Seattle 

and Port of Tacoma when we first visited, and the importance of 

Korea to Washington State, as Korea is its fourth largest trading 

partner. 

So what will be the impact of further delays in passing the Korean agreement through Congress? What do you think they might 

have on meeting that the Export Initiative’s goals? And do you believe, as I and many colleagues on both sides of the aisle do, that 

we will lose hundreds of thousands of American jobs if the E.U. implements its agreement with Korea before we pass ours? And connected with that, we know that China has already increased its exports—or imports to Colombia by over 200 percent. We are losing 

market share. 

If that is true, we are going to lose thousands of jobs with these 

two things happening. Doesn’t the same hold true with Colombia 

and Panama? 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes. First of all, Congressman, thank you for 

hosting us during the road show with the ASEAN ministers when 

we were in Washington. Thanks for working with us on the Export 

Council. 

And in the interest of time, the answer to all your questions is 

yes. I would add one thing, briefly. When we look at Korea, we 

tend to look at the 70,000 jobs. It is important to note 4 years ago 

we were the number one exporter in the Korean market. Today we 

are number four and sinking fast. 

So there are two ways to look at this. You can look at this and 

say, we pass it, we have the opportunity to reap the benefit of 

those 70,000 jobs. If we don’t pass the Korea Free Trade Agreement, we put at risk 270,000 jobs that are now tied to all that we 

export to Korea. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

And I would say to those of you concerned about Panama and 

Colombia, I think it is a bit easy to look at Korea because it is $10 

billion. From our Administration—I can certainly speak for me— 

every job is important. So whether Panama is a billion-dollar market or Colombia is a $2 billion market, they represent opportunities 

for some small business. And that is why I think it is important 

we find a way to bridge our differences to move forward on those 

as well. 

Chairman CAMP. Alright. Thank you. 

Dr. Boustany is recognized. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Kirk, 

I am glad we finally have you in front of our committee, and so 

welcome. 

Look, I appreciate the work done on the South Korean Free 

Trade Agreement. I know it is going to help workers. It is going 

to help us grow jobs and business. But I can’t pass up this opportunity to say that rice, which is very important to my state in Louisiana, was excluded. 

We know no trade agreement is perfect. But I do believe procrastination really hurts us from a standpoint of prestige, credibility, and leverage. So it is time to move forward on this agreement. 

By contrast, if we look at Colombia, our commodities, including 

rice, are included in this agreement, and we have seen amazing 

statistics whereby U.S. exports of commodities have plummeted 

just over the past year or two because we have not moved forward 

and other countries are moving forward with Colombia and free 

trade agreements. 

So I hope that we will get to the point where we stop hurting 

our farmers and rural communities and get moving on these because it is going to help us export our commodities going forward. 

I want to raise an issue. You and the President have talked extensively over the past 2 years about enforcement as a very important part of your trade policy. I have a mid-sized Louisiana company that cannot get payments on nearly $3.7 million in business 

with China, products that they sold to China. 

I believe having a robust bilateral investment treaty with China 

is imperative. Other countries are doing this. If we are going to regain a competitive footing and help especially small and mid-sized 

firms, as the President has expressed interest in doing, we need a 

robust dispute settlement mechanism to handle this. And I think 

we are falling behind. 

So what is the delay on the part of the Administration in moving 

forward in getting a bilateral investment treaty specifically with 

China? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, first of all, Congressman, thank you for 

your comments about agriculture. And parenthetically, I will tell 

you this year America’s exports were up dramatically, almost $106 

billion, according to USDA. They are forecasting that 2011 could be 

our highest year ever. We may reach as high as $114 billion, and 

that is extremely important to all of America’s farmers and their 

workers and families. And we will be looking to try to address some 

of your concerns about rice within TPP and others. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

With respect to enforcement, we are trying to do two things with 

China. We are seeking a BIT with China. It would be helpful. We 

have had four negotiating rounds thus far. We are moving on parallel tracks because, one, we had already begun a process to review 

our BIT model because we believed it needed updating; it hadn’t 

been revised in almost 10 years. 

We are hopefully at the very end stages of that. We have had extensive consultations with our committees of jurisdiction, the business community, and there are only just a couple of issues that remain to be resolved. But we are going to try to get that work concluded as soon as possible as well, and then we can go forward, not 

only with hopefully concluding our BIT with China, but with India 

as well. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. To you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, I want to weigh in, as Mr. Davis did, on the 

issue of Japan Post. It is a very important issue to my constituency, and we have gone back and forth on that with USTR over a 

number of years. And I hope that you are going to continue to vigorously pursue that issue in terms of reform. 

Let me just, if I can, Mr. Ambassador, take us to an issue that 

I think is important here. Our friends on the other side suggested 

repeatedly that there have been these delays that we have constructed into these FTAs. In many ways, the easiest bilateral was 

Panama, and the problem was the complication that was offered by 

the assembly speaker, who murdered, I believe, an American soldier, who was alleged to have murdered an American soldier. 

The Bush Administration correctly pulled back on that bilateral 

because of that human rights violation. So we can’t say that we are 

going to, as Mr. Lewis pointed out, dismiss certain bad behavior 

with human rights if it is a Republican president, and then insist 

that human rights ought not to be a consideration if it is a Democratic president. And I think that is the point that Mr. Lewis and 

I were trying to shop with you. 

But could you give us an update on where we are with the Panama bilateral, and what has happened with domestic politics there 

that might ensure an easier path to completion? 

Ambassador KIRK. I will try to. And thank you for your comment. You are correct in noting that one of the reasons Panama 

stalled was the complication of I think it was the head of their assembly that had been convicted in a court in Florida, in fact, of 

murdering a U.S. soldier. And the Bush Administration wisely 

said, we aren’t going to do business with you. 

After that person was removed from office, we began to engage 

Panama on ways we could address the outstanding issues we had 

presented to them. Then we had the intervening complications of 

the OECD designated Panama as a tax haven. 

And we were engaged with the previous Administration, and we 

met with them in the Summit of the Americas. Mr. McDermott, in 

fact, was there, and others. And that Administration told us, frankly, if you are telling us that we are going to have to put in place 

a tax information exchange agreement, we are not sure that we 

want this deal. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

But the bottom line is we were able to progress beyond that. We 

have a new Administration in place. They do value this relationship as we do. We have made great progress on a number of the 

issues on labor. They have been working with Treasury to address 

the tax issues. 

