Remarks by Commerce Secretary Bryson, April 12, 2012Footnote 1
Secretary John Bryson gave the following remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC
Secretary Bryson. Thank you, Dr. Hamre. Congratulations to CSIS on your 50th anniversary. It's an honor to be here with all of you—policy, business and thought leaders—whose ideas contribute significantly to shaping America's foreign policy.
I know that CSIS held a forum yesterday on global security—which is a central part of that. This morning, I am pleased to turn our attention to another key element—and that is trade.
One of my top three priorities as Secretary of Commerce is increasing U.S. exports. And trade has been front-and-center over the past month.
The second anniversary of the National Export Initiative was one month ago today. The Korea trade agreement went into force a few days later. And I returned from my first trade mission as Commerce Secretary just last week.
I will briefly touch on the first two, and then give more attention to India.
As you know, the National Export Initiative—NEI—is a government-wide effort that the president launched two years ago. It's led by the Commerce Department, with the goal of doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014.
U.S. exports of goods and services hit an all-time record of $2.1 trillion last year. And just this morning, we announced that year-to-date exports for January and February of this year are up 8.5 percent over 2011.
In addition, our recent data show that export-supported jobs increased by 1.2 million from 2009 to 2011. That's particularly good news because export-related jobs pay higher than average.
But the fact is, many other countries now face their own additional economic challenges. This could result in decreased demand for goods and services from countries like ours.
So we need to work harder than ever to empower more U.S. companies to start or increase their exports.
That's exactly what we're doing. I'll give three examples:
First, the Commerce Department has led trade missions with over 1,000 U.S. companies over the last two years. We're going to do yet more in the future—targeting sectors and markets that are poised for growth.
Second, we are working with Congress right now to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Ex-Im is having its annual conference as we speak. They just had a record year—supporting $41 billion in U.S. exports. We need to make sure they can build on that.
Third, we are doing more to ensure a level playing field for U.S. businesses. The president recently announced that the Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office will run the new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center.
We will link, leverage and align all of the enforcement resources across government. We want to hire more experts, analysts, and foreign-based staff to help.
We need to hold our trading partners accountable to their commitments—including WTO rules. And I strongly believe that when American businesses have a fair shot, they can compete and they can win.
A few days after the second anniversary of the NEI, we reached another milestone. The Korea trade agreement was implemented on March 15.
President Obama insisted that we get this agreement right. The administration worked with Congress, stakeholders and our Korean counterparts to address outstanding issues before it went through.
As a result, we now have America's most significant trade agreement in nearly two decades. About 80 percent of Korea's tariffs on our industrial products have dropped to zero. Nothing.
In addition, the agreement opens up Korea's 580-billion-dollar services market….
It streamlines customs procedures. And it does more to protect the intellectual property of our entrepreneurs and businesses.
Overall, this is estimated to increase U.S. exports by over $10 billion, supporting tens of thousands of American jobs. Looking forward, we continue to move ahead with the Colombia and Panama agreements—and President Obama is heading to Colombia tomorrow. Another potential win-win is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Last week, President Obama and I discussed this with our counterparts from Canada and Mexico. As you know, the TPP is a high-caliber agreement with big potential to be a model for the world.
Finally, we are paying particular attention when significant and unique opportunities arise with other trading partners, which brings me to India. Let me start by commending CSIS for making India a major focus. In particular, I want to congratulate you on establishing the Wadhwani Chair, a position held by Ambassador Inderfurth.
I just returned last week from my first trade mission as Secretary—which was to India.
On the day after we got back, The New York Times ran a story about India. I thought it was spot-on. It talked about how India's business groups—specifically the top two which we met with on our trip—are forging ahead to establish both economic and diplomatic ties around the world.
How did India get to that point? We can trace this progress back to 1991, when then-Finance Minister Singh led a major shift to open up India's economy to market forces and private-sector business. As a result of his leadership, India's entrepreneurial spirit was unleashed. And, in recent years, India's economy has grown quickly—at an annual rate of around eight percent.
Since then, millions have been lifted out of poverty and India now has one of the largest middle-class populations on the planet.
Looking forward, 68 cities in India will have populations of over one million in 20 years. Total yearly income of urban households is expected to reach $4 trillion by 2030.
As a result of increased demand for innovative products and services, U.S. exports to India rose from less than $4 billion in 2001 to over $21 billion last year. Today, we're building on that momentum. We're bringing to fruition President Obama's statement that the U.S.-India relationship is one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.
On the trade mission, I led 16 U.S. businesses to India that specialized in management, engineering services, transportation, and energy. I should note that several of these business leaders were Indian-Americans who had strong personal motivations for using their skills in a meaningful way to help India grow and thrive.
Our goal was to find mutually-beneficial ways to help India move forward with its ambitious plan to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure over the next five years. My message was simple: American companies have deep experience in building our own infrastructure here in the U.S. We can work with India to accomplish its goals—while creating more prosperity and jobs in both countries.
We started in New Delhi, where I outlined how American companies can help pave the roads, lay the rails, build the airports, and bring energy to more people in India.
Among others, I met with Minister Sharma and Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Ahluwahlia. We announced that we renewed our Commercial Dialogue which will continue to bring together our public and private sector leaders.
Moving forward, the Dialogue will focus on areas such as smart grids, intelligent transportation systems, and sustainable manufacturing.
And I should note that the U.S. Trade and Development Administration announced two grants in New Delhi in smart grids and solar energy.
After New Delhi, I became the first U.S. Commerce Secretary to ever visit Jaipur—one of India's fast growing cities. Rajasthan tells a unique economic story. The city has a history and a beauty that has made it a hub for tourism. But today, it is finding a path to attract broader investments from companies like Mahindra and through major projects like the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. I should note that when the NEI began, the Commerce Department looked for the next tier of fast-growing global cities. Cities throughout India quickly became our focus, which was a major reason for our stop in Jaipur.
As a side note, has anyone here heard of Jaipur Foot?
I saw first-hand how Indian and U.S. entrepreneurs and universities are collaborating to drive innovation. This includes low-cost, high-quality artificial limbs that have transformed people's lives in India and beyond.
Finally, in Mumbai, we met with some of India's top business leaders to discuss mutually-beneficial partnerships and opportunities.
I was pleased to announce that our partners at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation had just approved $250 million in long-term financing for India. This will focus on renewable energy and infrastructure projects through the Infrastructure Development Finance Company in India.
