Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer T

Representative Robert Lighthizer testifies before the Senate Finance committee on the administrations trade strategy and the United Statesmexicocanada agreement. This portion is one hour. The laws that delegate congresss constitutional trade authority to the executive also require close consultation with congress. This hearing is an important part of that consultation and it provides an opportunity to explain the president s ambitious trade agenda to the. Ongress and all americans members of this committee are looking forward to this very important discussion. A critical component of the trade agenda that i would like u. S. Mexicos canada agreement. Usmca for short. More Market Access for agriculture, new commitments to critical areas, such as visual trade, intellectual property, and the lowering of nontariff barriers all translates into higher wages, rates of productivity, and more jobs. U. S. Ct, the International Trade commissions Economic Analysis realize that usmca will create 176,000 new jobs. We should not squander this opportunity to update nafta, which is now a quarter of a has beenld, but critical to the success of farmers and businesses. Ince naftas implementation 1994, our agricultural exports to these two countries have more than quadrupled. Corn exports increased sevenfold, a 2019 Business Roundtable study found that International Trade supports 39 million jobs across america and 12 million jobs from trade with mexico and canada. I am a family farmer, you know. I can tell you that nafta has been critical to the success of iowa farmers and businesses. The same Business Roundtable study found that 130 thousand iowa jobs were supported by trade with canada and mexico in billion in i will goods and services were exported to canada and mexico in the same year. According to the National Association of manufacturers, canada and mexico purchased more than half of iowas total manufacturing exports. As trump and you, ambassador lighthizer, delivered a solid steel to enhance this relationship with our good neighbors. Now Congress Must act on implementing it. As mr. Lighthizer said earlier this year, doing so will enhance the credibility of our global trade agenda and provide some muchneeded certainty to American Farmers and businesses. Agriculture, International Trade is critical to reaching 95 of the worlds consumers living outside of the United States. In iowa, we export every third role of soybeans. This is why i strongly support the plan to pursue new trade deals with japan reticular early, the european union, and even the united kingdom, when it is ready. So we should move quickly. Japan and the eu have not been sitting still. They have been closing trade deals with other countries over the past two years. As a result, our farmers and businesses are losing market share to competitors with preferential access. We need to secure strong agreements so that we can restore a level Playing Field, and in order to get a deal with the United States, the eu has to include and negotiate agriculture. I have said this before any deal with the eu that does not include agriculture will not get through the united dates congress. President trump has rightly pointed out that trade must be fair for workers, and this is central to his commitment to confront china in unfair trade practices and its peerless policies. When American Companies get access to chinas market, they often have to sacrifice valuable intellectual property or enter joint ventures with chinese companies. Chinas massive subsidies also create global distortions. This has to stop. Must recognizei that making these changes are in chinas best interest as well. I applaud President Trump for andirming china decisively, for them to reach a deal that results in structural changes to chinas discriminatory policies and practices, and the elimination of the 301 terrace. Ambassador lighthizer, i share the administrations desire to ensure that hard work and innovation are rewarded, while unfair trade practices and a legal government subsidies illegal government subsidies are punished and ought to be punished. I agree that we must have strong, enforceable trade agreements. To seeke you are right reforms at the wto, and i share your views that strong and effective enforcement of the u. S. Trade laws prevent other countries from taking advantage of us. But i dont agree that terrorists should be a tool we to achievey instance every trade policy goal. I fear that continuing to use terrace in this way will undermine our credibility with our current and potential trading partners, and actually undo the benefits of our historic tax reform. Since march 2018, u. S. Customs and Border Protection have assessed over 15 billion in ariffs. 301 t so to be clear, american importers and consumers are paying for these. I urge the administration, do everything you can to use tariffs as a last resort option, and maintain a timely closure process for those that are ambassador, iect want to thank you, on that note, for your commitment to instituting an exclusion process on section 301 tariffs imports from china. Before leaving these issues, i want to highlight successful alternative options. Teamt lighthizers reserves recognition for winning two very large wto cases against chinas agricultural policies. Use wtod continue to mechanisms that can hold china and others accountable to the greatest possible extent. In closing, i am glad to have you here today. Ambassador, i want to recognize the critical and difficult task before you. Congress and the Administration Must Work Together to ensure better trade policies benefit all americans, and i encourage you to work with us to make that happen. As chairman, i pledge myself to the president of the agenda president s agenda, starting with the limitation of the usmca. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I begin by saying i share your view in regards to consultation with this committee. That was actually embedded in the law, more consultation and more transparency was actually embedded in the law in 2015. I want to make clear that i share the chairmans view on that point. The Committee Meets this morning to discuss the administration s trade agenda. First, china. The president likes to say, and i quote, trade wars are good and they are easy to win. The situation on the back easy to win. The situation on the battlefield says otherwise. Chinas market is now more closed off to American Goods and american agriculture the or the aade war began then before trade war began. The president s escalation would easily raise the cost of everyday goods in america, and the president is signaling that he will betray our National Security and let huawei off the saveif china helps him face. There is no question that confronting the chinese trade ripoff was long overdue. The Chinese Government and state owned enterprises have gotten away with strongarming american businesses, stealing our intellectual property, and undercutting american jobs for way too long. It has to be handled differently. Rather than chaos, what is needed is a well coordinated International Effort led by the United States to crack down on the chinese abuses. Instead, the president has driven away our allies, and it is not clear there is a discernible strategy to go forward. Some have attempted to focus our efforts directly where china is coming after our strengths highly technical manufacturing and innovation. The ambassador, ambassador credit for deserves laying out this type of approach to the committee in the past. Unfortunately, those plans get knocked off course all too often by hailstorms of tweets sent while the president is watching television in the morning. Result of this mismanagement on trade, the American People are faced with the prospect