[Senate Hearing 117-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-239
 
                     NOMINATION OF KATHERINE C. TAI

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                 on the

                             NOMINATION OF

      KATHERINE C. TAI, TO BE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
             WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND
           PLENIPOTENTIARY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 25, 2021

                               __________
                               
                               
                               
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               

                                     
                                     

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
            
            
            
            
                         ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-345-PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022             


                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

                      RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      BEN SASSE, Nebraska
                                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming

                    Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director

                Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee 
  on Finance.....................................................     1
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho......................     3

                        CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES

Neal, Hon. Richard E., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts..     5
Brady, Hon. Kevin, a U.S Representative from Texas...............     6

                         ADMINISTRATION NOMINEE

Tai, Katherine C., nominated to be United States Trade 
  Representative, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and 
  Plenipotentiary, Executive Office of the President, Washington, 
  DC.............................................................     8

               ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Brady, Hon. Kevin:
    Testimony....................................................     6
Crapo, Hon. Mike:
    Opening statement............................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    59
Neal, Hon. Richard E.:
    Testimony....................................................     5
Tai, Katherine C.:
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Biographical information.....................................    62
    Responses to questions from committee members................    75

Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................   135

                             Communications

Alliance to Counter Crime Online.................................   137
Autos Drive America..............................................   138
Committee of 100.................................................   138
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.....................   139
U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition................................   140

                                 (iii)


                 NOMINATION OF KATHERINE C. TAI, TO BE

    UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR

                   EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY,

                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                                      Committee on Finance,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The WebEx hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 
a.m., in Room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron 
Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Stabenow, Cantwell, Menendez, Carper, 
Cardin, Brown, Bennet, Casey, Warner, Whitehouse, Hassan, 
Cortez Masto, Warren, Crapo, Grassley, Cornyn, Thune, Burr, 
Portman, Toomey, Scott, Cassidy, Lankford, Daines, Young, 
Sasse, and Barrasso.
    Also present: Democratic staff: Michael Evans, Deputy Staff 
Director and Chief Counsel; Ian Nicholson, Investigator and 
Nominations Advisor; Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director; and 
Jayme White, Chief Advisor for International Competitiveness 
and Innovation. Republican staff: Gregg Richard, Staff 
Director; Mayur Patel, Chief International Trade Counsel; and 
John O'Hara, Trade Policy Director and Counsel.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
             OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    The Chairman. We continue nominations week here in the 
Senate Finance Committee, and today we will be welcoming 
Katherine Tai, President Biden's nominee to serve as the United 
States Trade Representative.
    I want to begin this way. America's trade policy needs to 
be smarter and stronger. Four more years of mean tweets and 
chaos from the White House will not cut it when our country is 
calling for more high-skill, high-wage jobs. Fortunately, chaos 
is not President Biden's style. A smarter, stronger trade 
policy requires a savvy leader as the U.S. Trade Representative 
who understands what working Americans are actually going 
through and knows how to develop a path for them to get ahead. 
That is precisely what Katherine Tai will bring to this job.
    Ms. Tai has a wealth of experience working on trade policy 
from just about every angle. She has leadership experience 
fighting back against China's trade cheating. She was at the 
forefront of efforts to improve the new NAFTA when the previous 
administration handed the Congress a deal that was not good 
enough for American jobs. She has a proven track record of 
achieving wins for workers and businesses; for the environment; 
and for ranchers, farmers, and innovators.
    And as colleagues know--and I saw everyone visiting before 
we started--she is no stranger to us at the Finance Committee. 
She worked very closely with us, and the Ways and Means 
Committee, on the USTR's priorities.
    So we are going to have a lot to do in the months ahead. In 
my view, it starts with developing a tougher, new approach to 
China. To the extent that the previous administration ever had 
a strategy beyond the ex-President's gut impulses, it just did 
not get the job done.
    The Chinese market is now more closed off to American goods 
and services today than it was 4 years ago. There has not been 
any real change to the trade rip-offs that wiped out so many 
American jobs and stole so many innovative ideas over the 
decades. I am confident that President Biden and Ms. Tai will 
do better.
    The committee is also going to put a special focus on 
ending the import of goods produced with forced labor. It is 
enough that forced labor is morally repugnant; it is also true 
that when American workers have to compete with slave labor, 
everybody loses. It is a race to absolute rock bottom for 
workers' wages.
    Next, the United States needs a full blockade against other 
countries' discriminatory policies aimed at knifing our 
industries with taxes where America leads, such as digital 
goods and services. Trade in stolen timber and other natural 
resources that damages the environment and edges out 
hardworking Americans in the forestry sector has to be stopped.
    There is a lot of work to be done when it comes to 
implementing the new NAFTA. Ms. Tai knows firsthand that the 
new NAFTA raised the bar for labor standards, environmental 
rules, and digital trade. But the agreement only delivers for 
American workers and businesses if it is implemented and 
enforced the right way. We want to work with the USTR on that 
process.
    Bottom line, getting trade done right is heavy lifting. It 
is not just about angry tweets and flimsy trade deals that 
produce more headlines than good-paying jobs. Trade done right 
is about strong enforcement that protects American workers and 
businesses and creates new opportunities to raise wages and 
increase our exports. It raises the bar for labor and 
environmental standards and digital rules around the world so 
that the global economy competes on our terms.
    A U.S. Trade Representative leads the effort, but it also 
involves other agencies--Customs and Border Protection, as well 
as the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, State, the 
Treasury, and others. And it requires strong and steady 
relationships with our international economic allies. None of 
that came easily to the last administration. In my view, the 
chaos that came out of the White House over the last 4 years 
cost a lot of opportunities to help our workers actually get 
ahead.
    So I am glad that President Biden is already taking a 
different tack, and in my view he made a superb choice for U.S. 
Trade Representative. I trust Ms. Tai's judgment, and I know 
the depth of her experience. She is the daughter of immigrants 
to the United States. As a first-generation immigrant myself, I 
know how much it means to give back to the country that 
welcomed in our families. And rounding out a week of historic 
firsts here in this hearing room, she will be the first woman 
of color to serve as U.S. Trade Representative.
    She has a lot of fans on both sides of the committee, and I 
am pleased to be able to support her nomination. I thank her 
for coming today, and I look forward to questions. And let us 
hear from our ranking member, Senator Crapo.
    Senator Crapo?
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the 
appendix.]