I do understand they have initialed the tax information exchange 

agreement. There is some legislation that needs to be passed to address a corollary issue relating to bearer shares. But frankly, we 

are making very good progress with Panama, and we will be working with them on the coming months to see if we can’t address 

those outstanding issues. 

Mr. NEAL. Well, thank you, Mr. Ambassador. The point that I 

think that also needs to be raised, that this committee’s history, 

certainly in the 22 years that I have been a member, has been 

largely bipartisan. I think that as we try to find a path forward on 

these issues with these bilaterals that are hanging out there, we 

really want to ensure that the language that is offered here makes 

certain that going forward would be a bipartisan undertaking. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Heller. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ambassador, 

thank you for being here. Appreciate your spending some time and 

effort and energy in this committee with us. 

From a state that is struggling, Mr. Ambassador [sic], with almost 15 percent unemployment, we talk about these free trade 

agreements and their impact and what they would mean to a state 

like Nevada. Clearly they are incredibly important. In fact, trade, 

as you probably well know, has certainly helped Nevada. 

Since its inception in 1864 to the year 2000, we went obviously from zero trade to $1.5 billion. But then from year 2000 to the year 

2008, it went from a billion and a half to almost 6.2 billion, an increase of 266 percent in just 9 years. 

Now, the President has challenged all of us to double exports in 

the next 5 years. I would argue that Nevada has already done this. 

From 2004 to 2008, our exports jumped 110 percent. And we did 

this by taking valuing of fast-developing markets, helping Nevada 

companies access these markets such as China. 

In 2000, China was Nevada’s 24th largest export market. In 

2008, it was our third largest. Similar examples with India, from 

28th in 2000 to 17th, or Brazil from 26th to 20th. So trade has always been very, very important for a state like Nevada, and clearly, as we move forward with this economy, trade is going to play 

a big part in picking this state up. 

Mr. Boustany talks about rice, and rice is important in Louisiana. And mining is very important in Nevada. And I would like 

to share a real story. We have some miners here in the building, 

and some of their concerns are with pending free trade agreements. 

For example, in Panama, their concern is that they have taken 

a lead based on encouragement from the government that there 

will soon be a free trade agreement; but in their efforts to mine and 

do the research and development which they are doing, what they 

are finding is that the corruption in the government in Panama 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

right now is making it very, very difficult for them to make a profit 

even though the ore, the mineral they are able to find, has been 

very good. 

And a lot of these international or national mining companies, of 

course, come out of the State of Nevada. And sharing their concern 

with me, I guess I will put it in your lap. How would you address 

this? 

I mean, they pay the licensing. They pay the fees. But then they 

pay the fines. They have a corrupt government that they have to 

make under-the-table payments, and it is making it very, very difficult for them, obviously, and their shareholders to produce or to 

make a profit. 

How would you respond to that, and in light of perhaps a Panama Free Trade Agreement coming through, be able to give them 

some encouragement? 

Ambassador KIRK. One, I would want to follow up and get more 

specifics on that. Secondly, I wasn’t much of a lawyer, but the lawyer I was would tell you that what you framed to me was a hypothetical because American companies don’t pay bribes because that 

would be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So first 

of all, we are not going to put anybody—— 

Mr. HELLER. It is tough out there. It is tough out there. 

Ambassador KIRK.—at risk of that. But I don’t mean to make 

light of it. 

Mr. HELLER. I understand. I understand. 

Ambassador KIRK. If we could maybe have a conversation afterwards, I could learn a little more about that. 

But I would say one of the values of all of these free trade agreements—and, for example, why we want Russia in the WTO, and 

China—is then we do have them in a legal rules-based environment that we can address some of these issues. 

But I will be happy to follow up with you. And I would say—— 

Mr. HELLER. I would appreciate that. 

Ambassador KIRK.—but we don’t talk enough about travel as a 

part of our exports. And as Congressman Reichert can tell you, on 

our Export Promotion Council, that is one element that we are 

looking at. And since I was in your great state for the CEC Council, 

it is refreshing to see that the tourism and the dollars that those 

foreign businesses bring—— 

Mr. HELLER. It is helpful. 

Ambassador KIRK.—are helping to bring Nevada back. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman—thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you very much. And thanks for being here today. 

Mr. HERGER. [Presiding.] Thank you. And I do appreciate President Martinelli’s effort both to resolve outstanding issues so we can 

move forward on Panama as well as create a business climate that 

is welcoming for foreign investment as well. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Roskam. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, thanks 

for your time today. 

Ambassador, earlier you said that the Administration was going 

to move forward on the Korean Free Trade Agreement in a matter 

of weeks. That sounds like a processed answer, and a lot of thought 

was given to that. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

Is that a matter of weeks that can mean months, or is that a 

matter of weeks, the common understanding of weeks, that is, less 

than a month? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, I went to public schools in Texas. But 

for us, weeks means weeks. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Good. So less than 30 days we can expect that? 

Ambassador KIRK. We are—listen. We are trying to finalize the 

text. As you know, we are operating under trade promotion authority, and so there is a fairly structured process by which we submit 

this to this committee and Finance, and you began your, I think, 

mock hearings on those. 

We very much are concerned, as you are, that we want to get 

this agreement before the Congress and passed so that at least we 

aren’t putting our exporters in a competitive disadvantage. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Great. But just so that I am clear, the common 

understanding of weeks is less than a month. And that is what 

really we are looking at. Is that right? 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Great. How about Colombia? 

Ambassador KIRK. You may have missed my introductory remarks. But the President, just as he did last year in directing us 

to see if we couldn’t conclude our negotiations on Korea, has directed us to intensify our engagement with Colombia so that we 

can resolve those outstanding issues this year. 

And we have had, I think, a fairly exhaustive discussion of the 

sense of urgency and the sense of concern from members on both 

sides. And we are going to find some way to find some common 

ground that will allow us to address those and move forward. 

We will send a team to Colombia next week. The vice president 

was here. Two weeks ago he met with myself, members of the Administration, the Secretary of State. We are encouraged with their 

new leadership. We hear your message. We are going to move forward as quickly but thoughtfully as we can. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Turning just briefly to China, I want to highlight 

an experience in a nutshell. And I will follow up with you with a 

letter, Ambassador. A corporation in my district, Fellows Manufacturing, is involved in essentially a nightmare scenario with a joint 

venture that has gone south. And they have not been able to get 

the legal remedies that they deserve. 