that every day life in our country will be more expensive and less secure. Thenext round of tariffs president is considering would drive up the cost of consumer shelves aroundon the nation, by as much as 25 . Millions and millions of American Families are going to begin back to School Shopping in a matter of weeks. ,chool uniforms, gym clothes sneakers, book bags, pencils, notebooks you name it. With new tariffs in place, mom and dad might discover what they budgeted only goes 80 as far as they would expect. And then there is the issue of huawei. Huawei poses a genuine spying risk to the United States and our allies, allowing its equipment to be used in our telecommunications would compromise our security. That is the opinion of National Security experts outside of the government and in key federal agents these. Seemed to getdent it. At a recent white house event, look atof huawei, you what theyve done from a National Security standpoint, from a military standpoint its very dangerous. That in the president s next sentence, he said, and i quote, it is possible that huawei even would be included in some kind of a trade deal. Out in they, right open, we have members of the Intelligence Committee here, right out in the open, the president is telling chinas spy masters that he is willing to give away americas National Security for a facesaving trade deal. This is not an academic concern, this is a real threat. But rather than holding our National Security interests paramount, the president seems most interested in the splashy trade headlines. I will close with a couple of quick comments about the western hemisphere. Nafta wasg said that a product of a different economic era, and it is time for an overhaul. The president campaigned on ripping of existing trade deals, but the new nafta sure resembles the old one. That said, there are areas of meaningful progress. Than before on digital trade and state owned enterprises. It takes a modernized approach to customs and duty evasion. Again, i would like to command command ambassador lighthizer for obtaining some strong outcomes in the labor and environmental chapters. Yet when it comes to trade enforcement, the enforcement of our trade laws, there is sure some heavy lifting left to be done. Commitments from other countries are not any good if there is no way of holding those countries to them. Retains a week enforcement system from the old nafta, which too often gave a free ride to the trade cheats. For oura bad deal workers, particularly the enforcement of labor obligations. Now, senator brown, our colleague from ohio, offered some solutions. I am hopeful with some bipartisan work and that kind of blueprint, those are issues that can be resolved. In the meantime, there is no way to justify pulling out of the current nafta, since doing so would College Nothing except economic pain here at home. I look forward to discussing these issues and more with the ambassador this morning. I think him for joining the committee, and this is an important thank him for joining the committee, and this is an important meeting, mr. Chairman, i thank you for scheduling it. Ambassador lighthizer is with us, sworn in as the 14th united aids trade representative may 15, two years ago United States trade representative may 15, two years ago. Many of you have had the pleasure of knowing bob for two years. Because we have a lot to talk about today, i am going to dispense with all of your credentials. Please proceed with your conversation. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member widen, and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to testify on the president s trade agenda and the newly renegotiated United Statescanadamexico agreement. I have to say, before i begin, there are some parts of senator do not comments that i entirely endorse, but i do entirely endorse senator wyden. [laughter] would like to begin by noting the United States has added 5. 8 si since the the 2016 election, the real gdp rose at an annual rate of 3. 1 in the First Quarter of 2019. The past four quarters have seen the fastest growth rate in gdp since 2015. The unemployment rate, at 3. 6 , is the lowest rate in nearly a halfcentury and has been at or below 4 for 15 consecutive months. Wages are up, hourly wages are up 3. 1 over the last 12 months. I commend this report right here, with the trade policy agenda and the 2015 annual report to the committee. One of the subjects of these hearings. Put outment which was recently outlined the administrations trade priorities and catalogs recent, schmidt. As most of you know, the president is troubled huge and persistent trade deficits, which the United States has with many countries. The deficits are a result of many factors. Faster economic growth, currency valuations, and to some extent tax policy, but they are also partially the result of trade rules that oftentimes are unfair and lock in noneconomic to our trade partners. We are focused on changing these rules where they are unfair to American Farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses. This has included renegotiating chorus, which you are aware, nafta, which we have discussed. We are also reviewing gsp eligibility, actively engaging with t for talks in t for talks with many countries, and enforcing the existing obligations of our trade partners. He brought many wto cases. We filed counter notifications at the wto, and worked with other wto members on proposals to improve compliance with the wto notification obligations. We are also engaged directly with trading partners under existing agreements. For example, we have successfully resolved concerns with peru after requesting the firstever environmental consultations in the u. S. Peru trade promotion agreement. In addition, we have used section 301 to investigate unfair trade practices in china. We believe our economic relationship with china has been unbalanced and grossly unfair to american workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses for decades. After anembers know, exhaustive process, we put tariffs on certain chinese products and are preparing to do more if certain issues cannot be resolved satisfactorily. I am pleased to be able to testify here today on the newly regard sheeted usmca. We have worked very closely with members throughout this process and many of the improvements in this agreement reflect republican and democratic ideas and thoughts. In short, i believe the usmca is the strongest, most momentous trade agreement in u. S. History. It is the Gold Standard for rules on the digital economy, financial services, digital property, etc. Held stocks, the outflow of manufacturing jobs, and return many to the united dates. The labor and environmental provisions are the most farreaching ever in a trade agreement. The agricultural chapter will lead to increased Market Access and eliminate unfair trading practices by our trading partners. This is a truly great agreement and i look forward to working with members to make it even better. Any influential legislation which will earn large bipartisan support. That is my objective, i said it from the beginning. My objective was to get a very large number of democrats and republicans to support this. With that, mr. Chairman, i will stop. Thank you for the courtesy that you and other members has shown me at the two plus years at ustr, and i look forward to your questions. Before my five minutes starts, and i thank you for your opening statement, i would like to take a moment to briefly touch on something of great importance to the Ranking Member and me. Congressional support is key to a successful trade policy agenda. To further this support, we need to have a good grasp on what the administration is doing. This means members, as well as our staff, receiving timely includingn, negotiating proposals