Statement from Commerce Secretary Bryson, January 13, 2012Footnote 1
U.S. Secretary of Commerce John E. Bryson issued the statement below on the release of the November 2011 U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services report by the Commerce Department's U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Today's report showed that U.S. exports of goods and services in November 2011 decreased 0.9 percent from October 2011 to $177.8 billion, with this month's exports of consumer goods ($15.7 billion) the highest on record. U.S. imports of goods and services increased by 1.3 percent to reach $225.6 billion, causing the U.S. trade deficit to increase by 10.4 percent to reach $47.8 billion in November 2011. Petroleum imports increased 31 percent, while crude oil imports rose by 6.5 percent. The increase was largely caused by rising prices.
American goods and services exports in the first 11 months of 2011 were up 15 percent, or $251.5 billion, from the same period in 2010, to reach $1.93 trillion, putting the U.S. on track to meet the Obama administration's National Export Initiative targets and exceed a record $2 trillion in exports for 2011.
This consists of gains in sectors that support U.S. jobs, such as automotive vehicles, where U.S. exports of passenger cars increased nearly 24 percent, or $8.3 billion, in the first 11 months of 2011.
“Today's international trade numbers illustrate the impact imports of petroleum products have on America's trade deficit,” Bryson said. “They're also an indication of the need to further intensify our efforts to reach the 95 percent of the world's consumers who live outside our borders.”
“The good news from today's report is that we remain on track to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by the end of 2014, and the increase in U.S. auto exports is especially promising for an industry that some were prepared to leave for dead just three years ago.”
Excerpts of Remarks by President Obama, January 24, 2012Footnote 2
President Barack Obama gave the following remarks during the State of the Union address at the Capitol
President Obama. We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we're on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. And soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.
I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration—and it's made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.
Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you—America will always win.
Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, February 19, 2012Footnote 3
Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following remarks in Los Cabos, Mexico
Secretary Clinton. Secretary Espinosa, thank you. Through your efforts in Cancun and here in Los Cabos, Mexico is emerging as a leader in bringing nations together to solve problems that none of us can solve on our own. When you call for stronger leadership to ensure that global institutions deliver results for people everywhere, you have a partner in the United States.
One of the welcome trends we have seen in recent years is the rise of more flexible groupings that are working on creative solutions to shared challenges, from piracy to climate change. I am delighted to have this chance to exchange ideas with so many colleagues from the G20 and beyond.
At the height of the most severe financial crisis in my lifetime, we recognized that simply gathering the world's eight industrialized economies would no longer be enough to stabilize the global economy and promote balanced growth. We needed to include a broader range of stakeholders. Together, this broader group quickly expanded emergency lending capacity. We helped prevent a deeper slide. And in so doing, we set ourselves and the G20 a high bar for the future.
The countries of the G20 make up more than 85 percent of the world economy. As we work to create the conditions for sustained recovery, more inclusive growth, and widespread prosperity, we should aim to summon the same political will we showed in a crisis.
Of course, in a conversation about breaking deadlocks in the multilateral system, we have no shortage of topics to choose from. I look forward to discussing the range of issues Minister Espinosa has raised, including green growth, the fight against corruption, and how we can meet our global development objectives. I also look forward to speaking with many of you as this conference proceeds about how best to support the legitimate aspirations and humanitarian needs of the Syrian people despite the current deadlock at the United Nations Security Council, and about how the international community can persuade Iran to meet its obligations.
I'd like to spend the balance of my time today talking about the global trading system of the 21st century—specifically, the need to update the rules of the road to ensure that our businesses compete on the merits and our economies can grow together.
These issues are important to all of us here this evening because today, our foreign relations and our economic relations remain inseparable. Prosperity is a core foreign policy goal for all of us, and economic forces influence virtually every aspect of how our nations engage with the world. So I believe it is natural that we, as foreign ministers, should gather at this forum.
Last March, I laid out four attributes that I believe characterize healthy economic competition and—by extension—a healthy global economy: It must be open, free, transparent, and fair. An open system is one where any person anywhere can participate in markets everywhere. A free system is one in which ideas, information, products, and capital can flow unimpeded by unnecessary or unjust barriers. A transparent system is one where rules and regulations are developed out in the open through wide consultation. And a fair system is one where companies compete on a level playing field based on agreed-upon rules, which sustains our faith in the system itself.
At the height of the most severe financial crisis in my lifetime, we recognized that simply gathering the world's eight industrialized economies would no longer be enough to stabilize the global economy and promote balanced growth. We needed to include a broader range of stakeholders.
These principles have underpinned the greatest era of growth the world has ever seen. They have empowered entrepreneurs in all of our societies and fueled the emergence of middle classes from Seoul to Sao Paolo to Nairobi.
No nation is perfect in honoring these principles, including my own. But all who benefit from open, free, transparent, and fair competition have a vital interest in protecting it and a responsibility to follow the rules. Enough of the world's commerce now takes place with the developing economies in this room that the failure of any group of nations to participate in the rules-based system would render the entire system unworkable. And that would impoverish all of us.
I don't need to tell anyone here that we face significant challenges to this system. I'd like to highlight three of them.
First is the rise of barriers behind borders. We have made great progress over the years in addressing tariff barriers to trade. But today, many of the most important barriers are emerging not at borders, but behind them. These anti-competitive practices take many forms, including protectionist regulations, sub-market subsidies, mandatory technology transfer, and unfair joint venture requirements. They all interfere with the G20's core mandate of promoting balanced and sustainable growth. Just as the GATT and then the WTO have eliminated harmful tariffs over the last several decades, today we need institutions and arrangements capable of providing solutions to this new challenge of barriers emerging behind borders.
Second, I would like to talk candidly about the challenges countries face from the emergence of what has been called “state capitalism”—the rise of sovereign wealth and the growing presence and influence of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises that operate globally.
Of course, every nation will decide how involved its government should be in its economy. But for our interconnected global economy to grow together, and for all countries to keep faith in the system, we need to work together to ensure that all companies compete by the same set of rules. When favored state-owned or state-supported enterprises enjoy preferential access to government resources and special protection from competition in their markets, that harms foreign competitors and local entrepreneurs alike.
Several years ago, when sovereign wealth funds began to increase their presence around the world, governments and the private sector came together and developed the Santiago Principles, a code of conduct designed to reassure the world that sovereign wealth funds would act transparently and focus on growth rather than other purposes.
