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

82–909 2013

U.S.-INDIA TRADE RELATIONS: 

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Serial 113–TR01 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan,Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

DEVIN NUNES, California, Chairman 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of March 13, 2013 announcing the hearing ........................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Dan Twining, Senior Fellow for Asia, German Marshall Fund of the United 

States, Testimony ................................................................................................. 6 

Arvind Subramanian, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, and the Center for Global Development, Testimony ........................... 15 

Ambassador Allen F. Johnson, Founder, Allen F. Johnson & Associates, and 

Former Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade 

Representative, Testimony .................................................................................. 34 

Dean Garfield, President & CEO, Information Technology Industry Council, 

Testimony ............................................................................................................. 41 

Roy Waldron, Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, 

Pfizer, Testimony ................................................................................................. 50 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Bar Association ....................................................................................... 87 

ASCAP ...................................................................................................................... 90 

BIO ............................................................................................................................ 100 

Blue Diamond Growers ........................................................................................... 110 

CII ............................................................................................................................. 117 

CSIS .......................................................................................................................... 126 

Dairy Industry ......................................................................................................... 130 

DISCUS .................................................................................................................... 135 

IBM ........................................................................................................................... 141 

IIPA ........................................................................................................................... 144 

ITIF ........................................................................................................................... 154 

KEI ............................................................................................................................ 164 

NAM .......................................................................................................................... 169 

National Chicken Council 1 .................................................................................... 173 

National Chicken Council 2 .................................................................................... 174 

National Chicken Council 3 .................................................................................... 176 

National Chicken Council 4 .................................................................................... 180 

National Cotton Council .......................................................................................... 182 

NPPC ........................................................................................................................ 185 

PhRMA ..................................................................................................................... 188 

Rapaport ................................................................................................................... 195

Rio Tinto ................................................................................................................... 201 

SoFTEC .................................................................................................................... 203 

Wine Institute .......................................................................................................... 206 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

U.S.-INDIA TRADE RELATIONS: 

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Devin 

Nunes [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Chairman Nunes Announces Hearing on 

U.S.-India Trade Relations: 

Opportunities and Challenges 

Wednesday, March 6, 2013 

House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Devin Nunes (R–CA) 

today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on U.S.-India trade relations. The hearing will focus on the growing trade and investment relationship between the two countries as well as the significant challenges facing U.S. job creators 

in this vibrant and dynamic market. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning 

at 10:00 A.M. 

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. 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. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND: 

The United States and India are experiencing the largest bilateral trade and investment flows ever recorded in this bilateral relationship, with total goods and 

services trade in 2011 recorded at $86 billion. The United States is India’s third 

largest trading partner, and India is our 13th largest trading partner. The trade relationship fits into the larger bilateral relationship, which, over the past 20 years, 

has seen an enhancement of relations between the world’s largest and oldest democracies. 

Despite this positive story, the U.S.-India trade relationship faces some difficult 

issues. As India strives to prepare its economy for the challenges of its changing 

demographics—around one-half of the population of 1.2 billion is under 25 years of 

age—the country is putting in place policies to increase manufacturing (currently 

18% of GDP) as well as protect domestic industries and agricultural production. 

These policies reveal a disturbing trend in which India is turning inward and erecting barriers to trade and investment. U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers are 

negatively affected by these policies and find it increasingly difficult to sell to, enter, 

and operate in India. 

This hearing on U.S.-India trade issues will explore the positive aspects of the bilateral relationship, examine India’s tariff and non-tariff barriers that affect U.S. job 

creators and analyze how bilateral trade and investment can be further expanded. 

Areas of focus will include: tariff structures; investment; agriculture market access; 

the Bilateral Investment Treaty; India’s National Manufacturing Policy; local content requirements; intellectual property policies; services; and U.S.-India cooperation in bilateral and multilateral trade fora. 

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Nunes said, ‘‘The U.S.-India partnership is and will continue to be crucial to the global economy in the 21st 

century, and bilateral trade and investment ties are the lynchpin to keeping this strategic relationship strong. India faces tremendous domestic political challenges as it seeks to grow its economy and lift millions of people 

out of poverty. However, I am concerned that India has launched a series 

of alarming policies that harm U.S. job creators and are counterproductive. 

I intend to push India to remove barriers that prevent U.S. companies, 

farmers, ranchers, and workers from competing on a level playing field and 

selling their world-class products and services to India’s 1.2 billion consumers.’’ 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will provide an opportunity to explore current U.S.-India trade issues 

such as: (1) deepening and expanding the long-term trade and investment relationship with India; (2) completing a Bilateral Investment Treaty, addressing investment caps, and exploring new investment opportunities; (3) addressing agricultural 

market access barriers; (4) evaluating India’s National Manufacturing Policy and 

other forced localization policies including the Preferential Market Access (PMA) on 

information technology products; (5) ensuring the protection of intellectual property 

rights; (6) addressing the issuance of compulsory licenses, patent revocations, and 

other policies on pharmaceuticals; (7) examining India’s system of cascading tariffs, 

taxes, and other import charges; and (8) advancing WTO negotiations, including 

‘‘post-Doha’’ issues such as an international services agreement, Information Technology Agreement expansion, and a trade facilitation agreement in partnership with 

India. 

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, March 27, 2013. 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 

/. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
4 

Chairman NUNES. Good morning. I want to welcome our panel 

of witnesses and everyone else to our hearing on U.S.-India Trade 

Relations. 

It is an honor and privilege to be chairing my first hearing as 

Trade Subcommittee Chairman and to be serving with my colleague, Ranking Member Charles Rangel. 

Under Chairman Camp and Chairman Brady’s leadership, the 

previous Congress passed seven bipartisan trade bills. These 

achievements show that Congress and the White House, Republican and Democrats can come together and pursue pro-growth, 

pro-job policies. We must now accelerate this momentum so that 

U.S. businesses, farmers, ranchers and workers will find new opportunities abroad, where 95 percent of the world’s consumers live. 

That takes us to the focus of today’s hearing. India has risen rapidly since its market-opening reforms in the early 1990s. Its GDP 

has grown from 275 billion in 1991 to 1.8 trillion in 2012. 

Nevertheless, India remains the largest recipient of benefits 

under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences. This is a program that expires this July and one this Committee must deal 

with. 

The U.S.-India Strategic Partnership is a key relationship with 

bilateral trade in goods and services rising from minuscule 

amounts 25 years ago to more than 86 billion a year now. But 

there is scope for much more. With a population of over 1.2 billion, 

India’s market holds potential for world class U.S. products and 

services. 

I want to ensure that U.S. job creators compete there on a levelplaying field. This hearing will provide an opportunity for the Committee to explore the positive aspects of the U.S.-India economic relationship, as well as to examine India’s tariff and non-tariff barriers that are acting as impediments. 

In particular, I want to examine the following issues: 

Deepening and expanding the long-term trade and investment 

relationship; 

Understanding the existing U.S.-India bilateral for a for discussion and how they can be more effective in addressing bilateral irritants and establishing metrics for measuring progress; 

Addressing India’s troubling use of forced localization in key sectors; 

Ensuring India’s protection of intellectual property rights; 

Addressing agricultural market access barriers to ensure a level 

playing field for U.S. farmers and ranchers; 

Completing a bilateral investment treating; 

Addressing investment cap; and 

Exploring new bilateral investment opportunities which are all 

vital to U.S. growth; 

And, finally, partnering with India to advance negotiations at the 

WTO, including a post-DOHA issue such as Information Technology Agreement Expansion, a trade facilitation agreement, and 

the International Services Agreement negotiations that are about 

to be launched in Geneva. 

I look forward to having a comprehensive discussion today about 

promoting economic growth and job creation by solving difficult bilateral issues and strengthening U.S.-India ties. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
5 

I will now yield to Ranking Member Rangel for the purpose of 

an opening statement. 

Mr. RANGEL. Let me on behalf of the Democrats congratulate 

you, Chairman Nunes, for becoming the chair, and also thank you 

for having this first hearing. 

As was pointed out so many times, the area of trade has been 

the most successful area in which we have been able to penetrate 

the depth of partisanship that exists in our Congress unfortunately. But I do hope that you know that you can depend on us to 

move forward in working with you toward improving the economic 

situation that exists in our country on the international area. 

I think there is much agreement, especially with our terrific relationship with India, who is a vital ally not only in terms of national 

security, but it is one of our great growing trading relationships; 

a great democracy. Total trade was nearly $50 billion, up from just 

8 billion in 2000, and total services have grown just as rapidly, 

from 4.5 billion in 2000 to 28.5 billion in 2011. And our investment 

in India and India’s investment in the United States has been constantly and continuously expanding. 

This people should recognize, we being the two greatest democracies in the world, and I think that we do have problems as most 

friends and family would have, and we like to point out some of 

what we believe are unfair incentives in order to improve the relationship that exists, as we think that many of these things violate 

international trade. 

We know the particular concerns that India has with its large, 

young population. We also know in our country what the pains are 

of unemployment. But we do have forums that we can try to work 

out these differences in how we try to bring a better working relationship with both of our great democracies. 

We hope that we can avoid threatening taking every issue to the 

World Trade Organization. We hope that our business people, as 

well as legislators, work to eliminate or take away the problems 

that we have in this area, and we hope that we will do this under 

your leadership and the Congress and the President. 

And once again, I welcome you to the chair, and our committee 

is anxious to get started. 

Chairman NUNES. Well, thank you, Mr. Rangel. 

And Mr. Rangel and I are trying to work as closely as we can. 

I think we both feel that this is really one of the issues in Congress 

where there is bipartisan agreement, and we hope to advance the 

trade agenda as best as we can. 

Today we are joined by five witnesses. Our first witness will be 

Dan Twining, Senior Fellow for Asia, at the German Marshall 

Fund of the United States. Mr. Twining will be our scene setter regarding the past, present and future of the U.S.-India relationship. 