I think it is a very, very serious example of manipulations on the 

part of some in China that are taking advantage of an incredibly 

significant manufacturer in the Chicago area. Because our time is 

truncated, I won’t belabor the point. But I did want to highlight it 

because I think it is an area where the Administration and Congress can work forthrightly to advocate and defend American manufacturers who in some cases, and in this case, a quick reading of 

this story, it sounds like the wild west. 

So I know you don’t have the benefit of the details, but I will follow up and get these to you for your consideration. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. I inadvertently recognized a member 

who was not here at the gavel at the outset, so in fairness, would 

like to recognize Mr. Rangel. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is just a great 

pleasure to see you here, and even a greater pleasure to hear about 

the progress that is being made with our dear friends in Korea. I 

first went there in 1950 under different circumstances, but I cannot 

believe the tremendous advancement that they have made economically and in terms of democratic principles. 

Quite frankly, it is much more difficult to alter agreements that 

already have been made rather than be involved in the first instance of discussion. You have done a fantastic job and I am so 

pleased to hear that. 

You know better than most people that we have reached a point, 

due in part to high unemployment, that when you say trade, people 

believe you are selling out the ‘‘Made in the USA,’’ and you are 

transferring jobs across. And of course, whether Republican or 

Democrat, business or labor, I don’t think we do a good job in identifying exactly where is the job creation. 

It just seems to me, as a former mayor, that if you are selling 

anything, the bottom line is, what is in it for me, Jack? And that 

is how you sell things. That is what politicians do. 

So if you had asked me as to what this does for America, I would 

relate so closely to Detroit as well as Nevada and the pain that we 

feel as Americans. When you see this type of pain, you know if it 

is good for Detroit, it is good for us. And you have really overcome 

a big obstacle. 

But what about the rest of the jobs, whether in services or agriculture? Why don’t members, Republican and Democrats, come and 

say, Rangel, we need that bill; it is going to help us to have jobs? 

I don’t hear that type of thing. I hear it from the Chamber of Commerce. I hear it from the Republicans. I hear it from business people, and certainly those that have a concern about making America 

great because we have to trade in order to survive. 

But how do you reach out to see what jobs are going to be created? Of course, if they are for New York, that would be great. But 

if they are not, they should be good for the country. I don’t get that 

response on trade. 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, Mr.—forgive me, Mr. Chairman—Congressman Rangel, thank you for your kind words. Thank you for 

your service to our country. And one, we would love nothing more 

than to work with you, with the members, to provide you that data. 

Again, we are reasonably small. But I can tell you, in the case, 

we can get data for every member, every district, at least to the 

degree we have collected what every one of these free trade agreements means in your communities. 

And I can tell you, in the case of Korea, there is not a member 

here that does not have at least tens of thousands of workers that 

won’t be benefitted from our passing this agreement. Some may be 

in manufacturing. Some may be in the services and insurance. 

Some may be in agriculture. Some may be those small businesses. 

We tend to overlook the fact that many of the beneficiaries of trade 

are those small businesses who are suppliers to either Caterpillar 

or Chrysler or Ford, and they may not even realize that they are 

benefitting from trade. 

But we would welcome the opportunity to sit down with any 

member and at least give you the best data that we have. And then 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

hopefully you can help educate us on what some of those opportunities are. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. ‘‘Kamsa Hamnida’’, 

as they say. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Gerlach. 

Mr. GERLACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, 

thank you for testifying today. 

Whenever you talk about trade in Pennsylvania, the first word 

that comes up is China. Everybody is so concerned about the current trade policy, or lack of trade policy, that we have relative to 

that growing economy. And we have heard from so many different 

businesses and entrepreneurs in Pennsylvania that the currency 

manipulation problem is one that is greatly impacting adversely 

their ability to trade their products in China and have a fair price 

for a Chinese product here in the United States. 

In the testimony you shared with the committee before you started at 10:00 a.m., you have a paragraph here that says, ‘‘Engagement with China, including through the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, has been very productive, showing results in addressing indigenous innovation policies, improving intellectual 

property rights, including securing greater use of legal software.’’ 

That is wonderful progress and we applaud you for that. But 

there was no mention of the currency manipulation problem that 

continues to be such a problem. 

So my question to you is, first of all, what was the specific discussion, if you know, between President Hu and President Obama 

when they met recently on this issue? And what can you tell me 

the specific plan is of the Administration to try to get this currency 

manipulation problem resolved once and for all? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, I appreciate your concerns about China. 

It is a complex but long-term and extraordinary opportunity for 

America’s businesses and exports, just as they are trying to move 

600 million people from an agrarian society to one in which they 

can have a need for and afford the types of products, services, 

goods produced in this country. So first of all, we think it is worth 

the time and effort. 

Secondly, my remarks were deliberately drafted to reflect those 

areas that USTR can most impact. And I hope I don’t sound evasive, but as you know, our Secretary of the Treasury has the responsibility to address the currency issue, and I know he has spoken on that. And so I don’t want to say anything that attracts or 

detracts from the stance that Secretary Geithner has enumerated 

on that. 

I will tell you that in every occasion that President Obama has 

engaged President Hu—and it is instructive to note we have progressed to a point where it was a big deal 10, 15 years ago that 

an American president entertained his Chinese counterpart once in 

a term. President Obama and President Hu have now had eight 

face-to-face meetings. When you include G20, G8, every four, the 

President does address the issue of China allowing its currency to 

flow to national norm. So we do that. 

But our work at USTR is to make sure we are responsive to 

those other concerns. You have heard other members talk about 

their concerns about intellectual property rights, piracy, indigenous 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

innovation, and that is where we think we can add the most value, 

is that while the currency issue is important, what we hear from 

small businesses is their fear of putting a product in China and, 

just frankly, having stolen it. We hear businesses who are there 

that are concerned about their indigenous innovation policies. 

So we think the time and energy we spend on those areas can 

be just as important to your businesses as addressing the currency 

issue. 

Mr. GERLACH. The House last session, late in the session, did 

pass a bill—— 

Chairman CAMP. [Presiding.] I am afraid the gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Mr. GERLACH. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Buchanan is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador, I appreciate you being here today. And I share, I 

think, the intensity we just talked for a couple of minutes your 

views just as much on doing what is best for Americans and America and American companies. We need to continue to fight for them 

in terms of all the trade agreements. 

I do want to say I applaud the effort that you guys have moved 

forward on Korea. I think that is very important. But let me mention to you as it relates to my district, and really the State of Florida. We have 14 ports in Florida, but I have a port in our area, 

Port Manatee. It is the closest port to the Panama Canal. 

It is something that we have been working on for a lot of years. 