Today, we need to develop similar understandings to ensure that companies compete on a level playing field, whether their owners sit in corporate boardrooms or in government ministries. We call this common-sense principle “competitive neutrality.” It is a principle that G20 members should reaffirm.
The third challenge I'd like to discuss is how we protect intellectual property and innovation—which all of our countries depend on to create the new technologies, products, and industries that will drive growth and create the high quality jobs of the future.
I know that there are differences of opinion on some aspects of intellectual property protection and how we enforce intellectual property laws. There is a healthy debate within my country as well.
But we all agree on certain fundamental principles—and we all need to be working to implement them. There is no excuse for allowing a company to steal trade secrets from a competitor and then use them to make a competing product. We all acknowledge that the wholesale copying of movies, books, and other media without paying royalties to the people who created them is theft. On the other hand, we also all agree that information and ideas need to be able to cross borders freely. Our countries have an opportunity to create a flexible framework that encourages rather than stifles, supports rather than suppresses, and connects rather than separates, innovators around the world.
I know that many companies in your countries share our concerns about the issues I have discussed: barriers behind borders, state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth, and intellectual property. These are multilateral issues, not the cause of any one nation. They bear directly on our discussion this evening about breaking deadlocks in the multilateral system. We have to get them right, through cooperation and effective rules of the road.
A level playing field is not just a rhetorical device. Countries that benefit because we honor our commitments should know we expect them to honor theirs. This is important to the United States, and to protecting fair economic competition around the world for many years to come.
And so are our efforts, here at the G20 and elsewhere, to ensure that growth is not just balanced, but sustainable and inclusive. I believe we have entered an age of participation—where every individual, regardless of race, gender, hemisphere, or region, is poised to be a contributing and valued member of the global marketplace. Across the full range of our efforts at the G20, it must be a priority to involve women—as partners, planners, and implementers—because the evidence is clear: the economic participation of women is as powerful a driver economic growth as we have today.
Ultimately, our progress should be measured not by GDP, but by the quality of people's lives: How widely growth is felt. How inclusive our economies are. Whether men and women can take hold of the opportunities to build the world we want for our children and our children's children. The G20 has already proved its potential to help nations emerge from crisis. Today, let us redouble our efforts to recover and prosper together.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, February 21, 2012Footnote 4
Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following remarks in Washington, DC
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Clinton. I am particularly pleased that this luncheon is being held in the Ben Franklin Room with Ben staring over us, because it is named for a man who was both one of America's first diplomats and also one of our earliest innovators and entrepreneurs. He understood that our country's greatness would depend on both public excellence and private enterprise.
And it is in that spirit that we gather today to discuss how America's foreign policy can champion U.S. businesses abroad and drive recovery here at home, and also help provide a strong foundation and effective economic tools that can strengthen and sustain America's global leadership.
Now, here at the State Department, we call this Economic Statecraft. And we have worked to position ourselves to lead in a changing world where security is shaped in financial markets and on factory floors, as well as in diplomatic negotiations and on the battlefield. That's why more than 1,000 economic officers on six continents are working with American companies, chambers of commerce, local businesses and local and national governments to open markets and find new customers. At the same time, we're forming new partnerships with companies, universities, NGOs, and philanthropies to put private sector ingenuity to work solving some of our most difficult global challenges and driving sustainable development.
Now, I think it is fair to say, and I see a lot of my very experienced diplomatic colleagues here in the room, this has not always been a traditional focus for us. So why, you might ask, is the Secretary of State now spending as much time thinking about market swings as missile silos?
Well, to put it very plainly, Americans need jobs. And every $1 billion of goods we export supports more than 5,000 jobs here at home—even more in industries like telecommunications and aerospace. That's why President Obama set a goal of doubling America's exports over five years. And I'm very proud that we now expect to hit that target ahead of schedule, thanks in large measure to the passage of the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama; the tireless efforts of our diplomats, trade representatives, and commercial service officers around the world; and, of course and most importantly, the resilience of America's business community.
We also understand that America's economic strength and our global leadership are a package deal. You're not going to have one without the other. Our power in the 21st century depends not just on the size of our military but also on what we grow, how well we innovate, what we make, and how effectively we sell. Rising powers like China, India, and Brazil understand this as well, and we can't sit on the sidelines while they put economics at the center of their foreign policies.
Finally, we fundamentally believe that increasing trade and growing prosperity will benefit not just our own people, but people everywhere. Our economies are interdependent as never before, and so are our fates. America's economic renewal depends to a large degree on the strength of the global economy, and the global economy depends on the strength of America.
Now, I will be the first to admit that in some ways we are playing catch-up here. Let's be honest. We had fallen behind some other countries—some of them our friends and allies—when it came to using diplomacy to promote economic interests. American companies haven't always seen the federal government as an ally, and I know the State Department has not always been the first call when you're looking for help. So we can and we will, and in fact we are doing better.
That's what this conference is all about. We do want to hear your concrete suggestions based on your experiences about how we can be better partners. And we want to share with you the steps we are taking here in Washington and around the world.
I have made “Jobs Diplomacy” a priority mission at the State Department, with a clear goal: Just as our companies are ready to out-work, out-innovate, and out-compete their rivals, so we intend to be the most effective diplomatic champions for prosperity and growth.
What's our plan?
Well, it begins with good people and good partners.
We're changing the way we do business to better advance and support the way you do business. We need to see the world like you do, crisscrossed not just by national borders but by global supply chains.
So we are improving training for diplomats in economics, finance, and markets, and working more closely with colleagues across our government to leverage the best possible skills and resources.
I've directed all our senior diplomats to conduct business outreach and advocacy when they travel overseas.
We have created a new, unified under secretariat for economic growth, energy, and environment under Bob Hormats's leadership.
And I am also proud to announce that we will name Heidi Rediker as the first-ever chief economist at the State Department. She has a deep knowledge of financial and other markets and extensive experience in both the private and public sectors, and I look forward to her contributions to our team.
Effective Jobs Diplomacy also requires partners on the ground with deep knowledge and extensive networks—and that's where all of you come in. American chambers of commerce and other bilateral trade associations are at the heart of our effort.
When I was in Zambia last summer, I met members of the local Chamber—some of whom are here today. One woman told me about her job as a local manager for Citibank. Yes, she is helping an American firm navigate a growing market, but she's also helping her fellow citizens start their own businesses or buy their first homes. That's the kind of win-win that American business-support organizations deliver all over the world.
So we train our people, we find our partners, but the real question is: Can Jobs Diplomacy deliver results that make a difference to Americans throughout the country, to the bottom line of companies and to the daily lives of our citizens?