After him, Arvind Subramanian, Senior Fellow, at the Peterson 

Institute for International Economics and the Center for Global Development, will be our second witness. Dr. Subramanian will speak 

about India’s economy and domestic developments that are affecting India’s outward policies. 

Our third witness will be someone who is familiar with this Committee, Ambassador Allen Johnson, founder of the Allen F. Johnson 

& Associates. Ambassador Johnson has held the position of Chief 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
6 

Agricultural Negotiator at the Office of the United States Trade 

Representative and will speak today about the multilateral and bilateral relations with India, focusing on agricultural issues. 

Our fourth witness will be Dean Garfield, President and CEO of 

The Information Technology Industry Council. Mr. Garfield will 

speak on the opportunities and challenges in bilateral high-tech 

trade. 

Our fifth and final witness will be Roy Waldron, Senior Vice 

President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, at Pfizer, Inc. 

Mr. Waldron will testify about his company’s longstanding work in 

India and India’s intellectual property regime. 

We welcome all of you and look forward to your testimony. 

Before recognizing our first witness let me note that our time 

this morning is limited. So we will be limiting questions to five 

minutes in the hopes of giving as many Members the opportunity 

to be recognized as possible. 

Mr. Twining, your written statement, like those of all the witnesses, will be made part of the record, and you are now recognized 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAN TWINING, SENIOR FELLOW FOR ASIA, 

GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. TWINING. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee. It’s an honor to appear before you today to discuss the 

enormous potential of U.S.-India trade and investment relations. 

Within a generation India is likely to become one of America’s 

most vital partners in world affairs. It will bring more capabilities 

to the table than any existing U.S. ally in pursuit of our convergent 

interests; defeating terrorism and extremism, managing China’s 

rise, keeping open the Indian Ocean sea lanes, and sustaining a 

liberal international order. 

Recognizing this, Washington and New Delhi have developed a 

far-reaching strategic partnership centered on defense cooperation, 

but our economic relationship remains strangely underdeveloped. 

Despite disappointing growth recently, India’s economy has doubled in size in less than seven years. Its economy is likely to become the world’s third largest sometime in the 2020s. 

The U.S. National Intelligence Council forecasts that India will 

become the biggest driver of middle class growth on earth by 2030 

and will surpass China in economic dynamism. The NIC also forecasts that India could have the world’s largest economy by the end 

of this century. This is a country America will want to work with 

to sustain an open global economy that promotes the prosperity of 

all free societies. 

A decade ago, then American Ambassador Bob Blackwill famously said that U.S.-India economic ties were ‘‘flat as a chapatti’’. 

The situation has improved. America is now India’s top economic 

partner measured in goods and services trade. China is India’s top 

partner measured in terms of goods alone. 

Since 2001, U.S.-India trade has doubled every five years. It is 

approaching the 100 billion dollar mark. This is good news in a 

way, but it is also disappointing. It is a low number still. Our trade 

with India is only one-seventh of our trade with China, despite the 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
7 

fact that one country is a strategic partner and the other is a strategic competitor. 

Regrettably, the Obama Administration’s signature trade initiatives, TTP and TTIP, do not include India. The primary economic 

initiative between our two countries has been a modest bilateral investment treaty. It has been stuck in the bowels of our bureaucracies for years. 

At the same time, India has enacted or is negotiating trade 

agreements with Japan, the EU, ASEAN and a number of other 

partners, but not the United States. Although India is part of 

Asia’s security architecture, it is not part of Asia’s economic architecture. India applied for APEC membership back in 1991, but the 

U.S. eventually backed a moratorium on membership. That moratorium has expired. India’s exclusion makes little sense for a country 

that sits in the middle of Asia, is an important trading partner to 

America, China, and Japan, and has an economy that comprises 

nearly 20 percent of global GDP by 2060, according to the OECD. 

Without a strategic framework for economic cooperation, Indian 

and American trade negotiators skirmish frequently in bilateral 

channels and at the WTO. Our trade ties too often degenerate into 

parochial disputes over things like pistachio nuts and chickens that 

have occupied even top political leaders. This is no way to build a 

strategic economic relationship between the world’s largest democracies. 

To elevate our bilateral relations to the strategic level, I believe 

America and India should launch negotiations for a free trade 

agreement. India will have to undertake far-reaching domestic reforms to qualify. New Delhi might find it easier to undertake these 

reforms if it can do so as part of a process of acceding to APEC. 

This will take time, but the requirements of membership could 

incentivize an Indian system wary of reform, the political costs of 

reform, to pursue aggressive liberalization. 

The prize of eventual APEC membership coupled with an eventual FTA with America could empower economic reformers within 

the Indian system and mobilize the Indian private sector which is, 

frankly, quite fed up with the government’s slow pace of reform. 

Skeptics will argue correctly that Indian officials have been 

among the most obstreperous opponents of the U.S. trade agenda 

in venues like the WTO. This is true. Stepping back, however, looking strategically at India’s deepening involvement in international 

institutions, we see that India behaves quite differently once it is 

inside a club than when it is excluded from it. Rather than throwing bombs from the outside, India has acted more responsibly in institutions like the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council. Indians 

crave the status of full membership in an international order they 

believe has excluded them for too long. Once seated at the high 

table, they are more inclined to help enforce global rules. I think 

the same would be true if India should accede to APEC. 

India needs to grow in order to underwrite its security in a very 

tough neighborhood and to uplift more poor people than exist in all 

of Sub-Saharan Africa. The country has implemented massive rural 

welfare schemes, but government welfare alone will never build the 

world’s largest middle class. Only a dynamic private sector will do 

that. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
8 

The U.S. can help accelerate this process by incentivizing our Indian friends to open up their economy to again produce growth 

rates approaching ten percent. China grew at this pace for several 

decades, as did Japan and South Korea before it. There is no cultural or historic reason India cannot deliver a ‘‘South Asian miracle’’ to match the ‘‘East Asian miracle’’ we have seen in the Pacific. 

India should ultimately find it has no stronger partner in economics than the United States. It is time to put in place an agenda 

for economic cooperation between our countries that mirrors the 

ambitions of our strategic partnership, and catalyzes enduring 

prosperity for both our peoples. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Twining follows:] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
9 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.001.eps
10 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.002.eps
11 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.003.eps
12 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.004.eps
13 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.005.eps
14 

f 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Twining. 

Mr. Subramanian. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.006.eps
15 

STATEMENT OF ARVIND SUBRAMANIAN, SENIOR FELLOW, 

PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, 

AND THE CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Thank you, Chairman Nunes, Ranking 

Member Rangel, and Members of the subcommittee for giving me 

the opportunity to testify today. 

In the brief time available, I want to make three observations 

and three recommendations. Observation number one, the prize is 

big. I have breaking news for you. In 2012 India became the 

world’s third largest economy in purchasing power parity terms, 

surpassing Japan and now behind only the United States and 

China. 

My forecast is that this $4.7 trillion economy will double every 

seven to ten years. This one trillion trade economy will double 

every seven years, and the U.S. has benefitted immensely, as my 

colleague has suggested, and it is worth emphasizing that IndiaU.S. trade and investment are balanced so that you do not have 

the kinds of tensions with other countries from imbalanced trade. 

Observation number two, the sectorial and the micro should not 

obscure the broad macro development, and these developments are 

that despite India’s transitional turbulence that is happening now, 

slower growth, mounting macro vulnerabilities, the predominant 

trend has been toward opening. 

In the last two, three years, few countries have opened up to FDI 

and foreign capital across the board, you know, stock markets, equities, debt instruments, et cetera, like India has, and that is because it reflects a deep and fundamental bipartisan consensus 

within India that the way forward is greater openness and 

globalization. 

Observation number three, all that being said, however, there 

are, I think, three major challenges that the U.S. States and U.S. 

business face in India. Two of these I think my colleagues are going 

to talk about. One is the localization that, Chairman Nunes, you 

referred to. And here I just want to say that India has caught the 

China bug. India wants to do the same Chinese indigenization and 

localization that China has been doing, and I think there is a domestic imperative to create a manufacturing base which India has 

not been able to do. So it is resorting to these measures. 

A second challenge is the weak and uncertain regulatory and tax 

environment that affects the U.S., the civil nuclear industry, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, infrastructure, et cetera, and I’ll have 

more to say on that. 

The third big challenge that American firms are not complaining 

about but which they should most of all is what my colleague referred to, which is that because of all these free trade agreements 

that India has signed or is about to sign, U.S. business is getting 

disadvantaged. 

And why is this serious? For two reasons. India has very high 

barriers, and it is a growing market. So the extent of disadvantage 

to American business is absolutely huge. 

How should these three challenges be addressed? One, on the localization protectionist measures, the regulatory environment, my 

strong urging would be to dialogue in the first instance, but if not, 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
16 

if that doesn’t work, use the WTO to resolve conflicts as much as 

possible for two reasons. 

One, you can test the validity of claims, you know, about India 

being way out of line on many of these issues, IPRs, agriculture; 

and, second, India has a great record of complying with WTO rulings. A factor that I think is worth pointing out is that India’s biggest trade reform came after the U.S. initiated a dispute against 

U.S.-Indian quantitative restrictions on consumer goods that went 

through. India complied with it, and you had the biggest change 

possible. 

Recommendation number two, on the uncertain regulatory environment I think the problem here is serious. It is not going to get 

resolved very soon. I think that U.S. business has a challenge to 

adapt to the Indian environment because if not, it risks losing 

ground to other countries, other competitors that are getting in despite the challenging environment. 

Recommendation three, and my last recommendation, go big. 

This is a marathon, not a sprint. This is multidimensional, not 

unidimensional, and sometimes going big is the best way to address even the small. You cannot resolve chickens by talking only 

chickens. 

So a common theme running through many of these testimonies 

here this morning is that there is no broad strategic framework for 

dealing with U.S.-India trade relations. I think my colleague made 

a very good point. I think it is important for three reasons: the fundamental sharing of values as a democracy; second, to reverse the 

disadvantage that’s taking place with both sides negotiating free 

trade agreements; third, above all, I think it is very important to 

realize that a U.S.-India trade relationship is absolutely vital for 

the other big prize, which is China and keeping China tethered to 

the multilateral trading system and ensuring that China remains 

open, nondiscriminatory, and follows the policies that we want. 