They are doubling the capacity in terms of Panama. I have been 

down there, have had the Ambassador in our area. We have met 

with the President. And we have had delegations from the port to 

go down there because, again, they are doubling the capacity. I 

think they are spending $5 billion in terms of improvements in 

that area. 

I am very concerned that these things go on for 4 years. You 

mentioned you have been in business. I have been in business. I 

have been in complicated deals before, maybe not as complicated 

as this, but I am very concerned when these things run on. There 

is the saying that you can’t manage it if you can’t measure it. 

And I think that is what we are talking about, is having some 

reasonable time frames, because it is affecting us in terms of our 

jobs. We have got 20,000 good-paying jobs, directly and indirectly, 

with our port. We think we can double that. But here we are. We 

have been waiting 6 months, 9 months, some as long as 2 or 3 

years. 

It seems to me at some point you can’t get the perfect deal. You 

get as much as you can get done, my experience 80, 90 percent, and 

then we need to move on. But I think it is imperative that Panama 

and Colombia, we get those off the table because to me it is a lot 

about politics. And if we don’t do something now, we are going to 

run into more politics coming up here shortly. So we need to get 

that done. So I just want to get your comment. 

And the second thing, I do share a lot of concern about China 

and a lot of issues with China. But what happens, because we can’t 

move forward here, we don’t get a chance to get to the China disVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 065569 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\65569.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65569

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

cussion. So it is imperative we get this done in the next six months, 

I think, for the sake of the country, Florida, as well as my district. 

Chairman CAMP. Well, thank you. The other point is, Panama 

was started in 2004, and here we are in 2011. After 7 years the 

law declares you legally dead, and we don’t want Panama to die. 

We want it to keep going. 

So with that, I would recognize Mr. Doggett for 3 minutes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is always good to see a fellow from Austin do so good and do 

so much important work on the world stage. I appreciate your service, Ambassador. 

I voted, as a member of this committee, for most of the trade 

agreements that have come here, and hope to vote for more. If we 

were looking at it solely in terms of trade impact, the three agreements we have been discussing would be very easy to support. 

These Bush/Cheney trade proposals are very much at the margins. Even the Korea agreement, much larger than the other two, 

was described by the International Trade Commission as having a 

probable negligible impact on output and employment in the 

United States, as you know, in its study. 

But there is much more at stake, and particularly in Panama, 

than just trade. Panama has made a name for itself not only as a 

place of a canal, but as one of the leading tax havens in the entire 

world. It has been an equal opportunity offender. It didn’t discriminate against us. It wouldn’t cooperate on taxes with anyone. 

As recently as 4 months ago, the OECD outlined a long list of 

deficiencies in Panama’s legal framework. They have refused, about 

as much as any country in the world, to cooperate anywhere on 

taxes. 

You have indicated you are getting close to being ready to submit 

this agreement. Can you assure us that before you do so, that Panama will have provided full compliance in making all the necessary 

changes to correct these deficiencies and to fully implement them? 

It appears that this trade agreement is about the only thing we 

have to ensure they do what they should have done many years 

ago. 

Ambassador KIRK. Congressman, I can tell you that we have 

worked with the Panamanians. We made it very clear last year 

that it was, frankly, their call to make, that if they did not choose 

to engage us on the issue of addressing the tax questions, then we 

would accept that. 

I would say that we have engaged them. Treasury has taken the 

lead, so I want to be careful because you asked a fairly precise 

question. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Okay. 

Ambassador KIRK. I can tell you we have had very good engagement with the Panamanians under the new Administration—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. I appreciate that. Given the short time, I will 

just say, just as there have been 7 years in which it could be declared legally dead, there has been 7 years for Panama to fully implement and make the changes necessary to stop being a tax 

haven. It hasn’t done it, and that remains a big concern to me in 

looking at that agreement. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
64 

You and President Obama have spoken eloquently of the need to 

make significant changes in our trade policy, and to recognize that 

it is not just about moving widgets across borders, it is a broader 

issue that encompasses the environment and working standards. 

I have some concerns. Mr. Lewis indicated that the performance 

has not been quite up to the standards of the speeches, specifically 

on the question of opening up the process and involving more public representatives in the way our trade policy is developed. 

You had Lisa Garcia come and testify at our committee almost 

2 years ago. She could not identify any example where having public representation on these trade advisory committees had caused 

harm, as some have alleged in trying to block increased public representation. 

I wrote you shortly after that, and I gather you and your staff, 

now having had almost 2 years, are unable to identify any substantive experience where having the public involved in this process through representations of environmental representatives or 

health representatives has caused a problem. Have you found any 

such problem in the history of USTR? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, I don’t—— 

Chairman CAMP. The time is expired. So if you could just briefly 

answer. 

Ambassador KIRK. I think we have submitted it. And if we 

didn’t get it to you this morning, we did get your letter and we 

have submitted an answer. President Obama is committed, not just 

in trade policy, to opening up the advisory process in our government to all Americans. 

And we have done our best to strike that balance between the 

statutory mandates we get from Congress in the composition of our 

technical advisory committees, but in opening it up to other voices 

as well. And I think—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. And you have found no problem, have you? 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Thank you. You can submit an answer in writing, Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Just a yes or no would be helpful. 

Ambassador KIRK. Let me get back thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador, 

for your service. 

As we have heard, obviously the U.S. agriculture sector is a vibrant economic engine that contributes significantly to our export 

efforts. We also know that there are some non-tariff trade barriers 

that do exist around the world, and that these actually keep United 

States’ farmers from meeting the demands, the global demands, 

that we also know exist. 

And so as we pursue science-based regulatory efforts, we know 

that perhaps some of our trading partners are not. And we know 

that we have got very innovative producers here. Can you tell me 

what USTR is doing to make sure that our trading partners are 

truly focusing on science-based standards as a regulatory effort 

rather than more political results or even efforts? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, we have a good story here, Mr. Smith. 

And in the interest of time, if I could, we do two things. One, for 

the reasons you articulated, one report that you mandate we deVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 065569 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\65569.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65569

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 

liver to you is what is called a 301 report in that we have to tell 

you how our other partners are complying, say, for example, in intellectual property. 

I made the decision when we came in the office that that was 

good enough. We now issue a similar report on, specifically, the 

sanitary and phytosanitary standards. We will be submitting that 

to you soon. That is one thing. 

But secondly, we have pursued in every forum compliance with 

sound scientific standards, and it has helped us. We, for example, 

settled a longstanding case with the European Union on their excluding our beef. We are now shipping 20,000 metric tons, almost 

$250 million, into that market. 