We are pursuing three lines of action to do just that: first, promoting U.S. businesses; second, attracting investment back to the United States; and third, leveling the playing field for fair competition.
Let's start with how we advocate for U.S. companies trying to win contracts and make sales. Let me start by saying this is not about picking winners and losers. It's about helping all American companies put the best foot forward overseas to get a fair shot in every market.
When we think about this, of course we think about our very large multinational corporations. As you'll hear in a minute from Jim, he can offer a firsthand experience about how this works. The Obama Administration has gone to bat for Boeing and its workers—and many others—all over the world. And as a result, they have hired thousands of new engineers, machinists, and factory workers right here at home. And as Jim likes to point out, every Boeing jet comes with millions of parts produced by more than 10,000 suppliers, many of them American small- and medium-sized businesses.
That's Jobs Diplomacy in action. Consider Russia. From our first days in office, we started talking with Jim and others at Boeing about their interest in doing more business in Russia. In October 2009, I toured Boeing's design center in Moscow and pressed the case with Russian officials. Our Embassy kept at it, arguing that Boeing is the global gold standard. And it worked. In late 2010, the Russians agreed to buy fifty 737s, for almost $4 billion. To build those planes, Boeing is creating tens of thousands of well-paying American jobs.
Now, this story has been repeated again and again and again around the world, from Turkey to Brazil to Vietnam, with our advocacy. In fact, just this month, an Indonesian airline officially signed a contract for more than 200 planes—a deal that President Obama helped seal on his trip in November.
Now, I think the truth is that Jobs Diplomacy, though, is not just about giants like Boeing or GE or Caterpillar. We are just as committed—and I want you to be as well—to helping small- and medium-sized businesses. Because after all, that is where most of the jobs are in the United States. For example, when Iceland began looking for help converting its vehicles to electric power, our Embassy championed a dynamic startup from Loveland, Ohio that does this work as well as anyone in the world. And in the end, they won a contract worth $100 million and sold 1,000 electric SUVs.
Now, because international trade has to be a two-way street, we're also working to attract direct foreign investment—we call it “Global Investment”—into American communities. And this is the second focus of our Jobs Diplomacy.
To make this a priority across our government, President Obama launched the SelectUSA Initiative last summer, which I'm sure you'll hear more from Secretary Bryson about later today. The Departments of State and Commerce are actually working hand-in-hand on this program and we are already seeing results. For example, last year we brought together American and Chinese governors and other state and local officials to discuss investment opportunities. And not long afterwards, one of the largest heavy equipment manufacturers in China announced a $60 million investment in Peachtree City, Georgia, with plans to add an additional $25 million across the state and hire 300 engineers in the next five years.
We're working with local leaders to help them replicate this success.
Now, these are important and worthwhile efforts. But signing one-off deals—even for dozens of airplanes or hundreds of SUVs—will only get us so far. We need to think bigger and broader. And that's why the third focus of Jobs Diplomacy is leveling that playing field for all, so American companies can compete and succeed everywhere.
We recognize that for all the tantalizing opportunities of foreign markets, there are still significant obstacles that make it harder for American businesses. Some of these are familiar hurdles: corruption, red tape, outdated protectionist policies. But we are also confronting new challenges, like the so-called tollbooths that force unfair terms on companies just to enter or expand in a market, like forced technology transfers, government-abetted piracy of intellectual property, and preferential treatment for state-owned or state-supported enterprises.
The United States is committed to a global economic system that is open, free, transparent, and fair. And we're working to institutionalize those norms in regional and global trade agreements and institutions. We're pushing for reforms that allow more people in more places to participate in the formal economy—especially women, who represent enormous untapped economic potential but are still marginalized in many markets. And as President Obama said in the State of the Union, and as Vice President Biden reinforced at our recent lunch with Chinese Vice President Xi, we will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the same rules.
This Administration has already brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate of our predecessors—and now a special new Trade Enforcement Unit is being established to go after unfair trading practices. Last Friday, the President announced that when other nations provide unfair financing for their exports, we will offer matching support to competing U.S. firms. Every day, all over the world, our diplomats are pressing governments to comply with international standards and to treat our companies fairly.
And we stand up for entire industries, like when our team in Australia helped beat back unwarranted legal action against American pork producers, leading to a significant increase in exports last year.
And we stand up for small companies, like the bedding producer in Washington state that faced a crisis when Canadian regulators hit their products with a higher tariff. After the State Department, working closely with the Canadian Embassy, intervened, the Canadian regulators realized they had made a mistake and reversed their decision.
Big or small, we're standing up for an economic system that benefits everyone, like when our Embassy in Manila worked with Filipino authorities on new intellectual property protections or when our negotiators ensure that the new Trans-Pacific Partnership requires that state-owned enterprises compete under the same rules as private companies.
So my message is, I hope, clear: We're here, actually, to help. We want to come with you as we open new markets and create new opportunities for jobs and investments. So when you confront unfair regulations, when you need help cutting through red tape, or if you just want advice on local customs, come to us. To make this even easier, in key markets across the world, our ambassadors are now holding monthly conference calls with the U.S. business community. We're standardizing commercial information on all of our embassy websites so U.S. companies can find the answers they need in one place, which will complement the newly launched Business USA website, a virtual one-stop shop for the services and information companies need to help them grow, hire, and export.
So these are all the ways in which Jobs Diplomacy is helping deliver results. And in the days and months ahead, we're going to push even harder. We will not rest until the U.S. Government is the most effective champion of business and trade anywhere.
Excerpts of Remarks by Commerce Secretary Bryson, February 21, 2012Footnote 5
Secretary John Bryson gave the following remarks in Washington, DC
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Bryson. In October of last year, I was confirmed as Secretary. Around that same time, Secretary Clinton sent a cable to her staff in U.S. embassies. It said that strengthening our economic leadership abroad and driving growth here at home—“economic statecraft”—is now a key part of what the State Department does.
I was pleased to hear this because economic statecraft aligns perfectly with the top priorities I have for the Commerce Department: supporting advanced manufacturing, increasing U.S. exports, and attracting more investment to the U.S.—all to create jobs.
As all of you know, the challenges and opportunities that American businesses face today are truly global in nature.
But that does not change one of my core beliefs—one that I imagine most of you share: The United States is fundamentally different from every other advanced economy.
We're startup people. We break the norms. We're innovators. We're willing to take chances on new ideas.
This is by far our most important economic asset. It's what sets us apart. And I believe that it will continue to be our key differentiating factor in the 21st century.