and text to allow us to support the administration in discussions with our trading partners. In short, the u. S. Constitution calls on a Strong Partnership between congress and the administration on trade policy, and i hope that we can strengthen the partnership and further our trade agenda Going Forward with a consistent twoway dialogue. Mr. Chairman, without imposing on your time, not only are you write, it is embedded in the 2015 new requirements. I agree completely. Now my time starts. As i stressed in my opening statements, congressional implementation of mexicocanada agreement will provide some muchneeded certainty and consequently, certainty is important for farmers and businesses. We cannot afford delay. When congress and lament the trade agreement, it becomes u. S. Law, giving americans and our trading Agreement Partners certainty in relationships and the benefits that come with it. This means not having to question whether this relationship or associated benefits will be threatened or jeopardized as a means to an unrelated end. My question, what assurances can you provide us that implementation of the u. S. And ea will deliver that certainty, that congress, america, and our trading partners expect from bringing the agreement into u. S. Law . Thank you, mr. Chairman. In tradey, people negotiations commit that certainty archly for their businesses and farmers. From the Robert Lighthizer<\/a> testifies before the Senate Finance<\/a> committee on the administrations trade strategy and the United States<\/a>mexicocanada agreement. This portion is one hour. The laws that delegate congresss constitutional trade authority to the executive also require close consultation with congress. This hearing is an important part of that consultation and it provides an opportunity to explain the president s ambitious trade agenda to the. Ongress and all americans members of this committee are looking forward to this very important discussion. A critical component of the trade agenda that i would like u. S. Mexicos canada agreement. Usmca for short. More Market Access<\/a> for agriculture, new commitments to critical areas, such as visual trade, intellectual property, and the lowering of nontariff barriers all translates into higher wages, rates of productivity, and more jobs. U. S. Ct, the International Trade<\/a> commissions Economic Analysis<\/a> realize that usmca will create 176,000 new jobs. We should not squander this opportunity to update nafta, which is now a quarter of a has beenld, but critical to the success of farmers and businesses. Ince naftas implementation 1994, our agricultural exports to these two countries have more than quadrupled. Corn exports increased sevenfold, a 2019 Business Roundtable<\/a> study found that International Trade<\/a> supports 39 million jobs across america and 12 million jobs from trade with mexico and canada. I am a family farmer, you know. I can tell you that nafta has been critical to the success of iowa farmers and businesses. The same Business Roundtable<\/a> study found that 130 thousand iowa jobs were supported by trade with canada and mexico in billion in i will goods and services were exported to canada and mexico in the same year. According to the National Association<\/a> of manufacturers, canada and mexico purchased more than half of iowas total manufacturing exports. As trump and you, ambassador lighthizer, delivered a solid steel to enhance this relationship with our good neighbors. Now Congress Must<\/a> act on implementing it. As mr. Lighthizer said earlier this year, doing so will enhance the credibility of our global trade agenda and provide some muchneeded certainty to American Farmers<\/a> and businesses. Agriculture, International Trade<\/a> is critical to reaching 95 of the worlds consumers living outside of the United States<\/a>. In iowa, we export every third role of soybeans. This is why i strongly support the plan to pursue new trade deals with japan reticular early, the european union, and even the united kingdom, when it is ready. So we should move quickly. Japan and the eu have not been sitting still. They have been closing trade deals with other countries over the past two years. As a result, our farmers and businesses are losing market share to competitors with preferential access. We need to secure strong agreements so that we can restore a level Playing Field<\/a>, and in order to get a deal with the United States<\/a>, the eu has to include and negotiate agriculture. I have said this before any deal with the eu that does not include agriculture will not get through the united dates congress. President trump has rightly pointed out that trade must be fair for workers, and this is central to his commitment to confront china in unfair trade practices and its peerless policies. When American Companies<\/a> get access to chinas market, they often have to sacrifice valuable intellectual property or enter joint ventures with chinese companies. Chinas massive subsidies also create global distortions. This has to stop. Must recognizei that making these changes are in chinas best interest as well. I applaud President Trump<\/a> for andirming china decisively, for them to reach a deal that results in structural changes to chinas discriminatory policies and practices, and the elimination of the 301 terrace. Ambassador lighthizer, i share the administrations desire to ensure that hard work and innovation are rewarded, while unfair trade practices and a legal government subsidies illegal government subsidies are punished and ought to be punished. I agree that we must have strong, enforceable trade agreements. To seeke you are right reforms at the wto, and i share your views that strong and effective enforcement of the u. S. Trade laws prevent other countries from taking advantage of us. But i dont agree that terrorists should be a tool we to achievey instance every trade policy goal. I fear that continuing to use terrace in this way will undermine our credibility with our current and potential trading partners, and actually undo the benefits of our historic tax reform. Since march 2018, u. S. Customs and Border Protection<\/a> have assessed over 15 billion in ariffs. 301 t so to be clear, american importers and consumers are paying for these. I urge the administration, do everything you can to use tariffs as a last resort option, and maintain a timely closure process for those that are ambassador, iect want to thank you, on that note, for your commitment to instituting an exclusion process on section 301 tariffs imports from china. Before leaving these issues, i want to highlight successful alternative options. Teamt lighthizers reserves recognition for winning two very large wto cases against chinas agricultural policies. Use wtod continue to mechanisms that can hold china and others accountable to the greatest possible extent. In closing, i am glad to have you here today. Ambassador, i want to recognize the critical and difficult task before you. Congress and the Administration Must<\/a> Work Together<\/a> to ensure better trade policies benefit all americans, and i encourage you to work with us to make that happen. As chairman, i pledge myself to the president of the agenda president s agenda, starting with the limitation of the usmca. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I begin by saying i share your view in regards to consultation with this committee. That was actually embedded in the law, more consultation and more transparency was actually embedded in the law in 2015. I want to make clear that i share the chairmans view on that point. The Committee Meets<\/a> this morning to discuss the administration s trade agenda. First, china. The president likes to say, and i quote, trade wars are good and they are easy to win. The situation on the back easy to win. The situation on the battlefield says otherwise. Chinas market is now more closed off to American Goods<\/a> and american agriculture the or the aade war began then before trade war began. The president s escalation would easily raise the cost of everyday goods in america, and the president is signaling that he will betray our National Security<\/a> and let huawei off the saveif china helps him face. There is no question that confronting the chinese trade ripoff was long overdue. The Chinese Government<\/a> and state owned enterprises have gotten away with strongarming american businesses, stealing our intellectual property, and undercutting american jobs for way too long. It has to be handled differently. Rather than chaos, what is needed is a well coordinated International Effort<\/a> led by the United States<\/a> to crack down on the chinese abuses. Instead, the president has driven away our allies, and it is not clear there is a discernible strategy to go forward. Some have attempted to focus our efforts directly where china is coming after our strengths highly technical manufacturing and innovation. The ambassador, ambassador credit for deserves laying out this type of approach to the committee in the past. Unfortunately, those plans get knocked off course all too often by hailstorms of tweets sent while the president is watching television in the morning. Result of this mismanagement on trade, the American People<\/a> are faced with the prospect that every day life in our country will be more expensive and less secure. Thenext round of tariffs president is considering would drive up the cost of consumer shelves aroundon the nation, by as much as 25 . Millions and millions of American Families<\/a> are going to begin back to School Shopping<\/a> in a matter of weeks. ,chool uniforms, gym clothes sneakers, book bags, pencils, notebooks you name it. With new tariffs in place, mom and dad might discover what they budgeted only goes 80 as far as they would expect. And then there is the issue of huawei. Huawei poses a genuine spying risk to the United States<\/a> and our allies, allowing its equipment to be used in our telecommunications would compromise our security. That is the opinion of National Security<\/a> experts outside of the government and in key federal agents these. Seemed to getdent it. At a recent white house event, look atof huawei, you what theyve done from a National Security<\/a> standpoint, from a military standpoint its very dangerous. That in the president s next sentence, he said, and i quote, it is possible that huawei even would be included in some kind of a trade deal. Out in they, right open, we have members of the Intelligence Committee<\/a> here, right out in the open, the president is telling chinas spy masters that he is willing to give away americas National Security<\/a> for a facesaving trade deal. This is not an academic concern, this is a real threat. But rather than holding our National Security<\/a> interests paramount, the president seems most interested in the splashy trade headlines. I will close with a couple of quick comments about the western hemisphere. Nafta wasg said that a product of a different economic era, and it is time for an overhaul. The president campaigned on ripping of existing trade deals, but the new nafta sure resembles the old one. That said, there are areas of meaningful progress. Than before on digital trade and state owned enterprises. It takes a modernized approach to customs and duty evasion. Again, i would like to command command ambassador lighthizer for obtaining some strong outcomes in the labor and environmental chapters. Yet when it comes to trade enforcement, the enforcement of our trade laws, there is sure some heavy lifting left to be done. Commitments from other countries are not any good if there is no way of holding those countries to them. Retains a week enforcement system from the old nafta, which too often gave a free ride to the trade cheats. For oura bad deal workers, particularly the enforcement of labor obligations. Now, senator brown, our colleague from ohio, offered some solutions. I am hopeful with some bipartisan work and that kind of blueprint, those are issues that can be resolved. In the meantime, there is no way to justify pulling out of the current nafta, since doing so would College Nothing<\/a> except economic pain here at home. I look forward to discussing these issues and more with the ambassador this morning. I think him for joining the committee, and this is an important thank him for joining the committee, and this is an important meeting, mr. Chairman, i thank you for scheduling it. Ambassador lighthizer is with us, sworn in as the 14th united aids trade representative may 15, two years ago United States<\/a> trade representative may 15, two years ago. Many of you have had the pleasure of knowing bob for two years. Because we have a lot to talk about today, i am going to dispense with all of your credentials. Please proceed with your conversation. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member<\/a> widen, and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to testify on the president s trade agenda and the newly renegotiated United States<\/a>canadamexico agreement. I have to say, before i begin, there are some parts of senator do not comments that i entirely endorse, but i do entirely endorse senator wyden. [laughter] would like to begin by noting the United States<\/a> has added 5. 8 si since the the 2016 election, the real gdp rose at an annual rate of 3. 1 in the First Quarter<\/a> of 2019. The past four quarters have seen the fastest growth rate in gdp since 2015. The unemployment rate, at 3. 6 , is the lowest rate in nearly a halfcentury and has been at or below 4 for 15 consecutive months. Wages are up, hourly wages are up 3. 1 over the last 12 months. I commend this report right here, with the trade policy agenda and the 2015 annual report to the committee. One of the subjects of these hearings. Put outment which was recently outlined the administrations trade priorities and catalogs recent, schmidt. As most of you know, the president is troubled huge and persistent trade deficits, which the United States<\/a> has with many countries. The deficits are a result of many factors. Faster economic growth, currency valuations, and to some extent tax policy, but they are also partially the result of trade rules that oftentimes are unfair and lock in noneconomic to our trade partners. We are focused on changing these rules where they are unfair to American Farmers<\/a>, ranchers, workers, and businesses. This has included renegotiating chorus, which you are aware, nafta, which we have discussed. We are also reviewing gsp eligibility, actively engaging with t for talks in t for talks with many countries, and enforcing the existing obligations of our trade partners. He brought many wto cases. We filed counter notifications at the wto, and worked with other wto members on proposals to improve compliance with the wto notification obligations. We are also engaged directly with trading partners under existing agreements. For example, we have successfully resolved concerns with peru after requesting the firstever environmental consultations in the u. S. Peru trade promotion agreement. In addition, we have used section 301 to investigate unfair trade practices in china. We believe our economic relationship with china has been unbalanced and grossly unfair to american workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses for decades. After anembers know, exhaustive process, we put tariffs on certain chinese products and are preparing to do more if certain issues cannot be resolved satisfactorily. I am pleased to be able to testify here today on the newly regard sheeted usmca. We have worked very closely with members throughout