After we had the H1N1 scare, almost 28 economies cut off U.S. 

pork exports. We are back in, I think, all of those economies but 

one. We have dealt with everything from poultry in Russia to beef 

in China. But it is one of our highest priorities, and we would welcome your thoughts on how we can perhaps even do better. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. And Mr. Chairman, I do have some other questions that I will submit for the 

record. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Mr. Schock is recognized. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here, and I look forward 

to working with you on these issues, which are important to our 

country and even more so to my district, the issues of trade. 

I guess, to be very frank with you, it is a little frustrating to hear 

the talk about these groups that have labor concerns—not that people don’t have legitimate labor concerns, but who the groups are 

and who the Administration truly is working with and looking to 

for signoff on the issues of labor concerns. Let me give you an example. 

I have a very large UAW presence in my district. They manufacture heavy equipment that would benefit, that right now is put at 

a competitive disadvantage when doing business in Latin America. 

I can assure you those labor workers would support having a level 

playing field in our country to do business in these countries. 

When I traveled to Panama and Colombia a year and a half ago 

with then-Majority Leader Hoyer, we met with labor unions in Colombia who, interestingly, the trade groups, who I thought would 

be opposed, were actually in support of these agreements. But it 

was actually the public sector unions—the teachers, the garbage 

collectors—who were opposed to trade, not because they were concerned about human rights, but simply for political reasons. 

There had been significant progress made then, and continues to 

be. President Uribe went through, line item by line item, the work 

that he had done. The ILO just last year removed Colombia from 

its labor watch list. Since then, 14 Colombian labor union leaders 

representing 79,000 of Colombia’s workers have signed off in support of the agreement. 

The president of the United Workers Confederation in Colombia 

stated that, ‘‘Never in the history of Colombia have we achieved 

that much progress,’’ and views it as satisfactory and supports the 

agreement. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
66 

So I guess I am looking for some specificity on who are we—because we are not going to get complete agreement. And many of the 

same labor issues that we had with Peru were satisfied with the 

May 10 agreement, which is what is in the current Panama and 

Colombia agreements. And Peru was passed with strong bipartisan 

support. There were those who opposed it, but it got strong bipartisan support. 

So if we have those same labor and environmental concerns, the 

same language, in Panama and Colombia, and the Administration 

is saying, wait, who are we looking to specifically to sign off? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, first of all, I don’t know that we are 

looking for any one group to sign off. And we have made it plain: 

no one has a veto over the Obama Administration’s trade policy 

save the President. But we listen to all voices, just as we did on 

Korea. 

I have met with members of this body that have expressed concern. We have labor advisory committees. We have statutorily mandated technical and public advisory committees. I do as you have 

recommended. When I have come to Illinois or have gone to Washington, I sit down and meet with the workers themselves. I don’t 

just listen to their representatives in Washington. 

We have published a notice in the Federal Register. We have gotten all those comments. We take all of that information, and then 

we try to come up with the best decision. Just as we did in the case 

of Korea is what we want to do here. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Crowley is recognized. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Ambassador, welcome once again. It is good to see you again, and thank 

you for your hard work. I know sometimes it feels as though it is 

a thankless job, but you have done some remarkable work as it 

pertains to the Korean Free Trade Agreement, making the agreement a better agreement for the U.S. 

I want to thank Mr. Levin as well as Mr. Camp for their work 

and engagement with you in your office in making that agreement 

a better agreement. I know there is work to be done on Colombia 

and Panama, particularly on the ground in Colombia as it pertains 

to human rights and to the rule of law there. And I know that your 

engagement over these next months will have an impact in making 

that agreement a better agreement as well. I look forward to that. 

But one country that I want to look at, if I could, just divert for 

a moment, is India. I have once again assumed the chairmanship 

of the India caucus here in the House, as co-chairman along with 

Ed Royce. And I know that Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke is 

in India right now working on a trade mission, seeking opportunities for U.S. companies to help expand our opportunities for exports 

to India. 

But one issue which I have been interested in for a very long 

time is the investment caps in the Indian insurance industry. Right 

now, American companies can only own up to 26 percent of the 

value of an insurance company within India, even though we have 

been, I have been working to increase that number to 49 percent. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 

What is the status as you know on that issue, and what more 

can be done to ensure that our service companies can export their 

services on a more level playing field? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, I appreciate your leadership on the Indian subcommittee. And this, we spend so much time on China, 

sometimes we neglect the opportunities, the growth markets and 

needs in India and Africa as well. 

As you know, President Obama led an export mission to India as 

part of his Southeast Asia trip last year. And I will be honest: We 

have been extraordinarily frustrated at the slow pace of opening 

that market. We have a number of engagements with India. 

I lead a trade policy forum in which we have raised these issues 

of them opening their economy for more. This would be a case that 

when we can finish our BIT review, we are also looking to perhaps 

get India to sign a bilateral investment treaty which would remove 

those caps, not only in insurance, but liberalize their markets 

across the board. 

There is great opportunity for Americans in the retail, in the agriculture, in the manufacturing sector. Some of this we are trying 

to address if we can get, frankly, the right balance in a Doha 

Round. The rest of it we are going to continue to see if we can’t 

find the right buttons to push in our bilateral engagement. 

Mr. CROWLEY. As you see, my time has run out, Mr. Ambassador, I thank you and the Chairman for the opportunity. I do have 

other additional questions that I will submit to the Ambassador, 

and I look forward to your response, especially as it pertains to the 

TPP. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Lee is recognized. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Ambassador, I won’t dwell on this subject too long, but 

I think it is worth repeating, and that is the issue of jobs. We are 

sitting on over 9 percent unemployment again, and why I think 

Congress gets such a bad name is we don’t listen to the American 

people. 

I think you have—I have heard you pretty loud and clear, and 

also even Ranking Member Levin when he was in Colombia, that 

in Colombia we have made improvements. And your belief is that 

all three of these trade agreements will create jobs here in the 

United States. 

Yet we have sat for 7 years. And I know you are trying to move 

things along, but it worries me when we keep saying weeks, and 

I went back and I—you look at some of these timelines. The talk 

and the rhetoric that we have here, I think the American people 

are tired of it. And this should be a nonpartisan issue. This is 

about putting people back to work in this country. 

To shift, then, to another point because I think all three of these 

will put people back to work, and that is really what our job is, is 

to help people in this country. But another area of mine, and I 

came from manufacturing, and that is the issue of IP and the 

issues surrounding China. 