The question today is this: How do we put the full force of the American government behind businesses such as those here today—even as the global economy becomes more competitive?
Earlier today, Secretary Clinton outlined some answers to that question related to leveraging U.S. diplomacy.
Right now, I'd like to outline what we're doing at the Commerce Department to be more nimble, responsive and effective for American businesses. We call it government at the speed of business.
First, we need to build on the momentum in our manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing is critical to the U.S. economy. By itself, the U.S. manufacturing sector would be the 10th largest economy in the world.
While we help businesses build things here, we also need to help them sell it everywhere. We need to increase U.S. exports.
We need to empower more American businesses to start or expand exports—and remove barriers that get in your way.
You already know the facts: 95% of the world's consumers live outside the U.S. But only 1% of U.S. businesses export—and most of those only export to one country.
We need to change that. The IMF forecasts that more than 85% of economic growth through 2015 is taking place outside the U.S.
The good news is this: We have had two consecutive years of double-digit growth in U.S. exports—putting us on track to achieve the President's goal of doubling exports by 2015.
The impact of the National Export Initiative so far has been powerful.
For example, the Commerce Department has coordinated 77 trade missions to 38 countries with over 1,000 U.S. companies. Our priority has been markets and sectors where American businesses are most competitive.
I will personally be leading an infrastructure-focused mission to India next month.
In addition, we are opening new markets with trade agreements with Colombia and especially Korea, where annual exports could increase by $10 billion—creating tens of thousands of jobs here at home.
And the Trans Pacific Partnership is one of our most ambitious and promising efforts yet. Through it, we will attempt to set a new, high standard for regional trade agreements in the world's most economically dynamic region.
We must continue to reduce barriers to trade. This includes making sure that American businesses get a fair shot.
In fact, the Commerce Department has resolved over 170 cases involving trade barriers across a number of industries and markets.
Take one example. Customs officials in a major foreign IT equipment market were threatening to deny duty-free access to an Ohio manufacturer. We saw it as a breach of WTO rules.
Through a full-court press, we made sure that that country honored its commitments. As a result, the Ohio company got access to a 100-million-dollar market.
I strongly believe that when American businesses—both large and small—are provided with a level playing field. American businesses can compete and win—around the world.
Finally, we must significantly advance the promotion of investment in the United States. That includes U.S. companies expanding domestically or bringing jobs back as well as foreign companies investing here.
Now, I am aware that many of you hold senior positions in U.S. companies operating overseas. U.S. investment abroad can be important in order to be close to your customers and to take advantage of fast-growing markets.
But the fact is, a growing number of companies are finding that it is a smart move to re-locate or expand here in the U.S. It's called “insourcing.”
Labor costs in countries like China are rapidly increasing, but it's more than that. It's the total costs of production that companies must weigh. That includes, for example: the cost of transportation, the cost of proximity to supply chains, the cost of being further away from R&D and our universities, the cost of not having strong IP protections or quality control, and the cost of not having the most talented workforce in the world.
Meanwhile, although labor costs are higher here, U.S. productivity is increasing each year.
Last week, the President was in Milwaukee at MasterLock—at a factory that makes padlocks. It's now open again and running at full strength with 100 jobs that were brought back over the past 2 years.
Not every job will return to the United States. But U.S. companies are rediscovering good, bottom-line reasons to invest and grow here.
We also need to build on the increase in foreign direct investment in the U.S. From 2009 to 2010, it rose in a single year nearly 50%. Last week, I talked with China's Vice President Xi and his delegation about this.
This is a new focus in the Commerce Department and in the U.S. government as a whole.
As emerging markets of the world rise, CEOs can put their investment capital in more and more places. President Obama, Secretary Clinton and I are aligning our resources to attract those job-generating dollars.
Other countries have done this for years.
We are doing this through a new initiative called SelectUSA. We are training Commercial Service officers to drive more direct investment into the U.S.—starting with 10 fast-growing international markets.
Our team will serve as an information clearinghouse for foreign businesses looking to invest in the U.S. They will help investors more easily navigate our rules and procedures, and they will advocate for the U.S. when foreign businesses are deciding where to put their next facility and create jobs.
Here's an example of early success: SelectUSA worked with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation to attract $20 million in investments from a Canadian auto company.
We want more stories like that.
And we are excited to be hosting the first annual SelectUSA Investment Summit this fall—as the President announced last week.
We will bring companies from around the world to meet with state and local officials who can tell our story—how America is the best place to invest, to hire, and to help build the future of their businesses.
In each of the areas I've mentioned today, my commitment is that this Administration will be an even more effective partner with people like you who are building businesses and creating jobs.
Again, our vision is government at the speed of business: We're beginning to see this at the Commerce Department. We are seeing it now at the State Department as well, with Secretary Clinton's commitments today. And, in just a few moments, you're going to hear from Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.
Working as one team, we will achieve that vision, and we will ensure that American businesses can continue to do what they do best—build it here and sell it everywhere.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, February 29, 2012Footnote 6
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee
Ambassador Kirk. About twelve months ago, I presented to you the Obama Administration's plan to work through outstanding issues related to our trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and expressed the Administration's commitment to renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance and extending trade preference programs. At the time, some questioned whether we were taking too long or seeking too much. Nonetheless, with your help, we accomplished all of this and more last year.
Together, we did the hard work necessary to pass all of these measures on one historic day. In the process, we built a new template for bipartisan support of trade that opens markets and levels the playing field for American businesses, workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers.
This year, with your help, we are forging ahead on another ambitious trade agenda. Tomorrow, you'll receive our 2011 annual report as well as a comprehensive outline of our plans for 2012. So, rather than attempt to cover all of that today, I'd like to highlight some of our key initiatives for the coming year.
First, I'm proud to report that final plans are being made to bring the U.S.-Korea trade agreement into force on March 15. At the same time, we are working with the governments of Colombia and Panama to fulfill their commitments so that those trade agreements can take effect as soon as possible.
We're also moving full speed ahead in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Building on the broad outlines announced last November, we are seeking to conclude a landmark TPP agreement this year that will address cross-cutting issues such as promoting regulatory coherence among our countries, enhancing the participation of small businesses into Asia-Pacific trade, and building regional supply chains that promote U.S. jobs.
As we consider the entry of additional countries, we will continue to coordinate closely with Congress to ensure new participants meet TPP's high standards and address specific issues of concern.