I also spoke with the newly-formed U.S.-India Investors Forum. We discussed the importance of moving forward with efforts such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty, which could provide greater stability for investors in both countries.
And I'd like to expand for a moment on the importance of increasing direct investment in the U.S.—another top priority for the Commerce Department.
Just like trade, our bilateral investment relationships should be both strong and balanced.
India provides a good example of where we should focus. U.S. investment in India is over $27 billion while India's investment here is about $7 billion. Today, we are hearing more and more stories of Indian investment in the U.S. For example, last September, Tata Chemicals announced a joint venture with the New Jersey-based company that makes Arm & Hammer products. Tata is going to invest $60 million in a new U.S. manufacturing facility to make chemicals for pollution control.
We need more stories like that. That's why the Commerce Department launched SelectUSA—an initiative strongly supported by the president. This is the first coordinated effort by the U.S. government to attract business investments to America. This year, our commercial service officers in 25 fast-growing markets—including India—will start working with foreign CEOs as they explore whether to build facilities and hire workers here in the U.S. And the U.S. Ambassadors in those 25 countries are also fully on-board—working in concert with Secretary Clinton's push toward “economic statecraft.”
Before I close, I should mention that we still have challenges in regards to transparency, accountability and openness in India.
India has taken important steps such as supporting the use of integrity pacts by contractors and ratifying the U.N. Convention Against Corruption.
However, we have continued concerns with everything from high tariffs, to intellectual property to forced local sourcing in IT and electronics.
It's clear that we still have hurdles to overcome, but—after this trade mission—I believe more than ever that we can indeed overcome them.
In closing, what is clear is that America must deepen and broaden its commercial engagement with India where the win-win potential is vast.
The only way we will accomplish that is through a foundation of strong person-to-person relationships.
All of us must work together to build those bridges.
That must include people throughout the federal government and the private sector. It includes Indian-American citizens as a whole—a population which grew nearly 70 percent from 2000 to 2010. And, of course, this effort will take the dedication of experts on India policy, trade and other bilateral issues—including the leaders here at CSIS.
Naval Admiral Arleigh Burke, one of the founders of CSIS, once said this—and I quote: “Leadership is understanding people and involving them to help you do a job. That takes all of the good characteristics: integrity, dedication of purpose, selflessness, knowledge, skill, implacability, as well as determination not to accept failure.”
It's clear that we need that same spirit today to help strengthen America and our economic relationships—and to ensure that the U.S. continues to lead the 21st century.
If we are successful, we will bring greater prosperity not only for ourselves, but for people around the world.
Thank you.
Excerpts of Remarks by Commerce Secretary Bryson, April 13, 2012Footnote 2
Secretary John Bryson gave the following remarks at the Export-Import Bank Annual Conference
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Bryson. As Commerce Secretary, one of my top priorities is increasing U.S. exports. We want to do everything possible to help American companies build it here and sell it everywhere. The National Export Initiative—which the president launched two years ago—is a key part of that. As you know, it's a government-wide effort to double U.S. exports
Already, U.S. exports of goods and services hit an all-time record of $2.1 trillion last year. And just yesterday, we announced that year-to-date exports for January and February of this year are up 8.5 percent over 2011.
Also, from 2009 to 2011, the number of export-supported jobs increased by 1.2 million—and we know that these export-related jobs pay higher than average.
Ex-Im also just had a record year. They provided financing that led to about $41 billion in U.S. exports.
And as most of you likely know, Ex-Im Bank provides this at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, Ex-Im has actually generated revenues for the U.S. Treasury since the 1990s.
Now that's smart government. Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank should be straightforward, sound, and simple decision.
Or, put another way, losing Ex-Im at a time when America's businesses and workers are just getting back on their feet—would be unacceptable.
The Commerce Department and Ex-Im are close partners. I'll give one example of how we're working together.
India's economy has grown at an annual rate of around eight percent in recent years. Their cities and populations are growing at a rate unparalleled among many larger countries.
So, India has an ambitious plan to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure over the next five years.
Two weeks ago, I led 16 U.S. businesses to India on my first trade mission as Commerce Secretary.
My message was simple: American companies have deep experience in building our own infrastructure here in the U.S. We can find mutually-beneficial ways to help our Indian partners do the same—creating more prosperity and jobs in both countries.
And here's an important fact: The Export-Import Bank supported about $3.6 billion of U.S. exports to India last year. Two of the companies on the trade mission were GE and Black-and-Veatch. Last year, GE Energy signed a 750-million-dollar contract for a 2.4 Gigawatt project. Black-and-Veatch was selected to design the plant.
Ex-Im financed that significant, and very important, project.
Looking forward, the Commerce Department and Ex-Im will continue to work closely with businesses like yours to build stronger bridges around the world.
Remarks by Ambassador Siddiqui, April 18, 2012Footnote 3
Ambassador Islam Siddiqui gave the following remarks before the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness
Ambassador Siddiqui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, for inviting me to testify today.
It is my pleasure to be here with my colleagues, Under Secretary of State Robert Hormats and USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Darci Vetter. The strong and enduring partnership that we have forged with our colleagues at USDA, State, Commerce, EPA and FDA is an essential component in effectively addressing the trade barriers we encounter.
It is quite fitting that this hearing is focused on opportunities for exporting agricultural products to the Asia Pacific. This region includes some of the world's most dynamic economies, representing more than 40% of global trade. It is a key destination for U.S. manufactured goods, agricultural products, and services—last year accounting for over 60% of total U.S. goods exports and nearly 75% of our total agricultural exports.
As you know, President Obama's National Export Initiative goal is to double U.S. exports by the end of 2014. Last year U.S. agricultural exports set a new record, reaching $137 billion. We could not have achieved this level of exports without the strong performance in key markets in the Asia Pacific region. Those positive results are the product of many years of joint efforts by the U.S. government to negotiate improved market access and by U.S. agricultural exporters taking advantage of opportunities to export additional products.
A good example of this dynamic can be seen clearly in the dramatic increase in agricultural exports to China since its accession to the WTO. Over the last 10 years, China has moved up from being the United States' sixth largest export market for agricultural products to the second largest market.
The U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) office will continue to prioritize the Asia Pacific region as we move forward with President Obama's ambitious trade agenda. We focus both on creating new market openings for our exporters and addressing trade barriers, including numerous sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which do not appear to be consistent with WTO rules.