this process and many of the improvements in this agreement reflect republican and democratic ideas and thoughts. In short, i believe the usmca is the strongest, most momentous trade agreement in u. S. History. It is the Gold Standard<\/a> for rules on the digital economy, financial services, digital property, etc. Held stocks, the outflow of manufacturing jobs, and return many to the united dates. The labor and environmental provisions are the most farreaching ever in a trade agreement. The agricultural chapter will lead to increased Market Access<\/a> and eliminate unfair trading practices by our trading partners. This is a truly great agreement and i look forward to working with members to make it even better. Any influential legislation which will earn large bipartisan support. That is my objective, i said it from the beginning. My objective was to get a very large number of democrats and republicans to support this. With that, mr. Chairman, i will stop. Thank you for the courtesy that you and other members has shown me at the two plus years at ustr, and i look forward to your questions. Before my five minutes starts, and i thank you for your opening statement, i would like to take a moment to briefly touch on something of great importance to the Ranking Member<\/a> and me. Congressional support is key to a successful trade policy agenda. To further this support, we need to have a good grasp on what the administration is doing. This means members, as well as our staff, receiving timely includingn, negotiating proposals and text to allow us to support the administration in discussions with our trading partners. In short, the u. S. Constitution calls on a Strong Partnership<\/a> between congress and the administration on trade policy, and i hope that we can strengthen the partnership and further our trade agenda Going Forward<\/a> with a consistent twoway dialogue. Mr. Chairman, without imposing on your time, not only are you write, it is embedded in the 2015 new requirements. I agree completely. Now my time starts. As i stressed in my opening statements, congressional implementation of mexicocanada agreement will provide some muchneeded certainty and consequently, certainty is important for farmers and businesses. We cannot afford delay. When congress and lament the trade agreement, it becomes u. S. Law, giving americans and our trading Agreement Partners<\/a> certainty in relationships and the benefits that come with it. This means not having to question whether this relationship or associated benefits will be threatened or jeopardized as a means to an unrelated end. My question, what assurances can you provide us that implementation of the u. S. And ea will deliver that certainty, that congress, america, and our trading partners expect from bringing the agreement into u. S. Law . Thank you, mr. Chairman. In tradey, people negotiations commit that certainty archly for their businesses and farmers. From the United States<\/a> point of view, we have negotiated very closely with both parties. We have covered all of these items. People have made concessions, and we have what is now unenforceable agreement an enforceable agreement, significantly more so than past agreements, and i look forward to working with the committee to. Ake it even more enforceable the certainty one can get is that mexico and canada, as far as work is concerned, has to live up to the actual letter of the agreement. I think they understand that and we expect them to do the same thing. You have indicated using section 301 to enforce labor and environmental commitments under usmca. Allnt to show you that usmca commitments will be enforceable, and to methods that do not raise taxes on americans. Can you identify other ways that we can ensure that usmca will deliver the benefits that are throughoutmericans all chapters of the usmca . First of all, the agreement was completely enforceable. We have a process of panel decisions. It usmca and nafta before had a provision to say in certain circumstances, a country can opt out of the decision if they want to. That, we leftnge it in place, largely because we did not want to be in a position where someone could challenge u. S. Trade laws. That is something some members support and some members are critical of. , you can expect 9 of the time, 90 of the time, maybe 100 of the time, decisions. Nd up with it is certainly the united we wouldntion that block panels. Im sure the mexicans and canadians feel the same way. Disputee a series of settlement processes, but what i think is more helpful is we make the obligations very, very specific. The more general the obligations are, the harder they are to enforce. If you take, for example, the , it isn labor in mexico very precise about what mexico has to do, and mexico did follow that in their own law when they implemented their labor laws. I would say number one, we have a viable dispute settlement process. One that i willing to work with members on and will follow the basic instincts of members to which they want to plus it out, because there is room to do that and i am happy to do that. Second, we were far more specific than a lot of these agreements in the past so we can precisely say whether or not someone is following it. Im comfortable that we will get the benefits of this agreement, and i certainly endorse your suggestion. People talk about 180,000 jobs if you look at the top of the idc number, in their text they said there is reason to believe we would be close to the top. Close to the top is 1 of gdp and 550,000 jobs. There has never been a trade agreement that has had this much impact, potentially this much impact on the economy, on workers across the economy. Mr. Ambassador, welcome again. The next round of trade war tariffs could come soon. I talked earlier about the impact on families shopping for school and school equipment, but i want to ask you about College Students<\/a> now, because they will be out buying laptops and smart phones and tablets, as well as books and shoes and other essentials. A lot of these College Students<\/a> are already up to their eyeballs in debt. And it seems to me that the next round of the trade war tariffs may require College Students<\/a> to borrow even more to pay for the trunk trade war. Now, these College Students<\/a> cannot make it very easily to washington, d. C. They do not have the wherewithal. O make these trips start, if you would, by telling me how you are taking into account these kinds of widespread impacts on the collegepublic, such as students, who might not be reflected in the Public Comments<\/a> you have asked for . Thank you, senator, for that comment. In terms of the last launch, we have hearings going on right now. They started yesterday. We have some 325 witnesses and have had more than 2000 submissions, so we are in the process of going through that. I do not want to prejudge all of that. But we have our professional staff going through it, and ultimately the political staff will look at it. In this last launch, there are products like cell phones and laptops, which have been avoided until now. I would take a step back. When you refer to it as the you and i have, spoken many times none of this makes any sense unless you think we have a problem with china stealing our intellectual property. I would say to those College Students<\/a>, if china steals your intellectual property, you are not going to have jobs in the future, and much worse, your children are not going to have jobs in the future. Tothe first question we have establish is, is china a problem . Is our trade deficit with china a problem . If it is not, this does not make any sense. If you think china is not stealing our intellectual property, then we should not do this. If you think they are not forcing technology transfer, we should not do this. If you think they