And as we move toward negotiating outcomes, the Administration will explore issues regarding additional trade promotion authority necessary to approve the TPP and future trade agreements.
This year, we are getting even tougher on trade enforcement, which has been a priority of the Obama Administration from day one. Yesterday, President Obama established by Executive Order the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) to prioritize and more aggressively challenge the kinds of unfair trade practices we fight fiercely everyday—from China's improper restrictions on industrial raw materials, to improper subsidies by the EU and other partners.
Right now, we also have an opportunity to defend the rights of U.S. workers and businesses by working together to pass legislation that will ensure our ability to remedy the harmful effects of unfairly subsidized imports from China and other countries.
And we are ready to bring Russia into the rules-based system in a way that gives us more enforcement tools to enable enhanced market access and a level playing field for U.S. exporters.
That's why the Administration will seek termination of Russia's Jackson-Vanik status as soon as possible to ensure that American firms enjoy the same job-supporting benefits of Russia's WTO membership as our international competitors.
Broadly speaking, our pursuit of enhanced trade to support American jobs extends across all geographic regions and all major economic sectors. We are engaging with the EU to deepen our transatlantic trade relationship, and we are eager to work with Congress to make immediate progress with sub-Saharan Africa and CAFTA countries on issues like third-country fabric and textile and apparel rules of origin, respectively. At the WTO, we continue to look for fresh, credible approaches to market-opening trade negotiations in the Doha Round and along with it—including plurilateral options such as services.
In conclusion, I want to thank the Committee for your thoughtful consideration of critical trade issues and continued support for our ambitious agenda. Working together, we can stay on track to meet the President's goal to double U.S. exports, and ensure that our trade policy continues to create job-supporting export opportunities for all Americans.
Thank you.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, March 7, 2012Footnote 7
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following testimony before the Senate Finance Committee
Ambassador Kirk. About twelve months ago, I shared with you President Obama's commitment to advance trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama, to renew Trade Adjustment Assistance, and to extend trade preference programs. Back then, some questioned whether our efforts we were taking too long or seeking too much. But with your help, all of this and more was accomplished last year.
Together, we did the hard work necessary to pass these measures on one historic day. And we built a new bipartisan template for trade policy that opens markets and levels the playing field for American businesses, workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers.
This year, with your help, we will advance another ambitious trade agenda.
I'd like to highlight some of the key initiatives of the President's Trade Policy Agenda for 2012.
First, I'm proud to report that the U.S.-Korea trade agreement will come into force on March 15. At the same time, we are working with the governments of Colombia and Panama to fulfill their commitments so that those agreements can take effect as soon as possible.
We're also moving full speed ahead in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Building on the broad outlines announced last November, we are seeking to conclude a landmark TPP agreement this year. It will address cross-cutting issues such as promoting regulatory coherence among our countries, participation of more small businesses in Asia-Pacific trade, and regional supply chains that promote U.S. jobs.
As we consider the entry of additional countries, we will continue to coordinate closely with you to ensure that new participants meet TPP's high standards and address issues of concern.
And as we move toward negotiating outcomes, the Administration will explore issues regarding additional trade promotion authority necessary to approve the TPP and future trade agreements.
This year, we are getting even tougher on trade enforcement, which has been a priority for President Obama from day one. The new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) will challenge even more aggressively the kinds of unfair trade practices we fight fiercely everyday—from China's improper restrictions on industrial raw materials, to improper subsidies by the EU and other partners.
As we consider enforcement, I want to thank this committee for working together to defend the rights of U.S. workers and businesses who face unfairly subsidized imports from countries like China. You stood up for them by working to pass the GPX bill this week.
This year, we are ready to seize the benefits and enforcement tools available to the United States as Russia joins the WTO.
To do so, we must work together to terminate Russia's Jackson-Vanik status as soon as possible. Only then can American firms enjoy the same benefits of Russia's WTO membership as our international competitors.
President Obama's pursuit of enhanced trade to support American jobs extends across all geographic regions and all major economic sectors. At his direction, we are engaging with the Europe to deepen our transatlantic trade relationship. We are eager to work with Congress to make immediate progress with sub-Saharan Africa and CAFTA countries on issues like third-country fabric and textile and apparel rules of origin. At the WTO, we continue to look for fresh, credible approaches to market-opening trade negotiations in the Doha Round and along with it—including plurilateral options such as services.
Working together, we can stay on track to double U.S. exports and support more jobs for more Americans.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these critical issues and your continued support of a forward-leaning job-creating trade agenda.
Thank you.
Remarks by Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Sapiro, March 15, 2012Footnote 8
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro gave the following remarks in Washington, DC
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Ambassador Sapiro. [] I would like you to take away from my remarks today three important points. First, the ITA has been more successful than any of us could have anticipated. Second, the Obama Administration is working hard to build support for expanding both ITA product coverage and membership. And, lastly, expansion can have a significant impact on U.S. and global economic growth, including by sustaining and creating jobs.
I. Achievements
I expect that everyone in this room is aware that the ITA has been one of the most successful agreements ever undertaken in the multilateral trading system.
This is underscored yet again by ITIF's most recent report. In the 15 years since the ITA entered into force, global trade in information and communications technology products has more than tripled—from $1.2 billion to $4 billion annually. This spectacular growth has been in no small part driven by the increase in the number of ITA Participants—growing from 29 countries and territories to 73 Participants today.
In 2011, the United States exported more than $2 trillion overall, up more than 33 percent from 2009. Our participation in the ITA contributed to that increase and is helping us meet the President's goal of doubling exports by the end of 2014. Right now we are ahead of schedule and on pace to exceed that goal.
II. Expansion
So I am pleased to be part of today's discussion on how we can build on the success of the ITA by expanding its duty-free product scope. As the ITA enters its 15th year in force at the end of this month, it is timely to take a fresh look at how we can expand its benefits. Last fall when the United States chaired APEC, we proposed, and others agreed, that APEC economies would work together to advance negotiations to expand ITA product coverage and membership.
In terms of expanding membership, we are already making progress. Last year we secured a commitment from Russia to join the ITA as part of its accession to the WTO. Russia, by the way, is poised to enter the WTO this summer. If Congress has not yet succeeded in terminating the Jackson-Vanik amendment that bars permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for Russia, then U.S. exporters and workers will not be able to enjoy the rights and benefits we negotiated. We call on Congress to work with us now to avoid such an outcome.
In addition to Russia, Colombia is currently in the process of joining the ITA, as a result of its commitment to do so as part of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
We are also working to build an ITA commitment into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or “TPP”. At the most recent TPP negotiating round in Melbourne, the United States tabled proposed language to enshrine ITA participation as a market access commitment for all current and future TPP partners.
