U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk testified before the Senate Finance Committee today about the Obama Administration’s 2012 Trade Agenda. (Last week, USTR released its Annual Report outlining the 2012 Agenda in detail.) The Committee has a webcast available here, and interested parties may submit a statement for the record until March 21st.
Sen. Baucus opened the hearing highlighting three goals for trade policy – permanent Normal Trade Relations for Russia, the Trans Pacific Partnership, and challenges posed by China, including IP. Ranking Minority Member Hatch’s opening statement focused on the need for Trade Promotion Authority.
Kirk’s prepared statement indicated that USTR’s priorities for this year are
- Working with Colombia and Panama to implement their FTA commitments so the FTA can come into effect.
- Concluding negotiations on the TPP text, and working with Congress to consider new entrants to the agreement. New countries must accept the high standards of the TPP.
- Exploring the issue of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).
- Rigorous enforcement of existing trade agreements. This is a big Obama Administration priority. The new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) will strengthen enforcement.
The Q&A session included debate over the TPP, intellectual property, and the ITEC.
Sen. Hatch asked about the timing of new entrants to the TPP. Does the administration intend to finalize the text before allowing the entry of Canada, Japan and Mexico? Kirk answered that the first TPP priority is to finalize the text, which they aim to do this year. The text is meant to serve as a blueprint for trade in the Asia Pacific. USTR welcomes the interest of other countries, but any new negotiating partners need to understand the standards being set by TPP. Hatch asked Kirk if the Administration had already decided to bring in the other countries, and Kirk answered that no decision had been made – the determination will eventually be made with input from other agencies and Congress.
Hatch asked Kirk how USTR intends to conclude TPP negotiations without Trade Promotion Authority, and whether the Administration is ready to work with his office to write TPA legislation. Kirk said USTR is proceeding as if it already has TPA, and his office is happy to work with Hatch’s office on legislation.
Finally, Hatch asked Kirk why Congress was never consulted about the creation of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center. He asked if ITEC would significantly affect the level of enforcement, and noted his concern that the Administration did not consult the Senate before forming it. Kirk answered that it was part of the Administration’s enforcement work, which has been the subject of numerous consultations with Congress.
Sen. Wyden asked Kirk about the consequences of ACTA. Could the U.S. face retaliation if Congress passed future legislation on internet freedom? Kirk said trade agreements do not constrain Congress. Wyden also asked about the Administration’s assertion that ACTA does not require Congressional approval, and Kirk said the executive agreement is based on authority that has been used by other administrations. [See my previous infojustice blog for more on the Wyden-Kirk discussion.]
Sen. Roberts noted that Kirk had promised his office would “explore issues” related to Trade Promotion Authority, and he asked what those issues were. Kirk answered that TPA legislation should address new issues in today’s economy, including the digital economy. Roberts asked how the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center will improve enforcement. Would it just establish another layer of bureaucracy in a trade policy framework that already has a lot of overlapping agencies? He thinks that adding staff to USTR would be a more efficient way to increase resources for enforcement. Kirk noted that part of Obama’s initiative to increase exports requires agencies to work well together, and the ITEC will help them do so.
Sen. Menendez asked about data protection in the TPP negotiations. He wants the U.S. to propose text requiring 12 years of data exclusivity for biopharmaceuticals. This would be consistent with current U.S. law, and has bipartisan support in Congress. Menendez asked Kirk if he would table data exclusivity text in May at the Dallas negotiating round. Kirk assured the Senator that USTR recognizes the importance of the matter, but he also noted that there is a divergence of views in the U.S. government over the optimal length of data exclusivity for biopharmaceuticals – the Obama administration has proposed 7 years. This is why the U.S. has not yet tabled data exclusivity text.
Baucus asked Kirk to quantify the benefit to the U.S. economy of various trade outcomes – if TPP passes, if China respects software patents. Kirk said that a rule of thumb is that every extra billion dollars in exports results in 5,000 jobs.
Sen. Wyden told Kirk that people have been contacting his office warning that SOPA and PIPA issues are now on the table in the TPP. People are concerned that the agreement will affect internet freedom, and they are very concerned about the lack of transparency in the TPP negotiations. You need a security clearance to see the documents related to TPP, so the public feels shut out. Why did administration agree to a process that is not in line with the president’s commitment to transparency and open government? Millions of Americans want to be part of these discussions.
Kirk said that the “truth is an option,” and we don’t help ourselves by trying to conflate SOPA and PIPA with TPP. The concern is unfounded. Wyden should help USTR by informing people that the issues in SOPA or PIPA are not included in TPP. There is a lot of misinformation on ACTA and TPP.
On transparency, Kirk said his office is trying to promote the free flow of information. Civil society groups are attending negotiating rounds and talking to negotiators. The current administration has gone further than any other administration to increase transparency. However, there is a certain degree of discretion necessary to get countries to the negotiating table.
Wyden repeated that the public has complained about not having access to the text. Right now there is a requirement for a security clearance to see documents that can affect internet freedom, but it became clear last January that millions of Americans won’t accept being locked out of the debate over internet freedom.
Wyden suggested a solution – the U.S. should release its proposals online, in real time (at least proposals that would affect the internet). This would put the issue to bed.