Finally, I would just add by saying that for this reason and FTA, 

relations on an FTA make sense, and we at the Peterson Institute 

have embarked on a big project and hopefully by the end of the 

year we will have something to show you for it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Subramanian follows:] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
17 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.007.eps
18 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.008.eps
19 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.009.eps
20 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.010.eps
21 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.011.eps
22 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.012.eps
23 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.013.eps
24 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.014.eps
25 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.015.eps
26 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.016.eps 82909.017.eps
27 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.018.eps 82909.019.eps
28 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.020.eps 82909.021.eps
29 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.022.eps 82909.023.eps
30 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.024.eps 82909.025.eps
31 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.026.eps
32 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.027.eps 82909.028.eps
33 

f 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Subramanian. 

Ambassador Johnson. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.029.eps 82909.030.eps 82909.031.eps
34 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR ALLEN F. JOHNSON, FOUNDER, 

ALLEN F. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, AND FORMER CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me, and 

Mr. Rangel. It is a very interesting discussion listening to the other 

two panelists. From an agricultural point of view the potential in 

India is very significant. 

As you mentioned there are 1.2 billion people. It is 17 percent 

of the world’s population. It is growing income, growing population, 

and it is changing in better diets. It is a young population. About 

60 percent are under 30, and we have seen and I put in my testimony that there is growing demand, significant growing demand 

for a lot of products that the United States can export effectively 

and efficiently in providing for the Indian market. 

And we have seen some progress, although India has seen more. 

Since 1995, we have seen our agriculture exports triple to India to 

almost $900 million, and that is out of the total U.S. export of $141 

billion. So it is really about a half of one percent of our exports go 

to India even though it is 17 percent of the world’s population. It 

is the 27th largest market in the United States behind Guatemala, 

which is 14 million people. About a third of that number comes 

from almonds, which is followed at some distance by other commodities that are listed in my testimony. 

But India has fared far better. Their exports over that same period have increased by tenfold, now over $5 billion. So in other 

words, they export five times as much agricultural products to the 

United States than we export to them. Half of that is rubber, but 

even then you are looking at two and a half times what is exported 

to the United States, and these are things like cashews, essential 

oils and other things I list in my testimony. 

So you would ask yourself: what is wrong with this picture? They 

have four times the people. They have a growing population and 

income. They obviously have dietary needs that we can service, and 

yet we actually have an agricultural food deficit with the country. 

And the answer is pretty simple, which is India is very protectionist when it comes to agriculture and to a large extent because 

they are concerned about rural economic and political instability. 

First of all, they have very high agricultural tariffs, among the 

highest in the world; maximum bound rates are generally between 

100 and 300 percent with an average of about 120 percent. The applied tariffs are about on average 35 percent, and the difference between the bound and the applied is what we call water. They use 

that water effectively for managing imports basically. So if they 

want to avoid domestic food inflation, they lower the tariff. If they 

want to protect domestic prices, they raise the tariff, and they can 

do it within their WTO bound levels. 

Most U.S. exports could face a bound level of up to 100 percent. 

Almonds are top export, as I mentioned earlier, faces a specific rate 

of 35 rupees per kilogram for shelled and 57 rupees per kilogram 

for unshelled. That is equal under recent prices to about a 14 percent tariff. Imagine what we could do if that did not exist, and it 

even today is our third largest export markets for almonds. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
35 

Other products, such as beef, pork, poultry are facing similar situations in that they have bound rates of 100 percent and applied 

rates between 30 and 100 percent. Dairy, for example, has bound 

rates between 40 and 150 percent, and applied rates between 30 

and 60 percent. There are more details on this in my testimony. 

The second thing that they do is they have high sanitary and 

phytosanitary barriers, arbitrary export certificate requirements, 

restrictive maximum residue levels, unjustified animal disease controls, among other things. For example, in dairy we’ve been effectively blocked since 2003 due to unwarranted important requirements. Both the U.S. Government and the industry believe these 

are not scientifically justified. I believe the industry has a paper 

here today. And to add insult to injury, we actually import twice 

as much dairy from India as we export. 

Pork had access denied due to import residue requirements that 

do not have a scientific justification, as well as other requirements. 

U.S. livestock, poultry and pork are denied access due to overly restrictive avian influenza standards, and they have a ban on lowpath AI, which is inconsistent with international standards. So the 

U.S. has initiated a WTO case on this, which had a panel instituted last month. 

As a global player, India we have to recognize is a very important player. Unfortunately, it has not always been helpful in moving forward, and at times it has advocated moving backwards. It 

is a leading member of the G20 and the G33 in the WTO talks, 

helping those groups to define positions for developing countries 

that often are not related to market openings, and even loosening 

rules on tariffs and subsidies allowing developing countries to actually increase the barriers or the subsidies. 

They have been active in other trade agreements beyond the 

WTO, but to a large extent agriculture has been excluded. For example, in the Mercosur Agreement, they only included 20 tariff 

lines and in the Chilean agreement only 40 in agriculture, and that 

are out of over 600 tariff lines that they could have included. 

The good news is, consistent with what he is saying, by not including us, they have not put us at a significant disadvantage relative to other exporting countries in agriculture, but as he has 

pointed out, they could easily start doing that and put us at a disadvantage. 

The more interesting thing to me is that the world is changing 

very clearly. After a drought of activity in negotiations, we are seeing stepped up United States in a lot of negotiations that are very 

important to us. We have seen Europe and others who have never 

stopped having negotiations and bilateral regional agreements. 

Even Japan is talking about joining the TPP. 

What India does and how it sees its role and sees its interests 

being affected by this changing environment, especially as the 

WTO has been stalled, is going to be very interesting. If I were 

them, I would be watching negotiations very closely and thinking 

about what I should be doing to engage in a world that is becoming 

more interactive without me. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
36 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.032.eps
37 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.033.eps
38 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.034.eps
39 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.035.eps
40 

f 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. Garfield. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.036.eps
41 

STATEMENT OF DEAN GARFIELD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Rangel, Members of the committee. 

On behalf of the Information Technology Council and the world’s 

most dynamic and innovative companies, I would like to thank you 

for your bipartisan approach on trade holding this hearing. It is 

quite timely. 

We have submitted my testimony for the record, and so rather 

than repeat what I know you have read, what I will do is make 

three points. 

First, this relationship is incredibly important for geopolitical 

and economic reasons. The rest of the world is watching, including 

China, and these two democracies at least for the last 20 years 

have been illustrative of the power of innovation and open markets 

to improve lives and drive economic growth. The economist Julian 

Simon has made the point that the earth’s greatest resource is 

human innovation, and that has come to the fore and has been 

demonstrated quite well by India over the last 20 years. 

As they have opened their markets, we have seen wholly new industries created in India, many in partnership with U.S.-based 

companies. The result of that for India has been real, but also for 

the United States. We have gone over some of the statistics this 

morning about the number of people, for example, who have been 

moved out of poverty in India, over 400 million people. They have 

created a middle class that, in fact, is larger than the entire U.S. 

population. 

The result of that is actually economic growth and job creation 

in the United States as well. India has moved rapidly up the list 

of our trading partners. In 1990, for example, the two-way trade 

between India and the United States was a mere $5 billion. Now 

it exceeds $60 billion, which has created jobs in this country. 

Point number two, there are real challenges on the ground in 

India right now. In spite of the opportunities that exist and the impact, the positive impact that open markets have had on the 

ground in India, the Government of India seems to be doing a stutter-step on open markets and setting up a steeple chase of barriers 

to the success of foreign companies, especially American entities. 

And the examples are wide ranging, from random new regulations, for example, new testing and certification regimes that require testing your products in the market in order to have access 

to the market at all. Some of the other folks testifying this morning 

have alluded to the tax regime there. To say it is unpredictable is 

to be quite kind. 

Similarly, on trade agreements India is one of the partners and 

participants in the Information Technology Agreement, or ‘‘ITA,’’ 

that was signed in 1996, but the world has changed tremendously 

since 1996. None of us are carrying around mobile devices that we 

held back then, and yet still India seems resistant to updating that 

agreement and moving forward with a new ITA. 

Most problematic, which we have alluded to earlier, is the preferential market access regime that is now in place in India which 

essentially boils down ‘‘to if it’s not manufactured in India, then it 

cannot be merchandised in India there,’’ which has the potential to 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
42 

foreclose that market to foreign players, including the United 

States, and as a result, over the last few years we’ve started to see 

a decline in foreign direct investment in India, and a lot of companies questioning their ability to fully access the market, particularly since it is not just limited to government procurement, but includes private sector arrangements and deals between private entities. 

India has suggested that the concern there is really focused on 

information security and protecting the security of the country, 

which we can empathize with, but the security of their products is 

not related to where it is made. It is related to how it is made, and 

there are reasonable ways for addressing those security concerns 

that I think industry is well prepared to address. 

The third and final point is that though these issues are important for our relationship with India, they are, in fact, quite significant because of the potential contagion effect. India is not the only 

market that is moving forward with these forced localization requirements that Chairman Nunes referred to. We see the same 

sorts of developments, of course, in China, but we see them as well 

in Brazil, Argentina, and in certain parts of Africa. And so if we 

do not take steps now to deal with these challenges, they will continue to grow and will actually have real and meaningful impact 

on the ability of U.S.-based industries and companies, particularly 

in the tech sector, to continue to grow. 

We look forward to working with this Committee and Congress 

generally to resolving these problems. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garfield follows:] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
43 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.037.eps
44 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.038.eps
45 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.039.eps
46 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.040.eps
47 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.041.eps
48 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.042.eps
49 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.043.eps
50 

f 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. Waldron. 