As you know, our historic trade agreement with Korea entered into force on March 15. To ensure that the agreement continues to operate smoothly, we are closely monitoring implementation. This agreement has created significant opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers. On day-one of the agreement, two-thirds of our agricultural exports entering Korea became duty-free. It is estimated that the U.S.-Korea trade agreement will result in an additional $1.9 billion of agricultural exports annually upon full implementation.
In just these first few weeks, Korea has moved promptly to begin allocating the new tariff rate quotas (TRQs) that were established as part of the agreement, providing important new, duty-free access for a range of U.S. products including dairy, food grade soybeans, corn starch, potatoes, and honey.
In the case of several products, the full year TRQ amounts have already been put into the hands of Korean importers, with allocations for other products expected in the coming weeks.
As provided for under the agreement, we will be working with our Korean partners to set up and schedule meetings of the Committee on Agricultural Trade and the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters. We believe these new committees will be useful additional mechanisms for dialogue with Korea in addressing our market access priorities. Regarding beef, the agreement will progressively reduce tariffs on our beef exports (40% before March 15, and currently at 37.3%) to zero in 15 years, enabling America's beef producers to build on the significant growth of exports to Korea—which reached $686 million in 2011, a one-year increase of 32.5% in value. Korea is our fourth largest market for beef exports and this trend of robust sales is continuing into 2012. As Ambassador Kirk indicated last year, we will request consultations to discuss full application of the U.S.-Korea Beef Protocol. Further opening of Korea's beef market, consistent with science and international standards, remains an important priority.
The Administration is also moving full speed ahead in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. Building on the broad outlines announced last November, we are seeking to conclude a landmark TPP agreement this year. The TPP is an historic endeavor that embodies the Obama Administration's vision for the American economy, the future of trade, and the United States' central role in the Asia-Pacific.
The TPP holds the prospect of unlocking significant new opportunities for increasing exports that support higher-paying jobs here at home. It also represents a tremendous opportunity for creating future opportunities for our agricultural exporters.
Negotiation of the TPP is an enormous undertaking, not only for the combined size of the economies participating, but also for the scope and ambition of the agreement itself. For example, in the case of the SPS chapter of the agreement we are aiming to gain new commitments that would improve transparency around the development of SPS regulations and strengthen the science and risk analysis disciplines to support a SPS measure. The Obama Administration's goal is to conclude an agreement that positions U.S. farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses to compete successfully in the Asia-Pacific region. The advances made in the TPP agreement can serve as a model for future trade pacts. Already, other countries have publicly expressed interest in participating in this high-standard agreement, notably Canada, Mexico, and Japan. In a short time, the TPP initiative has the potential to become the primary platform for regional economic integration in the Asia Pacific. In addition to negotiating new agreements, USTR is devoting significant time and resources to enforcing our existing agreements—making sure other countries are upholding their WTO obligations and living up to the commitments they have made to the United States. Trade enforcement has been a priority for President Obama, and we will continue to aggressively challenge the kinds of unfair trade practices we fight fiercely every day. Accordingly, I would like to review some of the trade issues we have resolved during the past year in the Asia Pacific region, and to also highlight some of the major issues that continue to confront us in 2012.
U.S. Pork to China
The Administration pressed China to remove the ban on U.S. swine and pork products that it put in place in 2009 based on unwarranted concerns that they could spread H1N1 influenza. In response to U.S. engagement, China agreed in October 2009 to reopen its market to pork, and in March 2011, to allow imports of all U.S. hogs certified by USDA to be free from the H1N1 virus. As a result, in 2011, exports of pork and pork products to China were a record $713 million, and U.S. live swine exports to China reached $8.5 million by the end of 2011.
Cherries, Citrus, and Blueberries to Korea
USTR, USDA, and EPA have worked to convince Korea to address unwarranted technical based restrictions on imports of on U.S. cherries, citrus, and blueberries. USDA and EPA worked closely with Korean officials to establish maximum residue levels for pesticides that do not pose a health risk, and as a result of the Administration's efforts, in 2011, Korea agreed to open its market for U.S. cherries and citrus products that do not contain pesticides in excess of those levels. Korea also agreed to open its market for blueberries from the state of Oregon in time for the 2012 growing season.
With developments like these, combined with new agricultural market access gains secured through the recent entry-into-force of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, we expect a meaningful increase in U.S. exports of these products to Korea in the months and years ahead.
Japan Pesticide Standards
In 2011, we also worked successfully with Japan to identify maximum residue levels (MRLs) of certain pesticides on U.S. citrus, strawberries, cherries, and celery. The Administration's efforts included extensive coordination and data sharing between U.S. and Japanese regulatory authorities. As a result, Japan has set MRLs for these pesticides that will help increase U.S. exports of citrus, strawberries, cherries, and celery, which reached $779 million in 2011.
Poultry Market Access
During 2011, we successfully urged China and Taiwan to lift unwarranted import restrictions on U.S. poultry and poultry products. As a result of the Administration's efforts, Taiwan took significant steps to reopen its market to U.S. poultry due to earlier avian influenza concerns. China also removed restrictions on poultry imports from two U.S. states it had imposed due to concerns over avian influenza.
Beef to Japan and China
Now, let me focus on beef market access issues in Japan and China. As you are aware, our priority objective continues to be market access that is based on science, consistent with international standards, and commercially viable.
The United States is encouraged that Japan continues to move forward with its process of reassessing its BSE measures by submitting questions in December 2011 to the Food Safety Commission (FSC). This is an important step that puts Japan on a path to addressing the longstanding issue of U.S. beef trade with Japan and should provide important new access for U.S. beef exporters.
Likewise, we are working to open market access for U.S. beef and beef products in China and are doing everything we can to find common ground on product scope and other related issues. Deputy Under Secretary Darci Vetter, USDA Under Secretary Michael Scuse and I recently visited China and met with our Chinese counterparts where we jointly reaffirmed our commitment made in November 2011 to increase technical engagement on beef.
We hope that technical discussions this spring will position us for more fruitful progress on the beef issue going forward.
Russia WTO
And finally Mr. Chairman, let me turn to another key issue I feel is critical to U.S. agricultural exports. Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization has been a subject I have been particularly invested in during my time at USTR.