And we all want to increase our trade there. But China has been 

using indigenous innovation policy for quite a while, and it is their 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
68 

opportunity to circumvent international trade rules and basically 

compel American companies to hand over their IPR. 

And I know from your point just recently—we just had the meeting of the JCCT. I was hoping that you could go into some specific 

metrics that the Administration has put forward to help remedy 

the situation. 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, one of—and again, I want to make it 

plain. We are going to have to be constantly vigilant with China, 

Congressman. But one of our victories this time was getting them 

to agree to de-link the IPR issue from indigenous innovative. 

This has been one of the highest concerns to our business community in terms of China’s efforts to try to have us transfer technology in order to bid on that. But we were able to successfully, between JCCT and then the followup engagement with President Hu 

and President Obama, at least get them to commit that they would 

de-link those two. 

There was also a question—China had a very creative application 

of having to comply with their standards and experience in order 

to be able to bid on some of their projects, even though we had 

American companies that had experience all over the world. We 

were able to get them to agree to use that experience as well. 

But I don’t want to, in any means, downplay the challenge ahead 

of us. But this was one area where we did have some success, and 

we will continue to monitor that. 

Mr. LEE. I thank you. And I would again urge you to try to push 

these trade agreements forward. It is very difficult to look our constituents in the eye when there are no jobs for them to be had, and 

we have a solution to help. Thank you. 

Ambassador KIRK. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Ms. Jenkins is recognized. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding 

this important hearing. Thank you, Ambassador Kirk, for being 

here today and for your service. 

As you briefly touched on in your opening remarks, Russia has 

been seeking to become a member of the World Trade Organization 

for more than 16 years. Russia’s joining the WTO on the right 

terms would be good for both our countries, strengthening the rule 

of law in Russia, and promoting closer economic ties. 

Last fall our two governments made very encouraging progress 

in resolving a number of key outstanding bilateral trade issues, 

and work continues on the multilateral terms of Russia’s accession 

to the WTO. 

But with that said, Russia has much work to do on various longstanding issues of concern, such as IPR enforcement, barriers to 

U.S. agriculture exports, and other non-tariff barriers. Such trade 

concerns, combined with broader foreign policy and human rights 

concerns in Congress, is going to make it difficult for Congress to 

consider PNTR legislation. 

Is Russia’s WTO accession a top Administration priority? And if 

so, what exactly is the Administration, and more specifically, what 

is the USTR doing or planning to do to address such congressional 

concerns and lay the groundwork to consider such major trade legislation? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

Ambassador KIRK. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your concerns. But you partly answered our question in the first part of 

your recitation of what we have done. The President expressly directed our office to work with our colleagues in Russia to address 

a number of the outstanding bilateral concerns we had. 

We did work on that successfully over the summer. We met the 

President’s September deadline for that. That, for the most part, 

we think addressed the overwhelming majority of the bilateral 

issues. Russia’s accession then moves to the broader committee 

structure within Geneva, in which we will continue to engage them 

on those other concerns. 

Now, we are frustrated. You mentioned agriculture and their adherence to sound science. And as you know—or maybe you don’t 

know—we have had an extraordinary challenge getting our poultry 

and beef back into their market. But that also makes the case why 

we want them in the WTO, so that we have them in a form that 

we can address many of those concerns. 

On the human rights component of that, as you know, the State 

Department takes the lead in addressing those. But we understand 

and appreciate all your concerns, and want to work you and other 

Members of Congress to address those so that we can move forward 

at the appropriate time. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. And I will yield 

back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Kind is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. KIND. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here and for the work you 

are doing in the Administration to try to advance a proactive, forward-looking trade agenda which is crucial, obviously, for economic 

growth and job creation back home. We will look forward to working with you on the pending bilaterals. 

I am glad to see that the President has tasked you now to see 

if we can get Panama and Colombia put to bed at some point in 

the future. The bilaterals are important in their own right as 

stand-alone measures. But the real game changer, as you know, is 

really the multilateral round of discussions; the Doha Round. 

I apologize for having to step out. We had a meeting with the 

Treasury Secretary a little bit earlier. But I just want to impress 

upon you how important it is for us not to give up the ghost yet 

when it comes to Geneva and the multilateral round. That is what 

can have the most significant impact, not only for global prosperity 

and growth, but for bringing the emerging and developing countries into the global trading regime as well. 

I know we have had some hurdles there, not least of which are 

some of the agricultural provisions. And another item that hopefully is going to be teed up in this next session of Congress, is the 

next Farm Bill reauthorization and some of the reforms that I and 

others feel, that we need to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. 

We have the Brazil cotton case still hanging over our heads. We 

have elected now to deal with that by subsidizing Brazilian cotton 

producers as opposed to reforming our own domestic cotton program, which we should be doing, but also the so-called amber box 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

payments under the Title I commodity programs and the work that 

needs to be there. 

Given my history with the multilateral round, and having talked 

to many of the trade ambassadors that are involved in those ongoing conversations, so many times the roads do come back to our 

farm policy, both here and in the E.U. 

I know the Administration is anticipating engaging the Congress 

when it comes to the next Farm Bill and the work and some of the 

changes that we have to pursue in order to assist an important 

trade agenda at the same time. 

So I humbly advise, let’s not take our eye off of the Doha 

Roundeven though it has been tough the last few years trying to 

get it back on track. I know there are a lot of interested people to 

see what we can do to advance that, and that we don’t all just become all-consuming with these bilaterals right now. You can understand why, given that they are in front of us and pending. Hopefully, we will be able to advance on those later this year, too. 

Thank you again. 

Chairman CAMP. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Paulsen is recognized. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Ambassador, for your leadership on this issue. We really do appreciate it. 

Just real quickly, you mentioned one of the benefits we have of 

the South Korea trade agreement is going to be our ability to engage in more services, having a market there. The same thing exists, obviously, with Colombia and Panama in particular. I mean, 

70 percent of their GDP comes from the service sector, and it is 

really important, I think, to give the U.S. access, a market foothold 

there. So we have got tremendous opportunity there. 

But I want to ask a question about the potential benefits of what 

you might see with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and also what 

the timing of that might be. We have participants right now in the 

TPP that include four of our existing trade agreement partners, 

and then four new countries which do not have trade agreements 

with us right now. 

So with respect to our existing trade partners, in what ways do 

you see the TPP would add economic value to our existing trade 

agreements? And with respect to our potential new agreement 

partners, what areas do you think those talks might offer us the 

most promise for American jobs and exports in the future? 