STATEMENT OF ROY WALDRON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL, PFIZER 

Mr. WALDRON. Chairman Nunes, Ranking member Rangel, and 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify here today. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.044.eps
51 

My name is Roy Waldron, and I serve as the Chief Intellectual 

Property Counsel at Pfizer. In that capacity, I am responsible for 

managing and protecting Pfizer’s intellectual property portfolio 

worldwide. 

Pfizer was founded in 1849. Our mission is to apply science to 

improve the health and well-being of people’s lives. We have developed some of the world’s best known pharmaceutical products. We 

employ 90,000 individuals worldwide, and 30,000 in the U.S. We 

have a presence in all 50 States with 17 manufacturing facilities 

and 21 R&D sites located throughout the U.S. 

In the U.S., our industry supports over four million jobs, invests 

over 35 billion annually in R&D, and exports 46 billion in goods. 

The pharmaceutical sector is the country’s sixth largest exporter. 

Ninety-five percent of our consumers are outside the United States. 

Emerging markets like India are our key growth markets. 

R&D is the lifeblood of our industry. It produces new and innovative medicines to treat diseases for patients worldwide, and intellectual property rights protect the fruits of our innovation. 

Today it takes on average more than one billion dollars and ten 

to 15 years to research and develop a new medicine. Our industry 

is high risk. Only about one in 10,000 compounds ever enters the 

drug discovery phase and is approved by the FDA. 

India is a critical growth market for Pfizer and for the pharmaceutical sector generally. Pfizer is committed to India and has been 

operating there for over 60 years, yet the business environment for 

innovative industries has deteriorated significantly and created uncertainty in that market. 

India has taken steps that call into question the sustainability of 

foreign investment and the ability to compete fairly. India has essentially created a protectionist regime that harms U.S. job creators. Despite being a member of the WTO and an important global 

trading partner, India has systematically failed to interpret and 

apply its IP laws in a manner consistent with recognized global 

standards. In fact, the Global IP Center’s International IP Index 

ranked India last in terms of overall IP protection. 

In September of last year, India revoked Pfizer’s patent for a 

cancer medication, Sutent. The patent for Sutent was granted in 90 

countries around the world, including India, the United States, Europe and Japan. The Indian patent had been in effect for five years 

prior to its revocation. The revocation will now allow Indian generic 

companies to manufacture and sell generic copies of Sutent long before the patent is set to expire. 

I would like to note that to ensure Sutent is available to patients 

who need it, Pfizer developed a patient access program in India. 

The program provides 80 percent of the patients taking Sutent 

with a complete or partial subsidy. 

We believe that India is undermining IP by misuse of its compulsory license provisions. Compulsory licenses are intended for use in 

extraordinary situations of extreme urgency or other national 

emergency. Last March India issued a compulsory license for a cancer medicine, Nexavar, that the Indian Government had justified 

in part because the product was imported rather than manufactured locally. Such an industrial policy plainly contravenes established international trade obligations. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
52 

Recent reports indicate that India has started the process of 

issuing compulsory licenses for the manufacture of three additional 

cancer medicines under a public emergency provision that sidesteps 

notice and public comment obligations. If left alone, this trend will 

destroy the market for innovative pharmaceuticals in India. 

And since many other countries look to India as a leader and an 

example, India’s actions reverberate far beyond its borders. We 

have seen several countries adopt policies similar to India’s which 

are leading to a worldwide deteriorating trend on intellectual property rights. 

These actions also diminish our exports, jeopardize our R&D activities, and ultimately harm U.S. jobs. We need your help. We 

need the support of Congress and the Administration. It is vital 

that you prioritize this matter and work together to address these 

challenges. 

Specifically, I would like to highlight four recommendations: that 

the U.S. Government increase the frequency of talks with the Indian Government and continue to raise concerns directly with Indian officials; 

That the U.S. Government should raise concerns at every available bilateral and multilateral forum to send a strong signal to the 

Indian Government and to other governments that it does not condone these actions; 

The U.S. Government should review all available trade policy 

tools in light of the deteriorating IP environment. 

And, four, the U.S. Government should pursue a robust trade 

agenda that includes strong intellectual property protections, including robust provisions in the trans-Pacific partnership agreement. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waldron follows:] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
53 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.045.eps
54 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.046.eps
55 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.047.eps
56 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.048.eps
57 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.049.eps
58 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.050.eps
59 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.051.eps
60 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.052.eps
61 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.053.eps
62 

f 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Waldron. 

So as you all know, this Committee has basically two major capabilities. One is to produce legislation. The other is to conduct oversight. So I am going to ask just a real basic question to all of you, 

and that is if you had up to three things that we could do either 

legislatively or through oversight, specifically what would you like 

to see this Committee engage in over this coming Congress? 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.054.eps
63 

And we will just start on the left with Mr. Twining. 

Mr. TWINING. Mr. Chairman, rather than three things, I mean, 

my prize would be one big thing, which is passing trade promotion 

authority so that the President and the Executive Branch can negotiate the suite of trade agreements, these very ambitious trade 

agreements. I mean whether or not we include a U.S.-India FTA 

in that. TTP, TTIP, these horizon stretching agreements, I think 

some of us are worried that the enabling foundation, should we get 

to a point where we have these agreements, is not yet in place to 

see them move through this body expeditiously, and that would be 

my quick answer. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Twining. 

Mr. Subramanian. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. I would wholeheartedly endorse what Mr. 

Twining just said, that we need legislative authority to pursue, you 

know, all the things that are already on the table, TTP, TTIP, but 

also a whole bunch of new initiatives like with India, but also to 

move beyond the DOHA round to a new kind of round of negotiations. 

Because the fact of the matter is it is true that India is not very 

actively participating, Chairman Nunes, in the agreement that you 

said, and I think there is a problem here. But I think some of that 

could be overcome if you have a broader agenda, multilateral agenda, moving beyond DOHA that includes items of interest to China 

and India, as well. 

So I think you need a broader agenda for which I think getting 

this broad based trade authority is very important. 

Second, I would urge also that in looking at the economic architecture in Asia, that greater efforts be made to bring India into 

that architecture as a way of promoting some of the objectives that 

have been put forward. 

And finally, the third thing I would say, you asked us what you 

could do, but I also want to say something on what perhaps you 

should not do, if I may with your permission. I think, for example, 

GSP expires in July, and certainly I read some of the comments 

you are saying that, you know, maybe we should use all trade tools 

available. I think on the GSP my kind of cautious advice would be 

the following. 

I think the U.S. needs to think about graduating many countries 

out of GSP. I mean, I will give you one good reason. India itself 

now gives GSP to many least developed countries. So it is a bit odd 

for, you know, a GSP granting country to give GSP. 

However, I would not link that to either use that as kind of a 

retaliatory threat or use it to force, you know, action, change within India because you incur the diplomatic cost without necessarily 

getting any benefits out of it because I would be highly doubtful 

whether actions like that, you know, would really change the regulatory environment in a way that we all want to see it changed. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Subramanian. 

Ambassador. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Thank you. 

I often think of India as being a developing country with a First 

World bureaucracy. They are capable of stopping things very creatively, and so hearings like this and engagement, whether it is 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
64 

through letters or calling in Indian officials to talk about problems 

that they have created to our trade, I think, is really priceless because it forces an action. It forces some interaction within their 

own government about problems as they exist. 

The second thing I would suggest is that you encourage trade, 

and having many battle scars from pursuing trade promotion authority in the past, I would encourage you to do it again. But I 

think the main thing is that, as I mentioned in my testimony, the 

more that India sees the rest of the world is moving, the more it 

has to think about the consequence to itself for not moving, whether it is in agriculture, in bilateral agreements, or in a World Trade 

Organization agreement. They could be constructive players if they 

decided that it was in their best interest to do so. 

As I mentioned earlier, we have taken a WTO case recently 

against India on AI, and I think we are going to need to continue 

to do those sorts of things. 

On other activities, my general point, and you brought up GSP, 

is that what we should be doing is encouraging them to be moving 

from the rural areas to other industries, and so as we can encourage that, I think that helps them in taking some of the pressure 

off reform in agriculture, which is ultimately essential for their 

own development. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes. Number one, I agree with what the other 

panelists have said about trade promotion authority. I think that 

is critically important. 

Two is making clear the exigency of moving forward and resolving the issues around the preferential market access regulations 

that are in place. This hearing is quite timely. Just yesterday there 

was a report out of India that they intend to proceed full speed 

ahead with the private sector portions of that, which would be significantly detrimental to businesses globally, but specifically here 

in the United States as well. 

And so making sure through Congress as well as the Administration that we are dealing with that and dealing with it now I would 

say is the second thing. 

And then the third is something that you have done before, 

which is through your letters that come through in a bipartisan 

fashion making clear that you are paying attention, and that this 

is an area of emphasis and focus I think is quite important, and 

continuing that, I think, would be quite helpful. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. You are welcome 

Chairman NUNES. Mr. Waldron. 

Mr. WALDRON. I have to echo the comments of my fellow panelists, but I think that some of the emphasis has to be on intellectual 

property. I think that there is an exigency, as Mr. Garfield references. The acceleration of compulsory license policies has accelerated in the last year. So there is some urgency with respect to the 

frequency of talks that we have with the Indian Government to 

register our displeasure with the developments that have taken 

place there. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
65 

I also agree that IP chapters or IP understandings are also important in these bilateral and multilateral fora. So this is really 

something as a second matter that I think we really have to pursue 

and go with our eyes wide open as to what is really happening 

right now, and essentially if we wait too long, we may find ourselves in a situation where it is irremediable. 

And referring back to some earlier comments on GSP, I think 

that we do have to review all available policy tools. I think it is 

a matter of equity and fairness, and perhaps the upcoming renewal 

will be a time to actually seriously look at what we want to do and 

how we want to do that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Waldron. 

With that, my time is up and I yield to you, Mr. Rangel. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have to admit to the panel that I have not really been up to 

India’s position as it relates to problems that they see in international trade, and I wonder whether any of the witnesses today, 

although you want to improve the trade relationship, actually can 

be speaking on behalf of the Government of India as to how they 

see. 