As many of you here today know, Russia was formally invited join the WTO during the Ministerial Conference on December 16 in Geneva, and is expected to ratify its accession package this summer.
Russia imports huge quantities of agricultural products from around the world, with U.S. agricultural exports to Russia in 2011 totaling $1.24 billion. But before the prospect of their accession to the WTO, we had very few tools in our enforcement toolbox to ensure that our domestic producers were able to compete on a level playing field in the Russian market.
Under the terms of its accession, Russia has committed to comply with the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures from “day one” of its WTO Membership. Having Russia bound by these rules, and having a mechanism to enforce those rules, will allow U.S. exporters to make full use of the commitments secured by our negotiators.
However, to reap the full benefits of Russia's WTO Membership, Congress will need to terminate application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and extend permanent normal trade relations status to Russia. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairmen, members of this committee, and your colleagues in the House and Senate, to end the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia in order to ensure that American exporters will enjoy the same benefits of Russia's WTO membership as will our international competitors.
In closing, I would like to emphasize USTR's strong commitment to ensuring that the United States plays a leading role in the economic integration of the Asia Pacific region. Our focus at USTR remains on enforcing existing trade agreements, negotiating new agreements, and leveling the playing field for our farmers and ranchers, thus ensuring greater prosperity for American agriculture and for the entire American economy.
Remarks by Ambassador Kirk, April 26, 2012Footnote 4
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following remarks at Singapore Management University
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Ambassador Kirk. The United States regards Singapore as an established leader on trade in the Asia-Pacific and globally. Nearly ten years ago, we worked together to secure the United States-Singapore trade agreement, which was the most ambitious of its generation. Since then, we have joined with you and seven other Asia-Pacific countries—Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, and Vietnam—to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This ambitious regional trade agreement grew from the socalled P4 agreement that Singapore pioneered in 2005 along with Chile, New Zealand, and Brunei Darussalam. When President Obama announced here at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 2009 that the United States was joining TPP, it was a significant early sign of our serious commitment to active U.S. engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. More recently, when President Obama and Korean President Lee announced entry into force of the landmark U.S.-Korea trade agreement, it was proof positive that President Obama's persistent and thoughtful approach to trade, and his readiness to work with like-minded partners, has built support in America for ambitious trade measures that truly open markets, level the playing field, and reflect our shared values. This year, the United States is aiming high with our Asia-Pacific partners once again to advance objectives that address 21st century trade challenges. Our broad goal is to continue making progress toward a vibrant, seamless regional economy, because with global supply chains clustered around the Pacific Rim, trade barriers around the region now affect not only the United States and Singapore but all economies worldwide. Similarly, we are committed to increasing transparency, good governance, and the rule of law, all of which are fundamental to the smooth functioning of open markets. And we are seeking ways to enhance development so that the benefits of trade can be shared more broadly. As we assemble the building blocks of a more inclusive, integrated regional economy, we also form the foundation for a stronger global trading system.
Today, I will describe how the United States is working with Asia-Pacific trading partners on multiple complementary fronts simultaneously to pursue a shared vision for regional trade and our collective future growth and prosperity. First, I'll focus on some critical issues in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that illustrate the types of challenges the United States and our TPP partners are addressing as we work to update an open regional trading system for the 21st century. Next, I'll discuss ways we are working to promote and engage with Asia-Pacific economic institutions, such as APEC and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to further our goals in the region. Then, I'll describe how we are advancing groundbreaking multilateral trade initiatives with like-minded Asia-Pacific partners. Finally, I'll highlight promising avenues for new and sustained dialogue in the dynamic U.S.-China trade relationship. We are approaching a seminal moment in the construction of a more robust and responsive trade model for the next generation. We must address head on, purposefully and creatively, the reality that our businesses and workers are confronting new challenges that they've never faced before and that current agreements do not address. From the launch of the TPP negotiations, TPP partners have shared a core mission of tackling these new challenges, not only to help our businesses and workers today, but to enhance regional trade for the next generation of producers and consumers in every Asia-Pacific economy. Let me briefly mention three areas that illustrate new and cross-cutting trade issues with significant implications for enhancing regional trade integration and economic growth.
First, all TPP partners depend on innovation and productivity to fuel economic growth, so we have been looking at the many ways that we can use TPP to do so. For example, to promote efficiency, TPP partners are working together to develop regional trade arrangements along with smarter and more coordinated regulation. A regional agreement with more common rules and more seamless regulation will eliminate redundancies and make it easier and more efficient to trade in goods, agriculture, and services. At the same time, we are working to put in place accompanying rules, such as state-of-the art customs practices and open services sectors, which provide the infrastructure necessary to encourage efficient trade and investment.
Second, TPP partners have considered changes in the manner in which business is conducted. With the explosion of computer technology and e-commerce, we are working to promote the growth and vibrancy of the digital economy, including cloud computing, which particularly benefits small- and medium-sized enterprises.
For example, we are working to ensure the free flow of information and of data through the TPP region without unwarranted restrictions. Because even if a country is not strong in software development or device design today, it may still want wireless networks to prosper as consumers and businesses demand them. The rules and platforms we develop through TPP will help all Asia-Pacific economies harness the growth of this new digital ecosystem.
Third, TPP partners are working together in areas where we share common values. For example, all of the TPP countries are strong advocates for environmental protection and open markets. That is why we are actively pursuing initiatives covering a wide range of environmental concerns that have growing relevance for economies at every stage of development. The dynamic environmental proposals on the table right now in TPP break new ground, including commitments that would deter illegal wildlife and plant trade and prohibit harmful fishing subsidies, for example. These are just a few of the important and illustrative opportunities TPP partners have at this critical moment. As we address critical next generation trade issues, TPP partners are seeking an agreement that is both durable and flexible. That is why we are developing an agreement that is open to new entrants. Currently, TPP partners are continuing consultations with Japan, Canada, and Mexico regarding their interest and readiness to join TPP.
In addition, TPP partners in the negotiations are actively considering how to ensure trade and development are inclusive. We are working together to craft approaches that will help both developed and developing economies meet the obligations of a high-standard agreement. And we are addressing the development concerns of workers and small businesses throughout the region by designing new ways to ensure that the benefits of trade agreements can be shared more broadly in each of our countries. The final goal of the TPP is to build a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, an achievement that would bring tremendous benefits to the countries in the region and the global economy. With TPP negotiations marching toward conclusion, now is the time for all TPP partners to do the hard work and make the tough choices necessary to achieve our ambitious goals. Ultimately, TPP's success will not be judged on whether we can conclude an agreement per se; rather, success will be judged on whether the final TPP agreement actually meets the high standards we originally set out to achieve and by the economic benefits it produces.