Ambassador KIRK. Well, in the broader sense—and thank you 

for your question—we think the TPP is an extraordinary opportunity for the United States because it is our belief and part of our 

rationale in reaching the decision to engage with this original 

group of countries is our hope is obviously that this will effectively 

become the free trade agreement, at least of those 21-member 

APEC economies, and perhaps the architecture for what could be 

the largest, most dynamic trading area in the world in Southeast 

Asia. 

With respect to our trading partners, obviously, we want to be 

assertive. We are not looking to re-trade our existing market share. 

But there are lots of areas that we can further enhance trade by 

looking at regulatory coherence, addressing some of the non-tariff 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
71 

barriers. Obviously, with these new markets, with Malaysia, Vietnam, those are an extraordinary for American businesses across 

the board. 

We have a very ambitious goal. I don’t know—I mean, it is sort 

of our aspirational goal. But the thought was, start with a small 

enough number of like-minded economies, work very aggressively, 

put everything on the table, and let’s just see where we are by the 

time that our leaders meet at the APEC leaders forum in the fall. 

And at least right now we are on that pace. But I will admit this 

next meeting in Chile is the first time we will begin to table offers, 

so this is where the negotiations will become a little more challenging. 

Mr. PAULSEN. And maybe I can just ask, because I know the 

President’s own economic council and the U.S. business community 

have both urged the goal of seeking a conclusion to the TPP agreement by maybe even this November, when the United States is 

going to host APEC, I think, in the President’s home state of Hawaii. 

Do you agree that that goal of concluding the TPP agreement 

would be an important, I mean, concrete deliverable in that time 

frame, if possible? 

Ambassador KIRK. If we could meet that goal, that would be exceptional. But again, there are a lot of moving parts. I want to 

make—right now, I mean, the spirit of engagement among all of 

the economies is the right mood. But I am also tempering this a 

little bit because I know now we are getting into the guts of it. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Berg is recognized. 

Mr. BERG. Ambassador Kirk, thank you for being here today. 

Now, you and I both know how critical trade is for the United 

States and for us to recover from our current situation. And I know 

there is a lot of concern we have heard today, and just concern by 

the American public about trade. 

The National Export Initiative, the goal of doubling exports, is a 

laudable goal and certainly one that I support. But in order to 

make that happen, we need to get the American people behind us. 

And you have done a tremendous effort in going out and speaking 

on the advantages of trade across this country, and I commend you 

for your efforts in doing that. 

But it seems to me—and maybe you can discuss in more detail 

how yourself and the Administration are going to get the American 

people behind more trade, especially the three trade agreements 

that we are looking at right now. 

Ambassador KIRK. Thank you for your kind words about our 

work. One, I think—and I have heard from all of you, and I know 

we have differences, maybe on Panama and Colombia. What I 

haven’t heard, refreshingly, from any of you is a difference we all 

understand right now. 

What the American public care about right now, as Mr. Rangel 

said, it is jobs. It is jobs. What is in it for me? And one, we have 

got to do a better job of articulating to the public how, when we 

provide opportunities for Americans to sell what we make, grow, 

produce around the world. That can help create jobs here. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

And for whatever reason, we have had a political environment 

that Americans are a little more skeptical of that, but I think having an honest discussion with the American public and an honest 

presentation of the reality of what trade does and doesn’t do. 

But I do think it is important—and I trust you will not take this 

as a political statement—keeping faith with the commitment we 

have made to the American public. And I do think renewing trade 

adjustment assistance is one way to do that, to say to those communities that feel that they have gotten the short end of this that 

you have heard us and you are going to honor your commitments. 

I think making sure that we honor our commitments to those 

poorest countries in the world. The work that we do in enforcement—when I take on China and stand up to them for American 

steelworkers, we absolutely got criticized. But we didn’t spark a 

trade war. And in fact, every one of those tire companies, for example, has increased capacity, has added workers, and are making 

more tires. 

So I think listening to the American public, being responsive to 

those that have concerns and honestly addressing those, making 

sure that we enforce our engagements, and then make sure we 

draw a connection between opening up markets around the world 

and creating jobs here at home. 

And the more that we do that with one voice and we stop attacking one another here in Congress, the better chance we are going 

to have to convince the American public of the wisdom of what we 

are doing. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank Ambassador Kirk for his time this morning and 

for his testimony, and also thank all of the members for their 

thoughtful questions. 

And let me note for Ambassador Kirk that members may submit 

questions for the record. And if they do, I hope you will provide a 

prompt and full response. Ambassador Kirk has—all right. I guess 

we are not quite done. 

We have a few more minutes, and we have a member who just 

came, Mr. Pascrell. So he is recognized for 3 minutes. We have had 

members that have been going back and forth to the Budget Committee—— 

Ambassador KIRK. I understand. 

Chairman CAMP. As members of the Ways and Means Committee are on that committee also. 

Ambassador KIRK. I frankly am flattered by the attendance and 

the number of members that have stayed for being here. I really 

appreciate it. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Pascrell is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you, Ambassador. We discussed one of my major issues earlier before I went to the committee. 

Right off the bat, I want to stress how important it is that the 

Congress pass an extension of our trade adjustment assistance program. I think that is important to everything we have worked on 

in the last 14 years. It is Critical. Would you agree? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 

Ambassador KIRK. Yes, sir. You may have missed my closing remarks, but—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. I am disappointed that we were going to bring 

a bill to the floor yesterday extending the programs and, of course, 

it didn’t happen. It was pulled. I strongly believe we can accomplish this in a fiscally responsible way without cutting the vital 

worker training programs we are trying to protect. 

I want to thank you for being here. I believe we have been taking 

some important steps. We still have work to do to ensure that our 

trade policy reflects our values and the benefits of trade. I told you 

this morning what my prism is to look through on every trade deal. 

I will not back off from that. You know where I stand. It is not 

going to be a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination, and 

I respect your candidness on the matter. 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations really represent the 

Obama Administration’s best opportunity to reshape our trade policy. It also presents significant challenges. I have two questions regarding the TPP. 

One of the countries involved in negotiations, Vietnam, is classified by our own government as a ‘‘non-market economy.’’ They don’t 

have a democratic government, and many of their major industries 

are controlled by the state. 