Are any of you in touch with the Government of India directly? 

You are. 

Mr. GARFIELD. We all are. 

Mr. RANGEL. How could I have any little bit of assurances that 

if we did do what you are recommending, that the Government of 

India would say, ‘‘Thank you and let’s move forward’’? 

What do I have to work with? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Well, the thing that I would point to is what 

has happened in India in the last 20 years. I think all of the panelists have been pretty consistent about the turnaround story and 

the growth story and the power of innovation in India, the industries that are being created, the people that are being moved out 

of poverty, the people that have been moved into the middle class, 

which is the point I made earlier, which is that segment of the population is now larger than the U.S. population in its entirety. 

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Garfield, I did not frame my question correctly. I think all of us are excited about the increase in trade, the 

number of people that are moving out of poverty into the middle 

class, and the Chairman asked what is it that all of you three 

would think is the most important, and of course, that is good. 

I also want to know whether there is anyone here that can say 

this is what India thinks is the most important. Does India want 

to move toward a free trade agreement? Does India agree with Mr. 

Subramanian that rather than get issues resolved, that we should 

take them to the WTO with all the time and expense we have with 

that? 

And even though I would acknowledge you to answer, I cannot 

perceive that India would support that. You know, do not work it 

out. We have got a good record with the WTO. Talk to them. 

Does that make any sense? What am I missing? 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. If I may. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Thank you, Chairman Rangel. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
66 

I would say two things in response. One, does India want to 

move forward? I think there is a sense, firstly, India is moving forward with Japan, the EU, Canada, ASEAN Plus Six, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

Mr. RANGEL. Well, how does India deal with the observations 

that some of our business have that they have not been fair in 

terms of their trade agreements, and so why in the world would we 

be supporting them in the WTO or free trade agreements? 

Who here would suggest that India recognizes that we have problems with the tariffs? We have problems with them like we want 

to make it in USA and they want to make it in India. We recognize 

that these are problems that we have with all countries, and they 

have got big problems with us. 

I am just having a small problem and wondering how you can 

help us to deal with these problems. I think after this meeting 

when I talk with the Ambassador from India more of my questions 

will be answered as I can deal with their trade people and get a 

better answer. 

But I just do not know if you told the Chair the three things you 

thought were important and all of us agreed, then what would we 

do? Tell our Trade Representatives to do it? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes. If I can jump in as well. Fundamentally, 

I do not think India would necessarily agree with all of the solutions we have offered. That is number one. 

Number two, to the question of what we hear from India, most 

of what we hear in response to the concerns that we raise relates 

to security, and so what we are told is this is not directed at the 

United States, but it is a broader concern about security and the 

security of India, which we empathize with. And we spend a lot of 

time talking to the Indian Government, including with the Ambassador, whom we are seeing this evening, about ways of addressing 

those legitimate security concerns without building a wall around 

India and Balkanizing the country. 

Mr. RANGEL. I am sorry. Who are ‘‘we’’ that is concerned? When 

you say ‘‘we’’? 

Mr. GARFIELD. When I say ‘‘we’’ it is actually broad, you know. 

So we just—— 

Mr. RANGEL [continuing]. I know, but who are you talking 

about? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Actually most specifically I am talking about 

the global technology sector when I say ‘‘we,’’ but I am also talking 

about the United States and other countries that have significant 

concerns about the direction in India. 

Just a few weeks ago we sent a letter to the Prime Minister that 

was signed by 39 different entities representing over ten different 

countries, and so we are here in front of the U.S. Congress, and 

so, of course, this is a U.S. concern, but I feel comfortable saying 

this is a multi-sectorial and a multinational issue where the United 

States and this Congress can play a significant leadership role. 

Mr. RANGEL. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. 

Mr. Reichert is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to follow up on the Ranking Member’s questions. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
67 

So as you said, Mr. Garfield, 39 international trade groups have 

written the Prime Minister. Other groups have followed with additional letters expressing their concerns about India’s actions. But 

an official at India’s Department of Telecommunications said, ‘‘The 

concerns expressed by various stakeholders would be considered as 

India finalizes their rules.’’ 

What does that really mean? It does not sound too promising, as 

I think Mr. Rangel was pointing out. 

We have sent letters; Congress has sent letters expressing our 

concern. You have sent letters. Others have sent them. What does 

that really mean, ‘‘we will take this under consideration,’’ the concerns? 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Let me jump in here. I do not carry a brief 

for anyone, but I think the important point to recognize is that 

what is also a response to Chairman Rangel is that the Indian Government’s response would be that on many of the concerns that 

have been raised, we are actually consistent with our international 

obligations, you know, and where we are not, we are open to dialogue, including, you know, dispute settlement under multilateral 

procedures. 

So I think in some ways to understand the Indian perspective 

one has to take into account what the domestic challenges are, you 

know, creating a manufacturing base, for example, you know, imitating China, and that underlies the PMA policy, for example. 

But in response to the concerns, they would say in agriculture, 

yes, our tariffs are high, but out bound tariffs are much higher, 

and we are not violating any of them. So I think that is why to 

test some of these claims I think it is useful to get them adjudicated under multilateral dispute settlement procedures. 

Mr. REICHERT. Is there any concern on India’s part that, you 

know, we are all, as Mr. Rangel, again, said, pleased to see that 

a lot of people are moving out of poverty and upward mobility into 

the middle class and higher in India, and that has been the result 

of some of their policies possibly. 

But when they look into the future, is there any concern at all 

that as they move ahead other countries are developing other technologies that they will not necessarily have access to, and they will 

begin to fall behind? 

Has that been a consideration at all? 

I am from Washington State, and we do a lot of business with 

India. We just opened, I think our seventh Starbucks in India, 

some progress, but we are concerned because in 2012 Washington 

State exported $1.2 billion worth of goods to India, up from $661 

million in 2011, but down $3 billion since 2007. 

So, you know, we are losing our ability to interact with India and 

exchange ideas and technology, negative on us, but is India even 

aware or thinking about the future and the loss of this technology 

and these opportunities to interact with other countries in the future where they may lose instead of be gaining? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I think it is hard to ignore. The foreign direct 

investment numbers over the last three years are reflective of that. 

Starbucks is a great example because they’re in, but there are a 

lot of other retailers, including some in the technology sector, who 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
68 

would like to be in and are challenged in doing so, some very 

prominent ones, in fact. 

Your initial question, I think we have heard it before, which is 

it is under advisement, and we will consider it, and I think until 

there is a sense that the implications of not addressing this are 

going to be significant, then it will continue to be under advisement, and that is why this hearing today is so important. 

We know the powers that be in India are, in fact, paying attention. 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. I just want to add, I just want to say that, 

you know, again, I think one risks obscuring, you know, what is 

happening in specific sectors with what is happen overall; that in 

fact, late last year the most dramatic opening to FDI happened, 

you know, which would allow Walmart to go into India. That happened recently. 

And in the last three years, the access that U.S. investors have 

to Indian stocks, equities, bonds, have been increased dramatically. 

So I think one needs to have this balance of, yes, there are sectorial 

problems, but the underlying trends. FDI came down during the 

crisis, but it has picked up again once again. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. Neal is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a quick footnote. The issue of intellectual property has lingered here for a long time as we have witnessed this growing relationship between the United States and India, but it is a very stubborn problem, but I want to take you to another question that is 

more specific with a specific company located in New England, 

TAKO. They have asked that because we are holding this hearing 

that I raise this issue specifically on their behalf. 

This is an American company that is moving part of their manufacturing business to India from China. Now, you would think that 

that would be a good thing for India. However, India has made the 

move so difficult that the company is now beginning to regret the 

decision. 

For example, TAKO has sent some samples of their finished 

products to Indian vendors who will be manufacturing their products and TAKO ran into major problems with Indian customs, including long holds on samples and arbitrary duties and fees. With 

a work force of 500 million people which is slated to grow over 

these next 25 years, India is grasping at any means to generate 

manufacturing employment, and we have seen and witnessed some 

forced localization measures. 

Here is an instance where an American manufacturer is trying 

to create manufacturing jobs in India, and India is making it very 

difficult for them to do so. 

As witnesses, is there any one of you who wishes to speak specifically to this question? 

And I would note that TAKO is headquartered in Cranston, 

Rhode Island. 

Mr. TWINING. Sir, I can make just a general point, which is 

that one reason the U.S. and India had a very fraught relationship 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
69 

really throughout the Cold War was not simply because of Cold 

War divisions, but because India socialized most of its economic 

base when it became independent after the British Colonial period. 

Most of us are pretty progressive, and we are used to thinking 

about India as this dynamic market, a billion plus people, one of 

the biggest economies down the road, but in fact, you still have a 

government whose tentacles are everywhere in the economy, and it 

is one reason why the Indian private sector, quite interestingly, 

they are so fed up with the regulatory mess in India that many of 

them are actually going abroad. It is actually much easier and 

more rewarding for many Indian companies to invest in Europe or 

the United States than it is in their own country. 

And so we do not have an Indian private sector representative 

here at the dais, but if we did, I suspect he would say, ‘‘Gosh, we 

have this kind of problem ourselves and it drives us nuts.’’ 

But from a ten, 20-year perspective, the Indian Government has 

been in the process of stepping back from the economy, but it is 

still far too heavily involved in it, and that is something we think, 

again, I think there is a consensus that a big push on trade liberalization between our countries would help to extract the Indian 

state in ways that would really benefit the Indian people through 

greater economic growth. 

Mr. NEAL. But the difficult with that point is that as we pursue 

free trade agreements and breaking down barriers to trade, one of 

the items, I think, that could fairly be ascribed to governments in 

China or India is that they are for free trade on their terms. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. I think that that is a fair point, Mr. Neal, 

but I think the other side, the way this could possibly work, the 

big push that we are talking about is because trade is a two-way 

street. For example, just as localization and others, IP issues are 

raising concerns, I think the Indian Government also has, you 

know, issues of concern in the U.S. which, you know, a kind of big 

push would allow this kind of tradeoff to be made. 