Of course, the United States recognizes that a high-standard TPP agreement cannot serve as the only means for a diverse array of Asia-Pacific economies to enhance regional trade and investment and shared prosperity at this time. In fact, we believe that APEC, ASEAN, and other regional economic institutions are serving as complementary platforms in pursuit of these shared goals.
We continue to drive efforts to construct a more fully integrated regional economy through APEC, which serves as the central trade and investment organization in the region. Beginning with Singapore's host year in 2009, APEC has been revitalized and refocused in recent years to develop ideas for addressing key next-generation trade issues facing exporters in the Asia-Pacific.
This year, the United States is working with APEC 2012 host Russia and our other partners to build on significant and concrete results produced by APEC Leaders last November in Honolulu. In particular, we are seeking to: complete the next stage in APEC's groundbreaking work on environmental goods and services liberalization; further advance a non-discriminatory, market-driven model to promote innovation; improve supply chain performance; and align regulations among our economies, and improve opportunities for stakeholders to provide input into policy-making throughout the region.
In ASEAN, the changing landscape may soon provide an historic opportunity for the United States to work with all 10 ASEAN members in new and significant ways that underscore our shared recognition of the unique role ASEAN plays in the Asia-Pacific region. Since 2006, the US-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) has served to deepen our relations and support ASEAN integration, including ASEAN's goal of becoming a single economic community by 2015.
The United States also advances our relations with ASEAN countries through valuable bilateral dialogues. Under these dialogues, we are promoting trade with the Philippines, for example through a customs and trade facilitation agreement that our two countries signed last September and through work under the U.S.-Philippines Partnership for Growth to support transparent, effective, and accountable governance. At the same time, we are actively seeking to develop new, mutually beneficial initiatives with Thailand.
And now with encouraging progress toward democratic transformation in Burma, which the United States has strongly supported, and with Laos nearly ready to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO), there are also emerging possibilities to elevate overall U.S.-ASEAN relations in meaningful ways. Today, we see the potential to engage with the ASEAN countries on new far-reaching trade initiatives that will help businesses and workers in ASEAN and the United States enhance their competiveness and promote faster economic growth and higher living standards.
Specifically, the United States is eager to begin discussions of possible agreements we can pursue in areas of mutual interest. As we are doing in TPP, we want to focus on concrete outcomes that will enhance efficiency, encourage innovation, and promote increased trade and development. ASEAN itself has been targeting trade facilitation, the digital economy, and agribusiness, all of which are possible focus areas for our joint work. Agreements we reach in these or other areas will support enhanced trade and investment, and could potentially serve as building blocks for broader trade initiatives.
Just as we see many of these initiatives leading to a stronger Asia-Pacific economy, we also see the opportunity for this region to demonstrate global leadership by extending these policy principles and liberalization efforts worldwide. We remain firmly committed to the precept that trade liberalization at the multilateral level holds the highest potential for securing wide-ranging market-opening outcomes while at the same time advancing trade as an economic engine for global development. But since all WTO Members acknowledged last December that the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations is at an impasse, the United States is actively leading efforts among like-minded countries to seize this moment of clarity and focus on new pathways for more productive, trade liberalizing work within the WTO.
In response to the rapid growth of supply chains for information and communications technology (ICT) goods across the region, the United States is working closely with Asia-Pacific partners to advance an initiative to expand the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement (ITA) by eliminating tariffs on additional ICT goods. The ITA was born here in Singapore, and a successful ITA expansion negotiation would provide a much needed boost to world economic recovery. In fact, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation estimates that expanding ITA product coverage could add up to $190 billion to global GDP annually. But to deliver these benefits, we must work together to frame an ITA negotiation carefully, in such a way that allows for rapid progress, and tangible deliverables, so that it can garner consensus by all ITA Participants. Consequently, I urge all of our Asia-Pacific partners to accelerate their preparations before the launch of negotiations at the WTO. Right now, the United States is also working at the WTO with Asia-Pacific partners including Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Taiwan to update global services trade for the 21st century. Services are the critical links in global supply chains that connect exporters of every size to customers in countless markets. Therefore, all economies—and all economic sectors—are hurt by persistent barriers to trade in services. Services are also essential to support competitiveness. If you want to compete in the global market, you need to open your markets to services, especially in key areas like information and communications technology, financial services, and distribution. Our goal at the WTO is to develop a new plurilateral services agreement that brings together the many achievements of the 17 years since the first services agreement was concluded. Such an agreement will bring immediate benefits and provide a beacon for others to follow, setting out the direction for future work in the multilateral setting. Trade facilitation is also key to helping Asia-Pacific countries tap into the world's ever expanding global supply-chains, enhancing regional economic integration, and driving development. That is why the United States prioritizes trade facilitation both at the WTO and bilaterally. Furthermore, as TPP partners explore new ways to make trade and development more inclusive, we will share our findings with all WTO members.
Finally, let me describe how the United States sees China as an integral participant in the development of a cohesive regional economy that serves to strengthen the global trading system. President Obama has said many times that the United States '[welcomes] the peaceful rise of China.' Indeed, China's impressive growth since it joined the WTO rules-based system ten years ago has brought major benefits to the Asia-Pacific region and to the global economy as a whole. At the same time, President Obama has emphasized the importance of ensuring that 'China can be a source of stability and help to underwrite international norms and codes of conduct.'
We firmly believe that China can contribute even more to global prosperity, if it opens its market with the same dedication that has characterized its pursuit of entry into other countries' markets over the past decade. In fact, a recent study conducted jointly by the World Bank and experts from China's government Development Research Center concluded that: 'The role of the [Chinese] government and its relationship to markets and the private sector need to change fundamentally.' We will explore these and other issues further with China through cooperative bilateral dialogues such as the Joint Committee on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), as well as the Strategic & Economic Dialogue (S&ED). And when we have trade disputes, the United States will continue to seek resolution with China or any other trading partner through available dispute settlement tools such as those offered by the WTO.