As we now work to launch new negotiations to expand the ITA, we need to make sure that we get it right. Our immediate focus at USTR, and in our discussions with key ITA partners, is to lay the groundwork for success.
Given the well-known challenges in recent years of advancing trade liberalization in the WTO, we are collaborating closely with like-minded ITA Participants in numerous venues to shape a viable negotiation approach. Our challenge is to define the scope of negotiations in a way that can bring all ITA Participants to the table and at the same time deliver a commercially meaningful result in the near-term, not years from now.
Our industry stakeholders are playing a key role in the effort to frame ITA negotiations for success. They are actively engaging foreign industry counterparts, and promoting the benefits of ITA expansion directly to ITA member governments. Industry's message—conveyed from the highest levels—has been clear: governments should place a top priority on eliminating tariffs on more information and communications technology, and our negotiating efforts should be focused on an ambitious outcome that can provide immediate benefits.
The mandate from APEC Leaders places a clear priority on expanding ITA product coverage. This instruction is consistent with the ITA Ministerial Declaration, which directs ITA Participants to “review the product coverage … with a view to agreeing, by consensus, whether in the light of technological developments, experience in applying the tariff concessions, or changes to the HS nomenclature, the Attachments should be modified to incorporate additional products.”
III. Benefits of Expansion
The benefits of tariff elimination under the ITA have been widespread, extending well beyond the information and communications technology sector itself. And expanding the scope of ITA product coverage would multiply these benefits by further driving innovation and enhancing productivity across industries, and thereby continuing to raise living standards around the world.
U.S. companies are the world's largest producers of information and communications technology products. As such, it is hard to overstate the importance of the information and communications technology industry to the U.S. economy. For instance, U.S. semiconductor producers maintain over two-thirds of their manufacturing capacity in the United States, supporting millions of high-paying U.S. technology jobs. And in each of the last five years, the United States exported more semiconductors than any other product, including automobiles. As ITIF's report makes very clear, the benefits of a successful ITA expansion would be significant for the United States. Annual information and communications technology exports would increase by almost $3 billion dollars, supporting approximately 60,000 jobs.
The benefits of ITA expansion are also clear for developing countries. Over the last 15 years, developing countries moved up the value chain in electronics manufacturing and emerged as major players in information and communications technology production and exports. Between 1996 and 2008, developing country ITA exports expanded at an annual growth rate of nearly 34 percent, compared to just over 7 percent for developed countries—that's more than four times faster.
What I found particularly interesting in the ITIF report is the fact that as much as 80 percent of the economic benefits from technology derive from information and communications technology usage—while only 20 percent is attributable to information and communications technology production. Simply increasing the number of Internet users has been shown to improve export performance in developing countries.
However, charging tariffs on information and communications technology products imposes unnecessary costs on consumers, and industrial producers. This, in turn, can discourage information and communications technology usage and forestall the benefits of ICT diffusion throughout the economy. Restricting trade and limiting access to new technologies, in our view, only stifles innovation, limits improvements in productivity, and ultimately slows economic development.
We know it can be tempting for some to use high tariff policies to promote domestic manufacturing. But what they may not realize is that they are actually creating a negative ripple effect throughout regional and global production chains. Duties charged on inputs at each step of the production chain drive up prices on the final product. Charging tariffs on semiconductors, for instance, disadvantages manufacturers who integrate these vital components into a wide variety of products, including automobiles and refrigerators, to name just a few. In this way, high tariffs actually can discourage companies from investing in the countries that charge them, and ultimately make these economies less competitive in the global marketplace.
As such, we should not discount or underestimate the significant commercial benefits of eliminating tariffs on more information and communications technology goods by expanding ITA product coverage. As successful as the ITA has been over the last 15 years, the information and communications technology sector has evolved significantly. There are many new technologies and innovations that have entered the market since 1996 that are not covered by the ITA. These products include Blue Tooth devices, GPS systems, certain business machines, smart meters, and even some specialized semiconductors, among others.
In addition, current ITA product scope does not even include many consumer electronics products that were in existence at the time the ITA was implemented, including televisions, video players and video game consoles. And, of course, today's consumer has increasing flexibility to access digital content from these and numerous other devices and platforms. New generation audio-visual products are much more sophisticated than their predecessors, incorporating new features and technologies and able to connect directly to networks, interact with computers, and access and create digital content. Yet televisions and video players still face 14 percent duties in Europe, and rates as high as 20 to 30 percent in certain Asian markets.
The original ITA negotiators also recognized that changes to the Harmonized System, or HS, tariff nomenclature would be another important reason to expand ITA product coverage. ITA product coverage was originally negotiated on the basis of 1996 HS tariff nomenclature, which reflected the technology of the day. However, the pace of technological innovation in the information and communications technology industry, coupled with changes in tariff nomenclature in 2002, 2007, and again in 2012, has contributed to uncertainty with respect to customs classification for numerous electronics products. A comprehensive expansion of ITA product coverage could effectively eliminate the costs to business and consumers and eliminate the administrative burden for customs officials associated with this uncertainty.
IV. Conclusion
All these reasons—advances in the information and communications technology industry, new products on the market, increasing connectivity of consumer electronics devices, and changes to the tariff classification nomenclature—lead me to conclude that the time for ITA Participants to negotiate an expansion to the Agreement is right, but we have to frame the negotiations for success.
The United States will continue working collaboratively with like-minded trading partners bilaterally, at upcoming APEC meetings, and at the WTO to build strong support for this initiative and multilateral cooperation.
Again, I would like to thank ITIF for issuing their report and organizing this discussion. I am also deeply appreciative of the active engagement of the private sector in promoting the benefits of ITA expansion. I am confident that if we frame this initiative in the right way, and place top priority on expanding product coverage, we can achieve the consensus we need to deliver an ambitious and commercially meaningful outcome for our companies, our workers and our consumers. This is good for the United States and for our trading partners around the world.
Thank you.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, March 15, 2012Footnote 9
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following testimony before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Ambassador Kirk. Thank you. Good morning. Let me first take this opportunity to warmly welcome Korean Ambassador Choi. The United States and Korea are strong allies, close friends, and economic partners. I look forward to working with you as we begin a new chapter in our deep and dynamic trade relationship.
Today, we hail the entry into force of this landmark trade agreement that will bring significant benefits to both of our countries.