are not grossly subsidizing and taking over our market, we should not do these things. But we believe that is the case. We think we have an untenable situation with china, one that should have been addressed, frankly, a couple of decades ago. It is a long history of them violating the norms of intellectual property, similar norms. Moving forward and making promises and not keeping the promises. We are in a position where we mostourselves in the serious problem you can face in the trade space with nothing less than the jobs of our children on the line. If you face that, there are going to be issues. Ambassador, because time is short, i do not take a backseat to anybody in terms of fighting china cheating. The question is how you do it. Let me get my next question in, if i could. With respect to the western hemisphere, mexico changed it labor laws. That was a good thing. The key is obviously enforcement. As you know, senator brown and i developed a framework that we believe can finally get us enforcement with real teeth that technicalesources, assistance, and is basically a cooperative effort to fight against losing out on real enforcement. I want to get this right. You and i have talked about it, on environmentt and labor more broadly. It has been more than six months is the president signed the agreement, but the bottom line is the heavy lifting on enforcement is still ahead. My question to you is, for those of us that really want to see a toughy in terms of trade enforcement, will you commit to working with members of congress to do whatever it takes i want to emphasize whatever it takes to address these core concerns so that we can say, we turned the page. Now, finally, we have trade enforcement. Yes. All right. I will quit while i am ahead. I want to emphasize, colleagues, i said whatever it takes to get to that new day. Thank you. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member<\/a>, and welcome ambassador lighthizer. Let me first say i want to speak specifically first on the new nafta, whatever we call it. There is a lot of work that has been done, but we are not there yet. Enforcement,on labor, environment, and the cost of medicine, i want to ask you about that. I hope that you are very serious in response to a ranking our Ranking Member<\/a>s question in working with everyone moving forward to be able to fix the things that there are concerns like senatorcally, wyden and senator browns efforts around enforcement, which i think are important and put forward as a goodfaith effort to finally be able to do something beyond just language, but to actually have enforcement. I want to ask you specifically another provision that has not been focused on as much, and is ais provision that provision that relates to the pharmaceutical industry. I am very concerned that while we are debating lowering the cost of prescription drugs and the president has talked about that, there is an effort going on in this committee and in the house we know that the cost of medicine is skyrocketing. We pay find more far more than others around the world for prescription drugs. What im worried about is in the middle of this negotiation this is deja vu all over again, we have a situation where, like negotiations,d which were meant to bring down prices, thee far pharmaceutical industry used their heft to put a ban on negotiation in the middle of that bill. Now in the middle of this effort, we see the brand name Drug Companies<\/a>, one of the biggest vocal supporters of this agreement, and we look more closely and see what i would certainly view as a giveaway to the Drug Companies<\/a> in the middle in this agreement. The provisions stop competitors from getting cheaper generic drugs onto the market. I have seen the argument about how this language is supposed to reduce socalled foreign freeloaders from other countries, in other words, other countries that have a , supposedly,s less freeloading off of us. Canada, where they have an eight year time line, rather than a 10 year in this hill, the cost of their medicine is 40 less than ours for the same medication. In order to protect the industry, we are actually making costing, and higher and that is not in the best interest of americans that want very much to have the ability to lower prices and have more generic competition. Is any of the language in this bill going to get us to a point of lower prices, number one, and secondly, are you planning to request the same language as part of your negotiations with the european union, japan, the u. K. . Are we going to see this effort going on all over the world to protect the patents and the prices for these Drug Companies<\/a> . Thank you, senator. That is a really excellent question. Let me take a step back and say, where are we gap of where are we . One of our objectives has been to let other countries adopt i might have to run over a second, mr. Chairman. Have other countries adopt our intellectual property laws. That has been the objective in every fasttrack, and goes back to at least 1888, when the United States<\/a> joined the paris convention. This has been our objective. It is a negotiating objective that this Congress Passed<\/a> when they set it out for us. What we do then is go around and try to have other countries adopt our rules. In obamacare, the congress protection year data for biologics. 12 years. That is what you passed, was signed into law, and what we have in the United States<\/a>. We said other countries should have the same standards, like we do in everything else. That is what our objective is. What we compromise on was 10 years, ok . When we have in here is 10 years, two years less than the United States<\/a>, and this is an important point. There are no provisions in this agreement that will change u. S. Laws with respect to pharmaceutical companies. Excuse me, in the interest of time, you are saying it wont change it, but it also will stop us from changing in the future. You are putting into a trade agreement and i cannot imagine this wont be used as a reason coming back to say that we cannot address lowering prices. We had a live discussion, important discussions about patent law and what is happening and reforms that needs to be made, and you are lacking in something that i believe is going to stop us doing what could be done to lower prices. On that point i completely agree with you. What we did was follow our law. We did not change u. S. Law at all. To extend a member thinks anything in here will stop you or slow you up from changing laws, these laws, we have to correct that. I do not believe it does, but i will corrected in a way that you, senator, say you have corrected that problem. In that position where if the United States<\/a> congress decides on changing these rules in some way, because you think it is good for drugs, to get prices down, whatever reason. If you change those, we should not be in a position where that is more difficult. I do agree with you and i think i have to satisfy you on that point. I believe i will. Mr. Ambassador, how are your negotiations going with the on thend the speaker usmca, and when do you expect the administration will send us that agreement to begin voting on . Thank you, senator. S here dealt, as member here know, i have dealt with democrats as much as republicans, and have dealt with the leadership in the Congress Consistently<\/a> and before during the course of this congress. The speaker has been completely fair and above board, and i think constructive in the way we have done it. She has put together a group of people. Thatint was, i know generally what people want, and i know what we can do, i need to get somebody that can sit down on the other side that says yes, this is enough. That is precisely what it is. The speaker is similar that it to that, and she has facilitated that, and