Indeed, President Obama's balanced approach on enforcement complements our active engagement across the Asia-Pacific. Because effective trade enforcement is essential to keep the global economy running smoothly, according to the rules upon which we have all agreed. And a level playing field helps not only U.S. businesses and workers, but all participants in the WTO rules-based system. Accordingly, the Obama Administration is seeking to terminate application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment with respect to Russia, so that American businesses can compete on a level playing field in Russia once it joins the WTO.
Our efforts with all of our Asia-Pacific trading partners broadly reflect the values we share that are embodied in the APEC Bogor Goals: 'to pursue free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific in a manner that will encourage and strengthen trade and investment liberalization in the world as a whole. ' From Singapore to Shanghai to San Francisco and beyond, we all have a huge stake in building the strongest possible regional and global trading system. Now we must come together and find common ground on mutual challenges facing our workers and businesses today. As we construct the trade and economic infrastructure this region needs for the 21st century, together we will support more and better jobs for people in the United States and Singapore, around the Pacific Rim, and worldwide. Thank you.
Excerpt of Remarks by Ambassador Kirk, May 15, 2012Footnote 5
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following remarks at the US Chamber of Commerce
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Ambassador Kirk. Today, the historic U.S.-Colombia trade agreement is in effect. It brings benefits to businesses of every size in both of our countries.
This is good news for U.S. entrepreneurs, workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers who are ready to export more U.S. goods and services to Colombia's growing market. Similarly, it's good news for Colombia, which stands to gain in terms of economic growth, jobs, and permanent access to the world's largest market here in the United States.
This historic trade agreement also affirms the strong and deep relationship between the United States and Colombia, one of our closest allies in the hemisphere. President Obama and President Santos were unwavering in their shared commitment to secure a historic trade agreement that boosts trade and jobs and that works for businesses and workers in both our countries.
Here in the United States, President Obama insisted that we find a path forward for the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement—one that unlocks the job-building benefits of trade while also addressing important labor issues in Colombia. Of course, the Obama Administration's hard work was matched by the vision and leadership of Colombian President Santos. The United States appreciates and applauds President Santos' courage and determination to implement necessary and historic improvements for Colombian workers and for justice under the Action Plan Related to Labor Rights. To be sure, the President said in Cartagena that 'more work still needs to be done, but we've made significant progress.' So while the bold steps taken so far have enabled us to advance the agreement we celebrate today, we also look forward to continuing our work together in the future.
Remarks by Ambassador Kirk, May 24, 2012Footnote 6
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following remarks at the OECD Ministerial Session in Washington, DC
Ambassador Kirk. The United States is strongly committed to the OECD's shared values of open markets and the rule of law, which are critical ingredients for fighting protectionism and maintaining a dynamic multilateral trading system. The United States also strongly believes that the governance and decision-making framework of the OECD, whereby the Member-driven Committees approve documents, recommendations and decisions before they are sent to Council, imparts a legitimacy to OECD work-products that needs to be maintained.
The OECD Trade Committee, for example, has produced high-quality analytical work on the interlinkages between trade and jobs and growth.
One such report I had the pleasure to participate in was yesterday's book launch for the International Collaborative Initiative on Trade and Employment. We had a helpful discussion about the complex relationship between trade and jobs.
Trade openness, when combined with complementary policies, can support job creation, better wages, and inclusive economic growth.
At the same time, policies that promote growth can result in some workers being displaced from their current employment, and these workers may have difficulty accessing new job opportunities.
As governments, it is our responsibility to demonstrate, through complementary policy actions, that we are addressing the problems that workers may have moving to new jobs.
In the United States, we have done so through a tool we call Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides U.S. workers who are adversely affected by trade with the opportunity to obtain the skills, resources, and support they need to become reemployed.
We believe such policies allow us to do a better job of credibly communicating how trade can make positive contributions to our citizens' day-to-day lives.
Protectionism inhibits growth, and we must remain vigilant in our fight against it. In addition to the regular monitoring by the WTO, OECD and UNCTAD, we need to make better use of the WTO Committee structure to raise and address implementation issues when they arise.
Given the growing body of evidence on how trade operates in the 21st century, with global supply chains crisscrossing countries in various stages of development, trade barriers are increasingly detrimental to that process.
The reality of our interconnectedness in fact is central to our interest in pursuing additional work on goods and services liberalization.
This is one of the reasons the United States feels as strongly as we do about the need to take the opportunity in front of us to expand the Information Technology Agreement. It's still an area where high tariffs are keeping some countries out of the global production chain.
The United States and other Members are also exploring the concept of an international services agreement. We believe there are tremendous benefits that can be shared by expanding services market access and developing new, internationally agreed rules and standards.
Similarly, trade facilitation is an area with huge potential to help developing countries integrate into global supply chains as well as attracting investment and advancing development.
We need to keep pursuing work in the WTO on these and other areas where progress can be achieved in the near future.
The work of the OECD can complement these efforts by helping us better understand the sequence of value-added activity and can illustrate how production chains operate.
The OECD's work on global value chains, export restrictions and a services trade restrictiveness index will provide a deeper understanding of global trade flows, and we encourage broad participation of all key economies in these projects.
Thank you.
Remarks by President Obama, May 30, 2012Footnote 7
President Barack Obama gave the following remarks at the White House
Introductory Remarks Omitted
President Obama. We've talked a lot recently about the fundamental choice that we face as a country. America can either settle for an economy where just a few are doing well and a lot of folks are struggling to get by. Or we can build the kind of economy where everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same rules.
And part of building that broad-based economy with a strong middle class is making sure that we're not just known as a nation that consumes. We've got to be a nation that produces, a nation that sells. Our middle class was created by workers who made and sold the best products in the world. Our communities and our economy have always done better when we shipped more goods than anybody else, stamped with that phrase: “Made in America.” And I want us to be that nation again. I want us to be that nation in perpetuity.
Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling American exports over five years. Today, with the trade agreements that we've signed into law, with the help of some of these same members of Congress, we're making historic progress. Soon, there are going to be millions of new customers for our goods and services in Korea, in Colombia and Panama. That way, even though we got some Hyundais over here, we're also going to have some Chryslers and Fords and Chevys in Seoul that are imported from Detroit and Toledo and Chicago.