To give one example, the H1B issue, the immigration issue, you 

know, export licensing, for example, that is another issue. Totalization in Social Security agreements, that is another issue. 

So I think the important thing here is how can we create a 

framework so that more of these exchanges can take place and it 

does not just become, you know, U.S. business complaining about 

problems in India which no doubt exist, but creating a more positive two-way dynamic to create the incentives that Mr. Twining 

talked about also for India to change some of these policies. 

Chairman NUNES. Mr. Waldron. 

Mr. WALDRON. I think it is possible here at least in the discussion of technology and intellectual property to create win-win situations. I think you want to be able to convince the Indian Government that this is not a zero sum game. This is about creating an 

environment for innovation, and India has the resources technically 

to advance very far in terms of creating new, innovative technologies, yet it seems to be going towards a very short-term view 

of what is going on. 

But I think we can play a very strong role in at least advocating, 

look, the long term and the future here of prosperity is with advancing a win-win situation. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses for your participation today. 

Ambassador Johnson, you touched a bit on agriculture and, you 

know, I guess in general and some more specific terms, obviously 

we know we have got a globalized economy, and I think of a business that exports around the world. This business happens to obviously be in my district, but in a town of 300 population, and I hear 

from them that India’s policies have inconsistent tariffs, non-tariff 

trade barriers, various other challenges. 

Could you elaborate on that perhaps? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry. What was the business? 

Mr. SMITH. Agriculture. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, in general. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I come from a town of 300 people in Iowa. 

So I have sympathy for your constituents. 

No, actually in combination response to the question that Chairman Nunes has asked in sort of responding to Congressman 

Nunes, is that what India basically wants is agreements on its own 

terms, whether you are talking about the WTO that they actually 

want to backtrack on tariffs and developing country subsidies, or 

are you talking about bilateral agreements where they basically 

leave agriculture out. They include 20 tariff lines out of 600 potentially. 

And in response to Chairman Nunes, I tried to say that I think 

this Committee is showing an aggressive agenda, an aggressive 

agenda on trade that India would be left out of if they do not start 

acting in a way that is more conducive to trade. It would be helpful. 

In agriculture, we see countless not just in the number of SPS 

barriers, but the goal line keeps moving. If you start addressing 

one and then another one seems to pop up. There is one reason, 

motivation for it, and you deal with that. Then they come up with 

another reason for justifying a barrier. 

And then as we started out by saying they have very high tariffs, 

the highest in the world when it comes to agriculture across virtually all of their agricultural industries, and that is very problematic, and it allows them because they have a high bound rate and 

they apply it, it gives them so much water, so much protection that 

it gives them the flexibility to lower it whenever they need something, if there is a draught or something domestically, but they put 

it right back up. 

Well, if you are an exporter, it is hard to build a business around 

not knowing what is going to happen either on the tariff side or 

on the regulatory, sanitary and phytosanitary rules that seem to be 

somewhat arbitrary at times. 

I hope that answers your question. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. Now, could you reflect a little bit in terms of 

the restrictions that are or are not based on the sound science and 

economics? 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, for example, in the dairy industry they 

have had in place a number of regulations that, in fact, have been 

changing over time that have to do with what we feed our animals 

or the drugs that we might use that are internationally recognized 

and accepted, and then when we go through and we spend a lot of 

time assisting the industry on this, when we go through trying to 

address each one of those problems, we get sort of similar responses to what we heard over here, which is that they are under 

consideration or they still believe they are justified. And so far we 

have not pulled a trigger on a WTO case. 

Another one is avian influenza, which basically they put a ban 

in place for low path avian influenza, which is not an internationally recognized standard. We have the most rigorous system for 

monitoring and dealing with avian influenza in the world, and 

India has actually had high path avian influenza on numerous occasions. 

And so now we have taken a WTO case against them that the 

panel was just empowered last month. 

Mr. SMITH. When you say that the policies are changing, could 

you elaborate on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. So I know the dairy industry has a paper here, 

but so, for example, when we start working through trying to deal 

with even things that are not science based, so, for example, they 

do not want certain drugs to be used for the dairy products that 

are sent there. 

So even when we start investigating how we could be identifying 

suppliers that could address that specific requirement, then we will 

find later that there is another reason that those suppliers maybe 

do not fit the case or the conversation does not continue. 

Mr. SMITH. Or perhaps it has less to do about public safety than 

some other—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Oh, clearly, and I think it is pretty 

clear on a number of these that there is not a human or animal 

health benefit from the regulation, but really there are effectively 

acts of protectionism. 

Mr. SMITH. Would anyone else? Mr. Subramanian? 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Just a thought. You know, the description 

of going to WTO as pulling the trigger, at one level that is true, 

but I think you have to recognize that many of these regulations 

that are formulated within India come about because of complicated interests, and sometimes having an international ruling 

which says this is not based on sound science actually helps the pro 

liberalization law be within India to act on those who are against 

it. 

So I think that is a big advantage of having, you know, international pressure through, you know, multilateral procedures to 

kind of strengthen the hands of kind of the good guys within India. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you. 

Mr. Larson is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairman Nunes and Mr. Rangel, and 

our distinguished guests that are here today. The testimony has 

been enlightening and certainly we all share the concerns and the 

great opportunity that exists with the vast potential of India. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
72 

I would like to amplify a point that Mr. Neal made and one that 

continues to be a thorny issue for this Committee and American 

manufacturers in general, and that deals with the issue of intellectual properties. 

And having several value added manufacturers in the Northeast 

and specifically in the State of Connecticut and one testifying today 

in terms of Pfizer, I would like to get the perspective, if I could, 

Mr. Waldron, from you and other panelists if they want to join in, 

about the difficulties that American companies face. 

I believe it was Mr. Garfield that talked about the complications 

of preferential markets and the bureaucratic entanglements that 

that creates, and of course, the ongoing concern that so many 

American manufacturers have related to us about intellectual property, if you could, sir. 

Mr. Waldron. 

Mr. WALDRON. Thank you, Congressman Larson. 

I think we have to sort of talk about balance here in the intellectual property area. I mean, even though India will proclaim it is 

consistent with trade obligations in terms of its patent law, we 

have had in the recent past about eight sort of cases that have 

come up dealing with patented products, and frankly, we are dealing with a situation where we are at zero and eight in terms of the 

patent being upheld or any sort of pushing back on a compulsory 

license or revocation actions. I think it speaks to a very poor 

record, and there is something out of balance. 

I mean, the rest of the world has IP provisions that are consistent with international obligations. Yet we are so far towards 

the range where everything is revoked or there is no valid patent 

in India. I think we really have to sort of address this quickly before it becomes a very dire situation and we find ourselves where 

we really have nothing left. 

Mr. LARSON. Would you say that that is because of an 

ensnarled bureaucracy or more of a deliberate plan of India? 

Mr. WALDRON. Well, I cannot speak to the intentions of the Indian Government, but I think the government there should play a 

role and does play a role in at least communicating what it finds 

important and its priorities. So if all the administrative agencies 

are deciding cases in a certain way, that seems to be reflective of 

the tone that is being set at the highest levels. 

I really think that there is a role that the Indian Government 

can do in communicating to its agencies in terms of creating a more 

positive environment because, frankly speaking, their interests lie 

in creating a culture of innovation, as we do here. The IP system 

has been the driver, the historic driver of innovation over many 

years and contributed to the great prosperity that we enjoy in this 

country. It is something that we should share. I think it is a legacy 

that we have to bring to them simply because we are in a world 

where we do not have drug products that cure all diseases. I think 

we really need to get further along, and these are interests that we 

all share in common with every country regardless of border. 

So the emphasis really has to be on innovation, and there really 

needs to be messages from the top within India. 

Mr. GARFIELD. If I could add. 

Mr. LARSON. Sure. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
73 

Mr. GARFIELD. There are multiple forces at play here, and so 

in part it is bureaucracy. In part it is a slowing economy, and markets like India looking at China and that model and thinking that 

maybe the path to take, and so the point that has been made about 

creating opportunities for multidirectional or bidirectional dialogue, 

so we’re exchanging ways in which their interests can be met as 

well as ours, and when I say ‘‘ours,’’ I mean global companies, I 

think will serve us all well. 

The concern I have is—and not to sound too much like the boy 

who cried wolf—is that some of these challenges that are progressing now could become non-remediable if we do not address 

them immediately, and so creating those opportunities and that 

dialogue immediately, I think, is critically important. 

Mr. LARSON. I believe it was Gandhi who said, ‘‘I want all of 

the winds of the world to be able to blow freely through my house, 

but I will not be blown over by any.’’ 

And it seems to me, both Mr. Waldron and Mr. Garfield, that 

what you have said this would enhance their ability to stand with 

the rest of the world. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Well articulated. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. Boustany is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been a really informative and compelling hearing. I 

really appreciate all of our witnesses and their testimony. 

It has been clearly stated obviously that the benefits of a close 

trade and investment relationship with India is very significant, 

and it is also strategically important as well as we look at the 

growth in Asia, the Rim around the Indian Ocean, and so forth, 

and back in the second term of the Bush Administration, I was 

really enthusiastic about the civil nuclear agreement. I thought 

this was a very important strategic step, an opening, if you will, 

toward India to really formalize and enhance the relationship, and 

yet subsequently we saw the liability regime that was put in place, 

and it sort of really dampened the enthusiasm across the board. 

So it is sort of like we take a step, and then there is a reaction 

which further pushes, and I found this problematic, but hopefully 

we can continue to move forward. 

India clearly is critical, I think, as you all have stated very clearly. India is critical in getting back to rules-based global trading system and bring China in and so forth, and I know we are pushing 

on TPP and the trans-Atlantic agreement as leverage to hopefully 

bring them in and to deal with China. But the problem is we are 

behind timing-wise on this while India is already moving forward 

with a number of other regional agreements that are, you know, 

not as comprehensive, but clearly put us at a disadvantage as you 

all stated. 