i think we are making progress on that. My hope is in the course of the next couple of weeks we can make substantial progress. Track, i we are on believe we are making progress, and i am hopeful on that score. And the speaker has been, as far as im concerned, exactly as you would hope she would be. Well, i am optimistic that we will be able to vote on that, both in the house and the senate, and get it done and behind us. I think that would provide a lot to thesurance u. S. Economy, and i think it would be something very much in our national interest. Now, i knowut china the administrations positioned and i think our conversations privately about tpp and multilateral trade agreements you and the president have both indicated your preference for unilateral agreements, but as i think about the challenge of china, it seems to me that we need our friends and allies to work with us to Counter China<\/a> and to get china in a better place. I frankly am going to be amazed if you are able to get them to make structural changes. I hope you are, but obviously the biggest concern as an authoritarian country is about maintaining power. Their economy seems to be slipping, and some of the supply chain moving out of china into other countries like taiwan and and i have to think they must be a little bit concerned about that and want some resolution. Youcan you tell me whether think it is appropriate at some point to revisit the tpp as a way to counterbalance china . It is certainly such a large country with such a large population, it seems to me that we would do better working with our friends and allies in a you do that any unilateral agreement than in a unilateral agreement. Thank you, senator. I do believe we are better working with our allies, and we have a Trilateral Group<\/a> with my counterparts in japan, as well as the United States<\/a>. We put out communicate and Work Together<\/a> very closely on exactly this problem. The whole purpose of it is to figure out rules and how to coordinate in respect to dealing with china. That is something that is going on. I totally agree with you. I dont know quite why we dont get the attention to this group. It gets attention when we have the meeting, and then everyone says, you are not dealing with your allies. I deal with my allies very closely. There are also state owned enterprises and nonmarket economy visions in the usmca. Serious provisions to deal with the issue of china. I think we deal a lot with our allies. That is number one. Number two, on the issue of the tpp, you have heard me say before that i think it is a that agreement. You could have a car that was made 45 in china, sold in the United States<\/a> with no duties. To me, it would be crazy. Be the end of all of our manufacturing. It was a bad agreement that did not deal with currency properly or a lot of things, so i think that was a mistake. I also do not buy the idea that we were going to somehow encircle china into what would have been a 12 person group, if we had joined in, because china would have joined it. It would have been like the wto. The political logic did not make any sense, it was not a good agreement, and the final thing i would like to say, really, there are 11 countries in this group. We have fta right now which will modernize more. We have ftas with six of them, that leaves five. Of the five that are not covered, 95 of the gdp is japan, and we are trying to do a deal with japan. With respect to the others, the next biggest ones are vietnam, which has 300 billion worth of gdp as opposed to 5 trillion in japan. You could say, should you make a deal with these other ones . The answer is probably yes, and we will probably get to that, but i do not think it makes a difference if we do a deal with with places like that. To one, keep china out of the agreement, and two, enforce it within respect to the country. So i think the tpp would be a mistake. You, mr. Chairman. I would like to agree with my colleague on texas from texas on this. I want to have you about lead, intellectual property, enforcement, but i will say that my colleague is pointing out, when you can get everyone to join you in a rejoinder on Something Like<\/a> intellectual property, that could be very helpful to us. I hope we can do more of that. , washington is one of the most trade dependent states in the nation. I think we have 77 billion in exports in 2017 and help support over 300,000 jobs in and outside of our state for trade. So very important, and i appreciate your hard work on all of this. My colleagues have brought up the enforcement issue. We worked on getting money into the customs bill to do more trade enforcement. So what do we have to do i support my colleague, senator wyden and brown what do we have to do to get you more support to build more robust capacity with mexico, as it relates to enforcement . Thank you, senator. First of all, we appreciate the budget, the 15 million that you are such an important part of for us. We are going to spend a fair amount of money that we do not necessarily have budgeted on exclusions, so we have to talk about that. The exclusions are going to cost me a lot of money, but they are something the members want and something we will have to do in any event. I think in the area of enforcement, generally i would make two points. In fairness, we have had more litigation at the wto than have won some major cases, as you pointed out, these two very big cases with china. We are very, very fortunate. Also, we brought the only case that has been brought under the improved environmental lobbying agreements. One, we need the money, hopefully we use it judiciously. Number two, support across the board, and number three, we have to come to agreement with inbers on the usmca, particular respect to labor and environment. These agreements are best not only when they have substantial bipartisan support, but also when they have substantial individual member by an member buyin. As i looted to and my opening statement, there has been a lot of Member Participation<\/a> through the negotiations. I dealt with the Ranking Member<\/a> he will, and im sure acknowledge that. There are a lot of provisions that are in there that i do not want to go across. Thank you. I think the success of the 15 million should bolster us to want to do more, and i believe there is so much outside our market, outside the u. S. That we need to support, more activities. I want to ask you, obviously with the region moving ahead on transpacificve partnership, japan doing a deal with the canadian and Australian Market<\/a> puts us at a disadvantage. So how are we going to level the Playing Field<\/a> there . And i do want to point out that protecting until actual property is a bipartisan issue intellectual property is a bipartisan issue. We believe china needs to do better on this. We appreciate the work that is being done on cloud computing. Be a worlde would rejoinder on this. The United States<\/a> has done best when we have a bright message that everyone supports around the globe to put pressure on china, but maybe you can update us on what is happening with that . [inaudible] number one, the tpp is being implemented. It is in that process. The biggest single issue that is troubling to me on that front in is short run, particularly, the hit to our farmers, because we are in a position where the inanese have made agreements the tpp, and as you articulated, you are right. Australia, new zealand, that would be the biggest farm people that would affect us. They also made an agreement with europe, which gave away additional agricultural access to japan. We are in a position where we are treated worse than we were before relative to our strongest competition, and that is an unacceptable situation from the of view,ates point and we are in negotiation and making headway on that. I and happy to sit down and go through the details with you privately. Thank you. Senator carter . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, if you could start confirmsxample that your consultation with us and results. I brought up with you the tpa provisions that deal with Good Governance<\/a> and transparency, anticorruption, and i want to congratulate you on chapter 27 of the usmca and chapter 28, which is patterned after the negotiations we made in tpp on Good Governance<\/a>. I am very pleased that we had separate chapters in this agreement dealing with Good Governance<\/a> and transparency, and i would just urge you to use this model in any future fda that we have to make sure you are complying with the principal trade objectives we have in Good Governance<\/a>. So thank you, that is an example of a consultation with us, and i appreciate that. Thank you for your leadership in this. You brought this up in my youirmation hearing, brought it up in the meeting before the confirmation hearing, and brought it up many times for you. Transparency, Good Governance<\/a>, anticorruption, best is antory practices, this important part of any agreement and every agreement, and is something that will be enforced as we move forward. Want to thank you for opening markets in regards the poultry industry. Is a principal Poultry Community<\/a> with senator carper, senator warner, and myself. Maryland, the chicken industry is 1 billion in 2017, and [inaudible] there looking forward to provisions of the usmca as opening up additional opportunities for our poultry industry here in our states. I also want to thank you in regards to that issue. So let me just underscore the point that senator wyden made in regards to enforcement. Yes, we are pleased to see mexico change their labor laws and moving towards environmental changes. Our observation is that they dont really have the capacity to make this a reality without Additional Support<\/a> from the whyed states, and that is we look at the effort in an attempt to make sure we have meaningful enforcement. Set up with Speaker Pelosi<\/a> a mechanism to deal with the concerns that have been expressed by members of the house, recognize that for those of us who really want to support the usmca, this issue of enforcement is a major issue that needs to be dealt with as we move forward on this process. Thank you. Agreeof all, i completely. Ith this point we have to make an effort on Capacity Building<\/a> with respect to mexico. And it up, i should say, has canada, i should say, has also announced they will be doing Capacity Building<\/a> there. There are very few historical examples of the countries doing that. Bargaining agreements, of which they have 700,000. It is great if they have the time to do that, but that is an amazing commitment by mexico and something that we all have a and numberll of us, one, we will enforce provisions to make sure they do it, that what members want, and number two, i think you are completely right. We have to have provisions in here where we build, we help them build their capacity to do it. I certainly have no interest. I know the president does, and im entering in this agreement, which we consider to be his and will notoric just pyramid future years when we are not here anymore. I view it as part of our legacy to actually be in a position where this will go on as automatic. Having said that, enforcement is about people. Right . You have a bad cop on your street, you are law is not going your you are law law is not going to be enforced. In this trade agreement will be used as the model of the next, so therefore, the fact that we have the governance provisions in this agreement will help us, whether it is or vietnam, we also need to make sure we have the provisions in regards to enforcement and capacity to enforce as we look at the next country that we will be looking at. Senator mean and does menendez . We need to have strong enforcement on labor and the environment, and hopefully we can get there at the end of the day with ember support. To anothere to move question. At the beginning of the month, the president fabricated a diplomatic standoff with mexico, then reach an agreement that is a slightly modified version of the status quo. If this is the best win that the president can get, he is right about one thing i am tired of winning. For a week, we saw the president throw a highstakes temperature and jump temperature tantrum and put american jobs at stake. I think you and i know that tariffs are just a tool. They can be the right tool in some cases, but the wrong one in many cases. In my mind, imposing tariffs on mexico the president felt they were not doing enough on immigration this clearly would be wrong. I am trying to understand where we draw the line here. Do you believe it was appropriate for the president to threaten tariffs on american because he does not believe mexico was doing enough on immigration . Im sorry, can you put your microphone on . I will repeat, absolutely. This is not my area. I do not get into immigration. That is another department. But you do deal with tariffs. In some cases, i deal with tariffs. I think from the president s point of view, he had a crisis, it was a crisis, it was building at a very fast pace. Something had to be done. Mexico was not agreeing to do what needed to be done. So you believe that the use of tariffs for nontrade issues is an appropriate use . I think if you get to the point where you think it is a national crisis, a National Security<\/a> problem, you do what you have to do, absolutely. I would suggest any member would do that. Would it be appropriate for president the president to threaten tariffs on nato countries because he thinks they are not spending enough on defense . That would be up to the president. I have not given five seconds to the thought. Would it be appropriate to threaten tariffs on countries not doing enough to block huawei from their markets . I have not given that five seconds. I know you have not, but here is the point. We need to know what is the line americaniffs affect markets as well as american jobs they are taxes at the end of the day. And they are not taxes paid by the country, but by American Consumers<\/a> and businesses. Would you think it is appropriate for mexico to put tariffs on us because we are not doing enough to stop illegal guns and cash from going across the border . Decisions it a that mexico has to make. That is not something i study. I am a trade person. But you had an opinion about tariffs as it related to a nontrade issue. I have opinions about all kinds of things and i try to keep them to myself. It would be good, because i think the president as at a point is that a point i want to call him terribly and tariff man. He thinks tariffs are the endall beall at the end of the day i hope that g internally you express that. Think ask you, do you that this action with mexico likely to re or less get a comprehensive deal with china . More hink it makes it likely. How is it that you make a the usmca,en like and then all of a sudden doething that has nothing to with trade, you get tariffs slapped on you. Does that make any willing potential trading partner if understand the type of commitment we will keep. They do think we will keep the partnership. Bored, it will make the relationship between the united tates and mexico more prosperous. I think thats","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803008.us.archive.org\/29\/items\/CSPAN_20190623_180000_U.S._Trade_Representative_Lighthizer_Testifies_Before_Senate_Finance\/CSPAN_20190623_180000_U.S._Trade_Representative_Lighthizer_Testifies_Before_Senate_Finance.thumbs\/CSPAN_20190623_180000_U.S._Trade_Representative_Lighthizer_Testifies_Before_Senate_Finance_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}