This is good news for American entrepreneurs, workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers who are ready to export more U.S. goods and services to Korea's $1 trillion market.
Similarly, it's good news for Korea, which stands to gain in terms of economic growth, jobs, and preferential access to the world's largest market here in the United States.
Now that the agreement has entered into force, we can reflect on what an amazing journey this has been. Frankly, there were a few moments when some doubted whether we would ever be able to achieve this remarkable success.
But thanks to the vision and leadership of our two great leaders, President Obama and President Lee, we stand together today ready to seize the mutual benefits of this true win-win trade pact.
Make no mistake—President Obama and President Lee were unwavering in their shared commitment to secure a landmark trade agreement that boosts trade and jobs in both our countries.
Here in the United States, President Obama insisted that we find a path forward for the U.S.-Korea trade agreement—not just for any deal but one that worked for American workers. We reached out to labor as well as business leaders, building support with stakeholders from every sector: including the United Auto Workers (UAW) and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), in addition to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Business Roundtable, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Coalition of Services Industries (CSI), Ford, GM, and Chrysler, just to name a few.
We were also in constant contact with Chairman Baucus, Senator Hatch, Chairman Camp, Congressman Levin, and many other senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle.
In the end, we secured overwhelming passage of the agreement with large majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress.
These shared efforts have built a new bipartisan template for trade policy that opens markets and levels the playing field for American businesses, workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers.
Of course, the Obama Administration's hard work was matched by our Korean colleagues' determination to secure a balanced agreement.
My counterpart for most of this journey, former Minister for Trade Jay Kim, was a tough negotiator and staunch advocate for his country who helped us arrive at a mutually-agreeable solution. And my new counterpart, Trade Minister Bark, helped to bring the implementation process across the finish line.
In addition, we all know how hard former Korean Ambassador to the United States Han Duk-soo worked to promote this historic agreement. I look forward to working with him in his new capacity as Chairman of KITA and with Ambassador Choi to ensure the agreement delivers the anticipated benefits for both countries.
In that respect, I'd like to ask all of the private sector representatives here today to keep in touch with both the U.S. and Korean governments over the next few weeks and months. Let us know not only about the trade challenges you face, but also the successes you are achieving as a result of this new agreement.
The more we share positive stories about this agreement and trade in general, the more we can bring you additional market-opening measures to unleash the full potential of your businesses.
Finally, I cannot forget my own staff—the tireless Wendy Cutler, Ambassador Demetrios Marantis, and our entire team at USTR.
In conclusion, let me simply say that this agreement represents trade policy at its best: American businesses and workers win when we come together and focus on the job-building benefits of trade.
And the unbreakable bond between the United States and our dear friend and ally Korea will continue to grow stronger with every day of increased trade enabled by this landmark agreement.
Thank you.
Remarks by Deputy USTR Punke, March 19, 2012Footnote 10
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Michael Punke gave the following testimony before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Ambassador Punke. Many thanks to the Chamber and to BusinessEurope for the invitation today. This morning's discussions have stimulated some terrific thinking about the question, 'Where do we want to take the WTO?' It's been an enriching day, and I'm very glad to have been able to benefit from your views.
It's especially gratifying—and important—that this exploration of future directions for the multilateral trading system is a joint endeavor of American and European business organizations.
It may be a bit of a cliché, and it's a reality that may make some WTO members nervous, but the fact remains that solid partnership between the United States and the European Union is essential to finding viable paths forward for the WTO. This has always been the case, but it is particularly crucial in light of the acknowledgment by all WTO trade ministers last December that the Doha round is at an impasse. This is a strategic moment—we should be thinking together about strategy, and not just quibble with each other about tactics.
While it is the firm view of the United States that the acknowledgment of Doha's prospects was necessary and even overdue, and that it was the only way to begin to tackle more productive, trade liberalizing work in the WTO, we know that it also creates some anxieties and uncertainties about the future. The U.S. and the EU have a special, shared responsibility to address those anxieties intelligently, and to create a new sense of momentum in Geneva.
U.S. and European commercial interests are in some cases very different; our political systems and impulses don't always line up neatly when it comes to trade policy; and our emphasis on the WTO as a venue for seeking to resolve really tough bilateral trade disputes has at times colored our collaboration.
But we simply can't afford—either of us—to allow the development of an impression that we are pulling apart at the WTO. We have to stay focused on our shared commitment to the value of the institution, and to our responsibilities as two of its key leaders. Equally important, the U.S. and the EU need to reinforce each other in insisting that the WTO must remain true to its fundamental missions—liberalizing trade, serving as a bulwark against protectionist pressures, and generating enforceable rules that provide essential stability to the global trading system.
Our partnership with the EU on WTO affairs is strong, but we can always do better. And it helps us immensely that organizations like the U.S. Chamber and BusinessEurope are pushing us constantly to find common cause.
I should mention that the exploration currently underway in the U.S.-EU high level working group on jobs and growth is an excellent complement to what we are trying to rebuild multilaterally. This structured examination of ways that we can further deepen transatlantic economic integration is well underway, although there is obviously much more work to be done. But it's clear that both we and the EU are approaching this exercise with an awareness that whatever we do bilaterally can and should reinforce and support the mission of trade liberalization at the multilateral level.
Let me try to provide a perspective on some of the current focuses at the WTO.
The enthusiasm within this group for the initiative we are exploring for an international services agreement is great to see—and a confirmation of the strong appetite among U.S. And European businesses to find practical, meaningful ways to advance the ball on trade liberalization.
The discussions in Geneva on services over the course of recent weeks have been exciting. Frankly speaking, it's been refreshing—and, sadly, a little novel—to engage with a group of members who actively want to pursue an honest-to-goodness trade-liberalizing initiative.
There's a lot of work to be done to scope out how an international services agreement will come together. But there are strong core ideas on the table, and a common recognition of the tremendous benefits that can be shared through expanding services market access and developing new, internationally agreed rules and standards. We need such work in order to deal with both new and longstanding issues, especially in key areas that fuel growth, such as information communications technology services and global supply chains.
I should mention that this is an area where closer coordination between the U.S. and the EU is particularly urgent. While I can appreciate the impulse of some of my EU colleagues to encourage that a services agreement encompass the broadest possible circle of WTO members, the big emerging economies have made it abundantly clear that they are not ready to engage seriously in services liberalization. To say nothing can be done without them means that nothing can be done. The United States does not support that view. We cannot afford to see the recent Doha history repeat itself.