But it seems to me in answering Mr. Rangel’s question, and 

clearly we need to talk to the Indians about it as well; I agree with 

you, but a couple of observations. 

One, India needs to move up the value chain on manufacturing. 

That is clearly one of their objectives, but secondly, you know, the 

security issue as was raised by Mr. Garfield. But what was not 

mentioned is India’s severe vulnerability with regard to energy and 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
74 

the need for energy. And as I think about this, I know Cheniere 

Energy, for instance, is a company in my district. In fact, the first 

LNG export license has been granted to Cheniere, and we in Louisiana are very, very excited about this because it does mean jobs. 

They have completed a 20-year contract with the Indian energy 

company. GAIL, I believe, is the name of the company, and this is 

taking effect in 2017. I think the contract entails 3.5 million tons 

of natural gas, liquefied natural gas exported from the U.S. annually. 

This is a time limited opportunity given, you know, the nature 

of the change in global LNG markets. We have an arbitrage opportunity that is immense, but it is time limited. None of you address 

this specifically in your testimony, and as I look at how do we catalyze this relationship with India, what can we use as leverage? 

The energy vulnerability seems key in this to me on many levels, 

both from a security and manufacturing standpoint, and so forth. 

I would like Mr. Twining and Dr. Subramanian to comment on how 

we could, you know, position ourselves because this is the second 

step granting this type of export license to a non-FTA country. 

Mr. TWINING. Sir, that is an excellent question, and I am so 

glad you raised it. India has one of the greatest energy import requirements in the world, and that dependency on world energy 

supplies will only grow as the country develops, as the population 

continues to bloom. 

One of the smartest things the United States could do strategically in Asia, we are quite used to thinking about our military presence, our naval presence, our alliance commitments. We also sometimes talk about our trade agenda and some kind of market liberalization, but we need to add an energy pillar to this. 

And exactly as you say, the shale gas revolution in the United 

States creates an extraordinary opportunity for us to export it, and 

I think we should probably export it to the world, but we should 

also particularly build in that dimension to our key security partnerships in Asia. I would say in Asia our most important, most capable security partnerships are with Japan and India. In different 

ways, and say to them, ‘‘Look. Part of this package could be preferential access or some facilitated agreement to U.S. energy exports 

because, in fact, we have a national security interest in helping you 

develop your economy and helping you develop your military capacity, help us police this tough region in the world, create some ballast in Asia other than around China,’’ and this is something our 

allies desperately need. 

And so, you know, I think this could be a game changer if we 

play it right. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. It is a great question, and I agree completely with what Mr. Twining said. I would just add a couple of 

points. 

One is that India is heavily dependent on coal. So from a climate 

change point of view as well, getting cleaner gas from the United 

States, I think, will help enormously, and also the fact that not 

only is coal dirty, but Indian coal supplies are kind of now again 

boggled by all of these regulatory problems. 

So I think there is a huge opportunity there, both the energy side 

on the climate change side, and I think the United States should 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
75 

use that as leverage, you know, in pursuing not just the energy 

agenda. So this comes back to my point about, you know, the twoway need. 

I mean, just as, you know, concerns that we have, the U.S. has 

this great leverage in terms of energy exports. So I think that reinforces my view that we need to get this big thing going whether 

much more two-way tradeoffs are possible. 

And just one comment on your value added. The Indian problem 

is not moving up the value added chain. It’s moving down the value 

added chain because, you know, it’s too skill intensive and too technology intensive. We need to create more jobs and employment. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. Roskam is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Twining, in your opening remarks you said that India plays 

better inside the club than outside the club, and I just wanted to 

follow up on Dr. Boustany’s observation about the civil nuclear 

agreement in which they sort of made their own club. 

In other words, it seems to me that part of what India has got 

going for it is they say, ‘‘Look. We are so big and so strategically 

important we are going to wait and you are going to redefine rules 

based on how big we are.’’ 

Am I overstating that? Is that an over-characterization or how 

would you frame that up? 

Mr. TWINING. The way I would frame it is as somebody who 

worked in the Bush Administration on the civil nuclear agreement 

was we had a problem, which is that we had a country that was 

completely outside of the normal proliferation regime, the nonproliferation regime. We had a country that had nuclear weapons 

and was not proliferating them like China, Pakistan, other countries have proliferated them beyond its borders, but we had a big 

hole in the rule book on global nuclear trade and proliferation. 

We eventually concluded, the U.S. Congress concluded along with 

the Administration that bringing India into the system would be 

better than having it on the outside. The liability law that India 

subsequently passed shot itself in the foot. I mean, a lot of domestic politics here, a lot of domestic politics there. The government in 

India had fought so hard for that civil nuclear deal. It was the first 

time an Indian Prime Minister had put his government on the line 

on a foreign policy issue, put his government on the line over building this new relationship with us. 

He won that, but then it was almost like the fight went out of 

his Administration. They let the parliament devise this liability 

law that was, frankly, inadequate. 

What we had seen though in terms of your question, India’s inclusion in the club, not only did we collectively bring India into this 

civilian nuclear regime, in civilian trade in nuclear components. 

India now is lobbying to join the clubs that had excluded it: the 

Australia group, the nuclear suppliers group, the WASSENAAR arrangement, all of these nuclear cartels that control the civilian 

trade in nuclear energy. India now wants to be a full member of 

those clubs. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
76 

Mr. ROSKAM. So in that case, I mean, the paradigm has shifted, 

and what you are describing is more of an opportunity to invite—— 

Mr. TWINING [continuing]. No, I think it is a longer term socialization opportunity. We have also seen, I know, the Hill India’s 

policies towards Iran were a huge cause of concern during the civil 

nuclear debates. There was no quid pro quo. 

We have seen India vote with the United States against Iran five 

times now in the IAEA, and so I think that is another example of 

where the country can be more responsible when it is inside than 

when it is out. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. TWINING. Thank you. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Subramanian, when you went through your 

one, two, three and one, two, three, and thank you for doing that 

in a very organized way, by the way, for one of your comments I 

wrote down, ‘‘Rub some dirt on it,’’ meaning the U.S. should basically get over the regulatory and tax problems. 

Can you describe what you meant? In other words, what it 

sounded like to me as, look, this is really big and complicated, and 

we are not going to be able to influence this as much as we think 

we can. So the phrase when a kid bumps himself, ‘‘Hey, rub some 

dirt on it. Get over it and move on.’’ Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Well, I would put it in the following way. 

The thrust is you got it exactly right, but the issue is something 

that is an important issue because, you know, the first best is, for 

example, on the civil nuclear, is to get a much better law. There 

is no question about that. 

But what if you don’t get that law? What if it’s not going to happen? Then I think there is a dilemma for American business. 

Mr. ROSKAM. So the point is do not wait. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Yes, because others are getting in. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. That is my next question. Who is getting 

in? How are they beating us to this? 

So when this Committee in the last Congress was dealing with 

PNTR for Russia, for example, one of the recurrent themes and it 

was very persuasive and agreed was that lack of action on the part 

of the committee and Congress gives other global competitors an 

advantage in the Russian marketplace. 

And so I think we did the right thing and moved forward on it. 

Who is beating us to the punch? And what are they doing differently? If it is so complicated for us to get these deals and sort 

of the nickel and dime stuff of pistachios and chickens as you guys 

were making these analogies, who is beating us? And are they less 

sophisticated agreements? 

What are we missing or how are these being compared? 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. That is a great question. So I will just give 

you an example. On the civil nuclear, I think France and Russia, 

whatever inadequacies are there in the India law, make it up in 

some way through kind of government guarantees of some sort, 

and that is the way. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. I mean, unfortunately we are done here, 

right? 

Mr. ROSKAM. Right. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
77 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. And so it is a problem, but that is one of 

the examples of the way they are heading. In infrastructure, for example, I think, you know, the East Asians and Malaysians are getting in in a way that U.S. business is not. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, what are they doing? What are the Malaysians doing, for example? And then wind it up because we have got 

the red light. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. I mean, I think that essentially partly 

they are willing to take greater risks because I think U.S. business 

needs this rule of law comfort, you know, which is very good, but 

I think it loses out in the process. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you. 

Mr. Kind is recognized. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this very insightful and helpful hearing, and I want to thank the 

witnesses for your excellent testimony here today. 

This is a crucial relationship, not only geopolitically but economically, and it is one that is going to require a lot of care and nurturing and attention as we move forward, given some of the challenges and the obstacles that we face. 

I had a chance, Mr. Chairman, last October to head for India for 

a few day with Adam Smith, Duncan Hunter, and a couple of other 

members, and it was not just New Delhi. We got out in the countryside and the various cities, and it was a fascinating place with 

tremendous potential, but also some huge challenges in regards to 

our economic relationship. 

Ambassador Johnson, I appreciate your update on where we are 

with the agricultural sphere of it and the difficulties that we still 

face trying to get India to open up a little bit more in regards to 

our own egg products. 

Coming from my home State of Wisconsin, dairy obviously is a 

source of concern and, Mr. Chairman, I notice that the National 

Milk Producers and the Dairy Export Council submitted a statement for today’s hearing. I am not sure if it was officially included 

in the record, but I would ask unanimous consent at this time to 

have it included if it was not. 

Chairman NUNES. Without objection. 

[The information follows: Dairy Industry] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
78 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.055.eps
79 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.056.eps
80 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.057.eps
81 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.058.eps
82 

f 

Mr. KIND. Thank you. 

But, Mr. Subramanian, something that you mentioned earlier 

when you were going through your litany of three things as far as 

U.S.-India relations, the final one was what not to do, and that is 

GSP. Obviously that is coming up for reauthorization, and given 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.059.eps
83 

the compulsory license decisions that they have made right now, 

which is very unsettling and could detrimentally affect Indian foreign investment going into the country, but also some of the other 

hurdles that we have faced, agricultural or otherwise, your recommendation is not to use that as a point of leverage as far as engaging India. 