So I'm going to go anywhere I can in the world to create new markets for American goods. And we're also not going to stand by when our competitors aren't following the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate of the previous administration. We've set up a Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate unfair trade practices that are taking place anyplace—anywhere in the world. Anytime other countries skirt the rules or put our workers and our businesses in an unfair position, we're going to take action. We're also making sure that American businesses have better access to the 95 percent of the world's consumers who live beyond our shores. And that's why the bipartisan bill that I'm about to sign is so important. By reauthorizing support for the Export-Import Bank, we're helping thousands of businesses sell more of their products and services overseas and, in the process, we're helping them create jobs here at home. And we're doing that at no extra cost to the taxpayer.
Over the past few years, I've met with a lot of business leaders and a lot of workers across America, from companies like Boeing to Dow Chemical to smaller companies that are also interested in accessing foreign markets. And they've told me how critical support from the Ex-Im Bank has been in competing more effectively in the global marketplace. As the head of the bank, we owe our thanks to Fred Hochberg, who is here on stage, for doing such an outstanding job.
Just to give you a couple of examples, Boeing relied on support from the Ex-Im Bank to strike a deal selling more than 200 planes to one of the fastest-growing airlines in the world. And that translates into thousands of jobs here in the United States. As long as our global competitors are providing financing for their exports, we've got to do the same. So I'm glad that Congress got this done. I'm grateful to members of both parties who came together and put the interests of the American people first.
Now we've got to do more. Obviously, the world economy is still in a delicate place because of what's going on in Europe and the fact that some of the emerging countries have been slowing down. It is absolutely critical for us to make sure that we are full speed ahead. I've been traveling around the country talking about a “To-Do” list for Congress with some commonsense ideas that historically have had bipartisan support to help continue growth and job creation. And just like the bill I'm about to sign, those policies can help strengthen the economy and put more folks back to work. We shouldn't have to wait until an election to do some of this business.
A couple of points. Number one, it still makes no sense for us to be giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs and factories overseas. The great news is there are a lot of companies that are now thinking about insourcing and moving jobs back to the United States. We are more competitive than ever. Our workers are more productive than ever. We want to help provide incentives for folks to make those decisions. So it's time for Congress to take tax breaks away that allow for deductions moving jobs overseas and instead cover moving expenses for companies that are interested in bringing jobs back to America.
Number two, Congress should give every responsible homeowner the opportunity to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage. We're starting to see a little bit of stabilizing in some of the housing markets around the country, but that continues to be a significant drag on our economy. But when families are able to take advantage of these historically low rates, it makes a difference. It puts money in their pockets or it may help them rebuild some of their equity. It gives them more confidence and the housing market stabilizes further.
We've done everything that we can do administratively to help some portion of homeowners around the country refinance. But every responsible homeowner in America should have a chance to save money. That's not just good, by the way, for the housing industry, that's good for all businesses, because it means consumers are going to be out there with a little extra money in their pockets. Number three, Congress still has the opportunity to do more to help small business owners who create most of the new jobs in America. So we want to give them a tax break for hiring more workers and providing those workers higher wages.
Fourth, Congress should extend the tax credits for clean energy companies that are set to expire at the end of the year. This is something that a lot of members, both Democrats and Republicans, should be able to appreciate, because wind power, solar power, biofuels—those aren't partisan issues—that's a job sector that is growing across the country. But right now, there is too much uncertainty because we haven't gone ahead and locked down some of these tax credits.
These companies are putting folks back to work and they're helping us break our dependence on foreign oil. There are members, again, of both parties that support these tax credits. And tens of thousands of jobs are at stake. So I think it's very important for us to make sure that we move forward on that.
Fifth—and I'm going to speak to this on Friday—Congress should create a Veterans Job Corps so we can put our returning heroes back to work as cops and firefighters and park rangers. We just observed Memorial Day, an extraordinarily moving Memorial Day—we were down at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial commemorating 50 years since that difficult and challenging war. And one thing we learned from that was that we've got to treat our heroes with the respect and dignity that they have earned.
And our veterans are some of the most highly-trained, highly-educated, highly-skilled workers we've got. These are Americans who want to keep serving now that they're back. So we've got to make sure when they come home, they come home to new jobs and new opportunities. So there are a number of things that my administration can do on our own and we're going to keep on doing them, but it gets a whole lot easier if we get some help from Congress. And this is a great example, a great model of what can happen.
America has come through some tough times together, and it's going to take more time than any of us would like to get to a place where all of us have fully recovered from the worst recession in our lives. There will continue to be hurdles and there will continue to be some headwinds that we can't fully control, but there are plenty of things we can control. And there are plenty of solutions within our reach. There are steps that we can take right now to speed up this recovery, to help create jobs, to restore some of the financial security that families have lost. It's within our control to do the right thing and do it now.
So my message to Congress is thank you and congratulations on authorizing Ex-Im Bank to continue on its extraordinary mission. We've got more work to do. I hope this ends up being a model for the kind of progress that we can make in the months to come and the years to come. So with that, it is my great pleasure to sign this bill into law.
Remarks by Deputy USTR Punke, June 12, 2012Footnote 8
Deputy USTR Michael Punke gave the following remarks in Geneva, Switzerland
Deputy Punke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The United States welcomes China's head of delegation, Assistant Minister Yu, other representatives of China's government and, of course, our colleague, Ambassador Yi. We appreciate the Report that your team prepared for this meeting. We also thank China for its responses to our written questions, which we will examine carefully. As always, we are grateful to the Secretariat for its hard work in compiling its Report. Finally, we appreciate Ambassador Smidt's contribution in getting us started today with helpful commentary and important questions regarding China's trade policies and practices. In the ten years since it acceded to the WTO, China has risen to become the world's second largest exporter, and it is now the world's third largest importer. It is clear that China benefits immensely from the global trading system. It is equally clear that China's emergence and growth have, in turn, had far-reaching impacts on economies throughout the world, as well as a major impact on the World Trade Organization and the negotiations we conduct in this institution.
In the years immediately following its accession to the WTO, China made noteworthy progress in adopting economic reforms that facilitated its transition toward a market economy and increased the openness of its economy to trade and investment. However, beginning in 2006, progress toward further market liberalization in China began to slow, and a trend toward the increasing use of measures imposing new restrictions on market access and foreign investment began to emerge. We are worried, to use Ambassador Smidt's proverb—not only of China standing still, but also moving backward. Since China's 2010 TPR, it appears the trend toward state intervention in the Chinese economy has intensified. China's tighter embrace of state capitalism now runs directly counter to the economic reform goals that originally drove its pursuit of WTO membership, goals that had offered real leadership and real promise for China's future economic growth. The United States continues to urge the Chinese government to reconsider its divergence from the path of reform.