We must and we will approach an international services agreement with a keen awareness that a plurilateral structure should be a stepping stone for advancing multilateral liberalization. This is possible; there are ways to do it. And we are ready to move now.
It's been no surprise to me that we've also heard a lot today about interest in expanding the information technology agreement. Here again, your identification of a product area ripe for additional liberalizing work is hugely welcome, and we're taking it very seriously. Our team is working closely with like-minded ITA members to scope out the most viable approach to negotiations in this area—taking into account the need to expand product coverage, retain the commitment of existing ITA members, and expand the appeal of the agreement to WTO members who aren't yet ITA participants.
Here again, close collaboration between the U.S. And the EU is essential. We're not quite yet on the same page, particularly with regard to the scope of an ITA expansion negotiation. From the U.S. perspective, what makes best sense is a negotiating scope that allows for rapid progress, tangible deliverables, and reinforcement of the ITA membership. While I can understand why my EU colleagues would like to use ITA expansion negotiations as a platform to pursue longstanding aspirations on non-tariff issues, the ITA is fundamentally a tariff agreement. Exceeding the current ITA mandate is unlikely to garner the necessary consensus to move an ITA expansion initiative forward.
Let me also offer a brief perspective on the WTO's negotiations on trade facilitation. Since the ministerial conference in December, we've been pleased to see a continuation of the workmanlike, bottom-up approach to this negotiation that has characterized it for some time. Our intention is to continue contributing to the negotiation in this same spirit.
The economic gains from an eventual TF agreement for the U.S. economy are important, and merit our continued attention. Just as importantly, trade facilitation has huge potential to advance development, and it's great to see that this is recognized among a broad range of developing country WTO members. There's real promise here, and the 'steady as she goes' approach has the best potential to continue to build towards strong results.
We're pleased to see work advancing in services, information technology, and trade facilitation. But what about the rest of the WTO universe? I think there are important silver linings to be found in the frank and honest acknowledgment of Doha's current impasse. One of those is that we have greater latitude to revitalize the day-to-day work of the WTO's standing committees and working groups.
The work of the committees in overseeing the various WTO agreements—on subsidies, IPR, TBT, agriculture, SPS, and others—has perhaps suffered from some neglect in recent years due to the overwhelming amount of time and resources devoted to the Doha round. But this is critical work, and we need to work to make sure the committees are meeting their full potential. These bodies can and should be incubators for good ideas, and fora for members to discuss issues they consider relevant to the world we live and trade in today.
So we'll be looking for ways to breathe new life into the WTO's committees, and to do so in a manner that reflects topical and meaningful U.S. trade interests. We expect and hope other members will do the same, and we see signs that this is happening. Brazil, for example, has identified an issue that both it and we consider important—the relationship between exchange rates and trade—along with a WTO working group where a discussion of that subject can take place. That's obviously a tricky area, surrounded by a lot of sensitivity for some members, but we welcome the initiative to foster this discussion within the WTO. The United States has been and will continue to be an active participant as this process unfolds.
I should also note that the conclusion of a revised government procurement agreement presents important opportunities to explore valuable work in this economically significant area, notably through work on the accession of China and other WTO members.
As we look to strengthen the WTO and set it on constructive new paths, the huge and complex intersection of trade and development will clearly continue to be critical—as indeed it must be.
As Ambassador Kirk told his fellow ministers in December, for the United States, the starting point of any discussion of trade and development is to remind ourselves that 'trade' and 'development' are mutually reinforcing, and deeply complementary. Trade has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, expanded individual opportunity, and accelerated economic development across the planet.
It has become ever more clear, however, that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to trade and development does not accurately reflect the world we live in. Developing countries are not the same, and pretending that they are contributes to deadlock in our discussions and—as we've seen clearly—in our negotiations. Levels of responsibility and contributions have to reflect the world we live in. We need urgently to start an honest discussion about this difficult but vital reality.
Just a couple of additional points before concluding.
First, a word on Russia. Russia's invitation to join the WTO in December is obviously a very big deal, and extremely important for the United States, Russia, and the entire WTO membership. We know that welcoming this large, important, and dynamic economy into the WTO will involve adjustments—for Russia, above all, but also for the rest of us. Clearly, though, having Russia participate in the same system of trade rules as most of the rest of the planet is going to be immensely beneficial.
That's why the President and Ambassador Kirk have stressed that we will work vigorously, and rapidly, with the congress to terminate application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia and enable extension of permanent normal trade relations. That effort is gaining steam, and I know that the U.S. businesses represented here today are actively engaged in this effort. A positive congressional vote on Jackson-Vanik for Russia is, above all, a matter of U.S. national economic interest, so that American businesses and workers can benefit fully from the strong WTO accession package negotiated laboriously over nearly two decades.
Second, no discussion of current trade issues would be complete without mentioning China—another area where U.S. and EU interests and concerns very often converge. In the context of Doha, we worked together closely developing and advocating tougher subsidy rules, particularly regarding state-owned banks and state-owned industrial enterprises. While those efforts have not borne fruit to date, they did lay the foundation for future work. Currently, for example, the OECD is examining the issue of state-owned enterprises and 'competitive neutrality' while the United States is looking to advance new disciplines on state-owned enterprises in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. More broadly, we must continue to monitor and take action to combat China's trade-distorting industrial policies, whether that be with respect to China's policy of indigenous innovation, or the plethora of five-year plans now being issued by China's economic planners. And, of course, our efforts regarding China's export restraints are well-known and have been quite successful thus far, which we hope and expect will continue into the future.
Finally, and on a much broader note: the work that we're doing at the WTO, and the specific initiatives I've touched on today, all ultimately come back to a core truth. The WTO, and the potential it holds for producing market-expanding trade liberalization, is fundamental to creating conditions for strong global growth and job creation. While the existence of a positive link between trade, growth, and jobs may be self-evident to many, we—policymakers as well as economic actors—need to do a better job of reinforcing this linkage in the way that we talk about trade.
Put another way, trade liberalization is an essential complement to fiscal and monetary policies, as we seek to grow our way back to prosperity. Ambitious market opening—in manufacturing, agriculture, and services—is a critical piece of the multidimensional challenge of creating growth. And the multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO remains, far and away, the best and most important means of producing broad-based market opening that benefits economies, companies, and individuals around the globe.
The U.S. commitment to the WTO is founded on six decades of labor by 12 Presidents, Republicans and Democrats. We look forward to our continued labor with all of you—our stakeholders and our allies—as we continue with this generation's work to build a stable world, and jobs for our people.