But assuming we did, what would the consequences be if they 

lost GSP preference from us, and what would that mean as we 

move forward? 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. That is a great question, Mr. Kind. My 

sense is that the loss of GSP in quantitative terms will not be huge 

for India, you know. India basically exports a lot of high tech, you 

know, more advanced goods, and apart from a few things here and 

there, I think the quantitative impact will not be great. 

So it does not make for a very strong lever vis-a-vis India, but 

I think you are going to incur the diplomatic costs because this will 

be symbolically seen as a kind of, you know, retaliatory action or 

so. That is why I think on the balance of cost and benefits I would 

be a little hesitant about using that. 

And on the compulsory licensing, I do agree with Mr. Waldron 

that, you know, there are a few things in Indian law like Section 

3(d) of the Indian Patent Act has these requirements for a patent, 

the efficacy requirement or the working requirement. I think these 

are things that are well tested in the WTO. I mean, I do not think 

we need to resort to retaliatory threats to get these changes because I think because India might be out of line with international 

practice, I think it is good to get an international—— 

Mr. KIND [continuing]. You think it would be fair game as we 

come up with reauthorization of GSP to be looking at India and 

other countries involved, too, in regards to whether we need to at 

this point in development extend those preferences to India or 

some others. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Yes, but that should be a more generic discussion, right? 

Mr. KIND. Yes. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Because, as I have said, why should a 

country that grounds GSP receive GSP, and that is true for many 

countries. But that is a different conversation and a different dynamic from using this as a specific—— 

Mr. KIND [continuing]. Mr. Waldron, let me go back to the compulsory license issue on that, and assuming they are moving forward on this, what would be the impact on foreign investment or 

other private companies looking to do business in India if they go 

down this road? 

Mr. WALDRON. Well, I cannot speak to all of the individual 

countries, but I would say that if you are an innovator and you are 

trying to sell innovative products there, you are going to find yourself in competition with numerous other products. We have had 

products on the market there that did not have patent protection, 

where we were competing against 60 other competitors marking 

the same thing. So obviously, the consequences of that are dire. 

I guess in talking about trade instruments or trade tools, I do 

think that they are somewhat of a blunt instrument to try to deal 

with something that you are really trying to get focus on. If you 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
84 

are trying to focus on specific issues, you may not get that through 

the revocation of certain preferences or a WTO case, which has all 

kinds of unintended consequences. 

But you really have to send strong messages on the things that 

you believe are priorities, and I think that that is really the starting point, but obviously we do not have a lot of time. 

Mr. KIND. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly encourage this Committee with your leadership to continue to focus 

on India and any parliament or congressional exchanges that we 

might have, too, so that we can have the dialogue at that level I 

think would be very helpful and productive as we move forward. 

Thank you. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Kind. 

Mr. Paulsen is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also for holding this 

hearing. 

Great testimony today. I really have appreciated kind of the reinforcement about what I have heard about these disturbing trends 

within India kind of turning inward and erecting more barriers to 

trade and investment and kind of turning back the clock, if you 

will, and so some real challenging opportunities for us moving forward. 

One of Minnesota’s largest exports to India is in the area of medical technology, and unfortunately, I understand that the United 

States medical manufacturers are facing incredible challenges now 

selling their products in India, including lack of transparency in 

pricing under India’s central government health care scheme, as 

well as discriminatory government procurement policies. 

And there is no doubt that American medical device companies 

are well positioned to partner with the Indian Government toward 

improving health care access and outcomes and awareness and developing much need more stronger health care infrastructure, but 

they are going to have a difficult time doing so in the current environment. 

Mr. Waldron, you touched on some of this from the drug perspective. Now, can you also maybe comment from the perspective of 

maybe how an American medical device company might have difficulty selling their products in India? 

And is it going to be helpful to have a renewed or a revised bilateral trade dialogue in this area, addressing this industry’s concerns? 

Mr. WALDRON. I guess very generally I think it is probably one 

of the more important tools that might be helpful. I guess it all depends on the particularities of what is included in that. So I would 

say that if it is amongst the instruments that you could move forward on, but I mean, a lot of medical instruments also depend on 

intellectual property and sort of the respect for the innovation that 

is coming in. 

So I think it is sort of like part and parcel of the same kind of 

environment that we are trying to create there. I think we are all 

experiencing it in the same way. Our innovation really is not being 

respected, and it is being pushed back. 

Mr. GARFIELD. The thing that I would add there is particularly 

in the context of GSP coming up for renewal, before we get there 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
85 

I think we have an opportunity to engage in the kind of 

bidirectional dialogue so that we can talk strategically about differing interests that can help us advance and resolve some of the 

challenges we are facing in the market, and so it is something that 

we would highly endorse. 

Mr. SUBRAMANIAN. Just a thought on this, the PMA policy. So 

India, I mean, it is not a member of the Government Procurement 

Code, and so localization in government contracts is okay, and now 

it is extending it to the private sector. I think there is a great opportunity here actually through the government procurement route 

because the government wants to save money in its purchases. Fiscal deficits are very high, and you know, getting the fiscal under 

control is a major objective. 

Therefore, I think getting India into the Government Procurement Code is actually an easier way of, you know, dealing with the 

PMA policy than it is, in fact, of addressing PMS in the private sector. I think that is the kind of thing that is worth considering, and 

that is another reason why I think getting India into the WTO, into 

the Government Procurement Code would be worth pursuing. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Let me ask this question, too, because today 

global supply chains are absolutely playing a more increasing integral role in trade overall, and there are a lot of Minnesota companies that have a strong network of supply chains, you know, 3M, 

General Mills, Cargill, Equal Labs, C.H. Robinson, Medtronic. The 

list goes on and on and on. 

But more and more of these goods and services now used by producers and consumers contain inputs and value added components 

from a number of countries rather than just being produced in one 

country alone. How well is India itself integrated now into global 

supply chains and how can it improve that integration in the global 

supply chain? Anybody? 

Mr. GARFIELD. It is incredibly well integrated certainly for 

technology, and that is a part of what is so surprising about the 

direction in which India has been going in the last couple years, 

particularly as it relates to the PMA and some of the regulation 

that we talked about earlier, including the testing or certification 

or taxes. 

They have benefitted. India has benefitted significantly, given 

the global integrated supply chains that we see today, and given 

the policies they put in place though, they stand to lose their role 

as a part of that process, and so our hope is that through these 

types of conversation, they are able to see as well as we are how 

we mutually benefit from this relationship. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Anyone else? 

[No response.] 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Chairman NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Paulsen. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony and for 

the responses to our questions. I think you have given us much to 

think about concerning the opportunities and the challenges presented by the U.S.-India bilateral relationship. 

Our record is open until March 27th, 2013, and I urge interested 

parties to submit statements to inform the committee’s consideration of the issues discussed today. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
86 

With that this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follows:] 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING
87 

American Bar Association 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.060.eps
88 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.061.eps
89 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.062.eps
90 

ASCAP 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.063.eps
91 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.064.eps
92 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.065.eps
93 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.066.eps
94 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.067.eps
95 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.068.eps
96 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.069.eps
97 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.070.eps
98 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.071.eps
99 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.072.eps
100 

BIO 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.073.eps
101 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.074.eps
102 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.075.eps
103 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.076.eps
104 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.077.eps
105 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.078.eps
106 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.079.eps
107 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.080.eps
108 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.081.eps
109 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.082.eps
110 

Blue Diamond Growers 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.083.eps
111 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.084.eps
112 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.085.eps
113 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.086.eps
114 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.087.eps
115 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.088.eps
116 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.089.eps
117 

CII 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.090.eps
118 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.091.eps
119 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.092.eps
120 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.093.eps
121 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.094.eps
122 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.095.eps
123 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.096.eps
124 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.097.eps
125 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.098.eps
126 

CSIS 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.099.eps
127 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.100.eps
128 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.101.eps
129 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.102.eps
130 

Dairy Industry 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.103.eps
131 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.104.eps
132 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.105.eps
133 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.106.eps
134 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.107.eps
135 

DISCUS 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.108.eps
136 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.109.eps
137 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.110.eps
138 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.111.eps
139 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.112.eps
140 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.113.eps
141 

IBM 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.114.eps
142 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.115.eps
143 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.116.eps
144 

IIPA 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.117.eps
145 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.118.eps
146 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.119.eps
147 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.120.eps
148 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.121.eps
149 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.122.eps
150 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.123.eps
151 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.124.eps
152 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.125.eps
153 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.126.eps
154 

ITIF 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.127.eps
155 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.128.eps
156 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.129.eps
157 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.130.eps
158 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.131.eps
159 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.132.eps
160 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.133.eps
161 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.134.eps
162 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.135.eps
163 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.136.eps
164 

KEI 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.137.eps
165 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.138.eps
166 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.139.eps
167 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.140.eps
168 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.141.eps
169 

NAM 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.142.eps
170 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.143.eps
171 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.144.eps
172 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.145.eps
173 

National Chicken Council 1 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.146.eps
174 

National Chicken Council 2 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.147.eps
175 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.148.eps
176 

National Chicken Council 3 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.149.eps
177 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.150.eps
178 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.151.eps
179 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.152.eps
180 

National Chicken Council 4 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.153.eps
181 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.154.eps 82909.155.eps
182 

National Cotton Council 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.156.eps
183 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.157.eps
184 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.158.eps
185 

NPPC 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.159.eps
186 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.160.eps
187 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.161.eps
188 

PhRMA 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.162.eps
189 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.163.eps
190 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.164.eps
191 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.165.eps
192 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.166.eps
193 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.167.eps
194 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.168.eps
195 

Rapaport 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.169.eps
196 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.170.eps
197 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.171.eps
198 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.172.eps
199 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.173.eps
200 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.174.eps
201 

Rio Tinto 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.175.eps
202 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.176.eps
203 

SoFTEC 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.177.eps
204 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.178.eps
205 

f 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.179.eps
206 

Wine Institute 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.180.eps
207 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with HEARING82909.181.eps