As you negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, what efforts are 

you making with regards to state-owned enterprises in countries 

like Vietnam? We have this problem in a lot of countries, which are 

owned or controlled by foreign governments. These are very serious 

problems. This is very serious to our competitiveness and leveling 

the field. What will you do if these countries will not be able to 

enter our market, if they won’t be able to enter our market and act 

in their government’s national interest instead of the company’s 

commercial interest? 

Ambassador KIRK. Thank you for your candor both now and this 

morning. I would say to you one of the reasons we are excited 

about this TPP. It is an opportunity to bring a country like Vietnam into this global system. One of the areas that we are frankly 

looking to expand on in our investment chapter is to take this opportunity to address the challenge of state-owned economies. 

And that is one of the issues that we are specifically going to engage Vietnam on that. As well, it’s for some other countries, the 

challenges brought on by some of these indigenous innovation policies. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

courtesy. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Thanks again, Ambassador Kirk. 

You have spoken to many elements of the Administration’s trade 

policy agenda, and I am encouraged by your statements on the 

South Korea agreement. 

I am disappointed that the Administration has not been more 

forward-leaning on plans for Colombia and Panama’s trade agreements as members of this committee, including myself, have repeatedly said American employers, workers, farmers, ranchers, are 

put at a disadvantage every day that we delay here in Washington. 

So I continue to hope that the Administration will lay out a clear 

plan with specific areas of concern, a specific timetable for considVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 065569 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\65569.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65569

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
74 

ering all three of these agreements in short order. And I strongly 

believe that we should consider all of the agreements, all three of 

them, in the next 6 months, and hope that we can work together 

to make that happen. Again, thank you for your testimony today. 

But for now, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the Record follow:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 65569.016
75 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 65569.017
76 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 65569.018
77 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 65569.019
78 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 65569.020
79 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 65569.021
80 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 65569.022
81 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 65569.023
82 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 65569.024
83 

f 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 65569.025 Insert offset folio 26 here 65569.026
84 

National Pork Producers Council 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 030 here 65569.030
85 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 65569.031
86 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 65569.032
87 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 65569.033
88 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 65569.034
89 

National Association of Manufacturers 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 65569.035
90 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 65569.036
91 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 65569.037
92 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 65569.038
93 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 65569.039
94 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 65569.040
95 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 65569.041
96 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 65569.042
97 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 65569.043
98 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 65569.044
99 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 65569.045
100 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 65569.046
101 

National Association of Wheat Growers 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 047 here 65569.047
102 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 65569.048
103 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 65569.049
104 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 65569.050
105 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 65569.051 Insert offset folio 52 here 65569.052
106 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 65569.053
107 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 65569.054
108 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 65569.055
109 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 65569.056
110 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 65569.057
111 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 65569.058
112 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 65569.059
113 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 65569.060
114 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 65569.061
115 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 65569.062
116 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 65569.063
117 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 65569.064
118 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 65569.065
119 

Emergency Committee for American Trade 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 65569.066
120 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 65569.067
121 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 65569.068
122 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 65569.069
123 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 65569.070
124 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 65569.071
125 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 65569.072
126 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 65569.073
127 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 65569.074
128 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 65569.075
129 

American Jewish Committee 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 65569.076
130 

National District Export Council Inc. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 65569.077
131 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 65569.078
132 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 65569.079
133 

California Table Grape Commission-1 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 65569.080
134 

California Table Grape Commission-2 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 65569.081
135 

National Oilseed Processors Association 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 65569.082
136 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 65569.083
137 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 65569.084
138 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 65569.085
139 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 65569.086
140 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 65569.087
141 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 65569.088
142 

National Potato Council 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 65569.089
143 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 65569.090
144 

California Chamber of Commerce-1 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 65569.091
145 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 65569.092
146 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 65569.093
147 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 65569.094
148 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 65569.095
149 

California Chamber of Commerce-2 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 65569.096
150 

Retail Industry Leaders Association 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 65569.097
151 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 65569.098
152 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 65569.099
153 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 65569.100
154 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 65569.101
155 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 65569.102
156 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 65569.103
157 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 65569.104
158 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 65569.105
159 

United States Council for International Business 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 65569.106
160 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 65569.107
161 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 65569.108
162 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 65569.109
163 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 65569.110
164 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association-1 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 65569.111
165 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 65569.112
166 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 65569.113
167 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 65569.114
168 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 65569.115
169 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 65569.116
170 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 65569.117
171 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 65569.118
172 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 65569.119
173 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 65569.120
174 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 65569.121
175 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association-2 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 65569.122
176 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 65569.123
177 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 65569.124
178 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 65569.125
179 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 65569.126
180 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 65569.127
181 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 65569.128
182 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 65569.129
183 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 65569.130
184 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 65569.131
185 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 65569.132
186 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 65569.133
187 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 65569.134
188 

International Dairy Foods Association 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 65569.135
189 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 65569.136
190 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 65569.137
191 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 65569.138
192 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 65569.139
193 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 65569.140
194 

Association of Global Automakers, Inc. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 65569.141
195 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 65569.142
196 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 65569.143
197 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 65569.144
198 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 65569.145
199 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 65569.146
200 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 65569.147
201 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 65569.148
202 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 65569.149
203 

General Electric Company 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 65569.150
204 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 65569.151
205 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 65569.152
206 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 65569.153
207 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 65569.154
208 

American Federation of Labor & Congress 

of Industrial Organizations 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 65569.155
209 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 65569.156
210 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 65569.157
211 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 65569.158
212 

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 65569.159
213 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 65569.160
214 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 65569.161
215 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 65569.162
216 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 65569.163
217 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 65569.164
218 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 65569.165
219 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 65569.166
220 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 65569.167
221 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 65569.168
222 

American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 65569.169
223 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 65569.170
224 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 65569.171
225 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 65569.172
226 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 65569.173
227 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 65569.174
228 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 65569.175
229 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 65569.176
230 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 65569.177
231 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 65569.178
232 

U.S.-China Business Council 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 65569.179
233 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 65569.180
234 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 65569.181
235 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 65569.182
236 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 65569.183
237 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 65569.184
238 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 65569.185
239 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 65569.186
240 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 65569.187
241 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 65569.188
242 

Intel Corporation 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 65569.189
243 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 65569.190
244 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 65569.191
245 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 65569.192
246 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 65569.193
247 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 65569.194
248 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 65569.195
249 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 65569.196
250 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 65569.197
251 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 65569.198
252 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 65569.199
253 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 65569.200
254 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 65569.201
255 

UPS 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 65569.202
256 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 65569.203
257 

Æ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 65569.204 Insert offset folio 205 here 65569.205