As we look back on developments in particular areas since China's last TPR, the United States notes both positive developments and negative developments. One area that continues to generate significant concerns for the United States is China's inadequate and uneven enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Secretariat's Report and the Government Report set out numerous actions by the Chinese authorities to try to improve the enforcement of intellectual property rights. However, those efforts have still not significantly reduced the unacceptably high infringement levels in China, and therefore the United States continues to seek ways to work with China to improve China's enforcement regime. In our view, a key metric of success needs to focus on a central issue—whether the legitimate goods and services purchased in large volumes around the globe can also achieve reasonable levels of sales in China.
With regard to industrial policies, which reflect China's growing embrace of state capitalism, the Secretariat's Report notes several ways in which the Chinese Government actively seeks to manage trade, allocate resources, “support[] national champions,” and enhance the competitiveness of state-owned enterprises. Many of the specific policies used by China are problematic. For example, grave concerns about discrimination and poor long-term economic development arise from certain policies promoting “indigenous innovation,” as well as from policies mandating the use of unique national standards, pursuing restrictive government procurement practices, imposing investment restrictions, creating pressure to transfer technology, using variable value-added tax rebate rates for exports and deploying export restraints.
The Secretariat's Report also explains that the use of subsidies is “an important feature of” China's trade policy regime. The Report notes that China submitted a subsidies notification under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in October 2011, but adds that “in many cases there are no figures on the magnitude of support provided, and no information is available on subsidies … provided at the provincial level, which are believed to be considerable.” It is also disturbing that, in several instances, China failed to provide information requested by the Secretariat for its Report. In a similar, disturbing vein, the United States notes that it filed a counter notification under Article 25.10 of the SCM Agreement in September 2011, detailing 200 central and sub-central government subsidies—including subsidies that appeared to be prohibited—that had never been notified by China. In these circumstances, Article 25.10 called on China to notify those subsidies promptly. However, in its subsequent subsidies notification, China included only 10 of the 200 subsidies identified in the U.S. counter notification and has not taken any further action. In addition, China has failed to notify large fisheries subsidies, even though China is the world's greatest fishing power and the Secretariat's Report cites a study indicating that the Chinese Government's support of this industry has exceeded $4 billion per year. The United States expects China, commensurate with its fishing status, to notify all of its fisheries subsidies promptly and to make a significant contribution in the WTO's ongoing work toward ambitious and effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies.
The United States would like to underscore that these concerns about China's subsidies practices are far from trivial. During China's tenure as a WTO Member, investigatory work by the United States has led to the filing of three WTO disputes involving allegations that China has employed scores of prohibited subsidies, both at the central government level and the sub-central government level. In each dispute, China subsequently withdrew the challenged subsidies or removed export contingencies or local content requirements.
In the area of services, the Secretariat's Report states that, “[a]ccording to the authorities, China's general policy is of gradual, progressive, and managed opening, with a view to promoting development through a win-win strategy for both domestic and foreign services suppliers.” The United States' perspective unfortunately is less positive. While China has increased market access in some sectors, our stakeholders' experience in multiple sectors has shown that discriminatory regulatory processes, overly burdensome and capricious licensing and operating requirements, informal bans on entry and other similar problems frustrate efforts of foreign services suppliers to achieve anywhere near their full market potential in China. Key services sectors affected by these problems include telecommunications, banking, insurance, express delivery, electronic payment, legal and other services.
In the area of agriculture, we note concerns that China has still not fully embraced international standards and science-based rulemaking with regard to both sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers and other measures. For many agricultural products, China remains an unpredictable market, largely because of selective intervention in the market by China's regulatory authorities. Key U.S. exports adversely affected by these practices include beef, poultry and pork. Serious concerns also continue to arise in the area of transparency. China's notification practices at the WTO offer one example, not only when it comes to subsidies notifications under the SCM Agreement, but also agricultural support. Indeed, China, despite repeated requests from the United States and others, has failed to notify any agricultural support provided after 2008, even though it appears that China has significantly increased its subsidies for many agricultural products in recent years –including what appears to be the world's largest subsidies in the area of cotton. China also needs to improve its notification practices for proposed SPS measures and proposed standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. At the same time, we recognize that China has improved its transparency on other fronts, particularly by publishing draft laws, regulations, and departmental rules for public comment more regularly. Nevertheless, improvements are needed. According to a recent study by the U.S.-China Business Council, the National People's Congress (NPC) passed 9 trade-related laws from March 2011 to March 2012 but only posted drafts of 3 of them on the NPC website for public comment. The same study found that only 49 percent of draft trade-related regulations and departmental rules had been published on the State Council's website for public comment. The United States is working bilaterally with China to resolve our concerns through cooperative and constructive engagement, using avenues like the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade to seek pragmatic resolutions to pressing trade issues and the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) to help manage the complex U.S.-China economic relationship on a long-term, strategic basis. We note our appreciation for China's commitment at the most recent S&ED meeting to submit a comprehensive, revised Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) accession offer, which responds to the requests of the GPA Parties, before the last GPA Committee meeting this year. We look forward to an offer from China that is of the same high quality of coverage as that provided by the GPA Parties.
We also have made constructive use of other mechanisms where dialogue with China has failed to resolve our concerns. Since China's last TPR in 2010, the United States has initiated five WTO dispute settlement cases against China. I note that two of the WTO cases recently brought by the United States reflect our continuing deep concerns about a pattern of Chinese Government action that has seemed to emerge in recent years. China seems to have reflexively resorted to domestic trade remedy actions in response to legitimate actions taken by the United States or other trading partners under their trade remedies laws. In our view, this type of apparently retaliatory conduct, which is specifically provided for under Chinese law, is at odds with fundamental WTO principles. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, not the immediate initiation of a new trade remedy investigation, is the appropriate means to try to resolve legitimate concerns about a trading partner's actions. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there can be no question about the ever-increasing impact of China on global trade and the operation and functioning of institutions like the WTO. With such influence, of course, comes great responsibility. We urge China to live up to the high expectations of its trading partners—and we look forward to working with China toward that end. We wish China a successful trade policy review. Thank you.