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 
                   A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. Tai, 
welcome to you, and congratulations on your nomination.
    The U.S. Trade Representative is a very important position, 
where today's decisions will be felt for years to come. A 
successful trade policy means more high-paying jobs. We need 
these jobs more than ever if we are to emerge from this 
pandemic stronger than before.
    I know the importance of free trade very well. Idaho 
exports over $4 billion in goods annually, including $1.7 
billion in computer and electronic goods. Remarkably, 85 
percent of Idaho's exporters are businesses that employ fewer 
than 500 people. We cannot forget that.
    Free trade does not just strengthen the powerful, it 
empowers all Americans, including those running and working in 
smaller businesses. It does so for a simple reason: we sell 
high-quality goods and services that people around the world 
want. We do not need to be intimidated by foreign competitors. 
Our market is already one of the most open in the world.
    Our problem is not about whether to open our market 
further, it is in fact that too many foreign markets remain 
closed to us. History demonstrates repeatedly that Americans do 
very well in foreign markets, if only given the chance--the 
chance to participate in an environment of fair trade.
    For example, bringing down just some of Japan's 
agricultural barriers in the U.S.-Japan Phase 1 deal increased 
Idaho's agricultural exports by over a third. The importance of 
fair trade, and the price of it being denied, is also well 
understood by the people of Idaho.
    Idaho is the home of Micron Technology--a global leader in 
semiconductors and the technology of the semiconductor 
industry. Chinese state-owned companies stole Micron's trade 
secrets in order to secure an unfair advantage. China's 
systematic theft of American innovation has been estimated to 
cost the United States nearly half a trillion dollars each 
year.
    Idaho's softwood lumber producers face an uneven playing 
field against subsidized Canadian exports. We cannot let the 
750,000 jobs in the lumber industry or the 420 million acres of 
family-owned timberlands be threatened by unfair subsidies.
    Idaho's world-famous potatoes cannot be shipped more than 
16 miles south of the Mexican border because of protectionism 
disguised as a safety measure. Potato farms, including Cranney 
Farms in Oakley, ID, gave away millions of potatoes last year 
because domestic customers dried up as a result of the 
pandemic.
    Put plainly, the United States does not just lose potential 
opportunities when its leaders fail to engage appropriately on 
trade. Our businesses and workers lose ground here at home, in 
every State.
    This is why the U.S. needs an effective USTR to tear down 
trade barriers and confront abusive trade practices. President 
Biden has nominated someone with extensive trade policy 
experience, including the experience litigating major trade 
disputes against China.
    I look forward to hearing more from you, Ms. Tai, regarding 
how you would use your experience to engage the numerous 
challenges facing the United States, if confirmed as our U.S. 
Trade Representative.
    Your experience, no matter how extensive, will go to waste 
if the Biden administration's approach to trade policy ends up 
being a ``time out,'' as some officials have already suggested. 
In particular, I am referencing statements by administration 
officials who have asserted that the President will not sign 
any new trade agreements until he sees his domestic priorities 
achieved, including strengthening ``Buy American'' requirements 
in government purchasing.
    Ms. Tai, you must make the President understand that trade 
is a domestic priority for hundreds of millions of Americans. I 
am happy to discuss ``Buying American.'' However, our 
businesses and workers are ready to ``Sell American'' to all 
foreign customers--right now.
    While often said, it is worth repeating: most of the 
world's customers are outside of the U.S. borders. Americans 
deserve to sell their products and need access to that huge 
foreign marketplace.
    Our businesses need that access more than ever, because 
other countries are not standing still. The United Kingdom is 
the fifth largest economy in the world. And the UK is taking 
advantage of its newfound freedom from EU restrictions to 
aggressively negotiate its own new trade deals. Our special 
political relationship with the UK must now be complemented 
with a special economic relationship that will increase 
employment and output on both sides of the Atlantic.
    It is not just our allies that are moving forward. Other 
countries are taking steps that may push us back even further 
if the United States is seen as standing still and not 
negotiating trade deals. Notably, China is moving forward with 
the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP. It is 
arguably the largest free trade agreement in the world. Yet, 
the RCEP has weak rules on intellectual property and protecting 
foreign investment. And the RCEP has no rules whatsoever on 
state-owned enterprises, labor rights, or environmental 
protection.
    If the Biden administration wants a worker-centered trade 
policy, as it claims it does, then our USTR should ensure that 
the international trading regime strongly reflects American 
values rather than those of China.
    In short, the need for an energetic and effective trade 
policy is more compelling than ever. I expect Ms. Tai will well 
demonstrate in today's hearing that she has the requisite 
skillset to deliver as much. But the question is whether she 
will have the President's support to do so. I hope for 
America's sake that she will.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and 
I look forward to hearing from Ms. Tai.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. And we have a few 
guests from the House, distinguished guests: Chairman Richard 
Neal and his ranking member, Kevin Brady. Let's allow them to 
make an introduction.
    Chairman Neal?

              STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. NEAL, 
            A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Representative Neal. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking 
Member Crapo, and members of the committee. It is certainly an 
honor and delight to be here with my friend, the ranking member 
of the committee, Mr. Brady.
    It is not every day that one has the opportunity in these 
institutions to introduce a key member of your staff at their 
confirmation hearing for the top job in their field. Or, as we 
frequently refer to the Ways and Means Committee, ``the 
family.''
    In nominating Katherine Tai to be the United States Trade 
Representative, President Biden selected a knowledgeable, 
tenacious trade expert who will use her perch to better the 
lives of the American people. As noted, the first woman of 
color, and the first Asian-American, her nomination is indeed 
historic. What is still to come will be how we define the 
history of this moment. And we will ultimately, I know, 
remember Katherine for the great work that she will do.
    I was struck by her own reflection of the work that has 
guided us through trade questions during these past years, but 
always guided by the promise of extending the same hope and 
opportunity that this country extended to her and her family 
many years ago.
    I am glad that Chairman Wyden mentioned the immigrant 
experience, because I share it as well with grandparents. 
Inspired by the example of her parents--and I learned this 
morning her mom has a degree from the University of 
Massachusetts--Katherine is a second-generation public servant. 
She began her trade career at USTR back in 2007 as Associate 
General Counsel. Later, she served as Chief Counsel for China 
Trade Enforcement, where she represented our interests before 
the World Trade Organization.
    It was from there that the Ways and Means Committee had the 
good fortune of having Katherine join our team. Her time has 
been filled with many accomplishments, but none greater than 
the pivotal role that she played behind the scenes in our 
successful work to improve the largest trade agreement in 
American history, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which 
secured widespread support in terms of passage. A reminder this 
morning: 195 Democrats voted for USMCA, and 194 Republicans 
voted for USMCA.
    While I talk about it often, it has not received the sort 
of attention that this feat accomplished, or the credit that it 
deserved. Katherine was very much a part of crafting the 
agreement that drew support far and wide across the political 
spectrum and, even more importantly, in our caucus.
    A skilled negotiator, she was able to include tough labor 
and environmental standards in USMCA that will now allow us to 
uphold strong moral leadership in future deals. Most 
importantly, there is one issue that all of us in this room 
agree upon: enforcement, enforcement, enforcement of these 
trade agreements.
    It is her understated grit and outstanding character that 
have distinguished her, and why her nomination has drawn 
support from Democrats and Republicans, as well as leaders from 
labor, business, and the environmental communities.
    Having worked with Katherine for many years, I can say 
without hesitancy that no one is better prepared to represent 
the United States in the global trade arena as we recover from 
the pandemic and reestablish our dominance on the world stage. 
And given the trade policy and its understanding of the 
requirement for close collaboration between Congress and the 
administration, Katherine is uniquely situated to succeed.
    Looking ahead to reinvigorating our economy, Katherine will 
use sound domestic and international trade policy to better 
develop our workforce and level the playing field for 
hardworking Americans. As the United States seeks to repair 
strained relationships with our partners around the world and 
address increasingly perilous challenges from China, Katherine 
will be an honorable and effective representative for our 
Nation, our people, and our interests.
    She is a trailblazer, and without doubt the best choice to 
fill this critical position. I would urge all of you to support 
her nomination. And, while I am going to miss her counsel, it 
will truly be an honor to continue working with Katherine Tai, 
the United States Trade Representative, and I look forward to 
calling her Madam Ambassador.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you for an excellent statement, Mr. 
Chairman. And we will underline in the record that you consider 
her to be a ``trailblazer.'' That is a very important thing.
    Mr. Brady, welcome.

                STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, 
                A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

    Representative Brady. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking 
Member Crapo, and members of the Finance Committee. It is a 
great pleasure to be here to introduce Katherine Tai on her 
nomination as U.S. Trade Representative.
    It is a particular pleasure for two reasons. The first is, 
I can join with my friend and colleague, Chairman Neal, in a 
bipartisan show of support for Ambassador-designate Tai's 
nomination. But a second is that Ambassador-designate Tai is 
such a qualified nominee, with a well-earned reputation as a 
knowledgeable and skillful trade lawyer, negotiator, and 
consensus-builder.
    Her credentials are impeccable. With the extensive 
experience at USTR the chairman mentioned, and particularly as 
a distinguished alum of our Ways and Means Committee family, 
she understands how the Hill works. As members of Congress, we 
are assured that she knows article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution backwards and forwards. She knows firsthand that 
trade policy is successful for American workers and for job 
creation only when there is a true partnership between the 
executive branch and us in Congress about the goals and 
executions of trade policy.
    She understands that the core of that partnership is 
transparency and thorough consultation with members of Congress 
and their staff. I am confident she will work with us to 
develop a bipartisan consensus on trade policy before taking 
action. Her knowledge and work on USMCA, as the chairman said, 
certainly shows her commitment to taking all views into 
account.
    I will encourage her to use that spirit of consensus so 
that we can together determine appropriate partners and goals 
for strong, enforceable trade agreements and finish trade 
negotiations with the U.S., Kenya, and Japan, as well as take 
our trade agreement with China to the next level.
    I also look forward to working with her to extend Trade 
Promotion Authority to recognize and formalize our partnership 
and goals. In this way, we can negotiate trade agreements that 
prioritize Americans and our workers.
    I am certain that Ambassador-designate Tai will take her 
enforcement mission very seriously. She knows firsthand trade 
agreements are worthwhile only if they are both enforceable and 
enforced.
    I take particular pride in having worked across the aisle 
with Chairman Neal and Ambassador-designate Tai to make sure 
that USMCA contained an enforcement mechanism that is greatly 
improved from NAFTA. Our enforcement mechanisms built into our 
trade agreements give her the tools she needs to hold our 
trading partners to account. I know she will insist that 
countries abide by their obligations. Whether it is making sure 
China complies with its obligations under the Phase One 
agreement, addressing blatant revenue grabs by various trading 
partners through the use of digital services taxes, or 
challenging Mexican and Canadian practices that violate USMCA, 
I am confident she will not only be watching but acting.
    Ambassador-designate Tai also understands the importance of 
the WTO, as well as the need to reform its institutions in a 
constructive way. And I hope she will work with us to take care 
of unfinished business by renewing GSP and MTB as soon as 
possible.
    Senators, it is an honor to be here. For all these reasons, 
I am delighted to support the nomination of Katherine Tai of 
our Ways and Means family to be our next U.S. Trade 
Representative.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Congressman, thank you very much for coming 
and, in a challenging political climate, sending a very 
powerful message that you and the chairman are here together on 
behalf of Ms. Tai. And we thank you both.
    I know you have busy schedules, so we will excuse you at 
any point. And we thank you again for being here.
    Now, Ms. Tai, normally we would have your opening statement 
next, but our intelligence sources say that you may have some 
family in the house. And if that is the case, we would like it 
if you would introduce them.
    Ms. Tai. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden. Today I have 
with me my mother Betty Tai and my husband Robert Skidmore. I 
wanted to thank them for their support and their many 
sacrifices, without which I would not be here today. Thank you 
very much.
    The Chairman. We are glad you are here, and you are social 
distancing with your loved ones, so we thank you both.
    Okay, Ms. Tai, now it is time for your opening statement, 
then we will ask questions. And again, we are just thrilled 
that the President selected you, and we look forward to you 
being confirmed, and confirmed quickly. We have a lot of heavy 
lifting to do. Let's have your opening.

 STATEMENT OF KATHERINE C. TAI, NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES 
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY 
    AND PLENIPOTENTIARY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Tai. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Crapo, and members of the committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today. And I want to thank my 
family for being here as well.
    The chance to serve the American people, fight on their 
behalf, and represent them on the world stage once again will 
be the greatest honor of my life. I thank President Biden for 
providing me with that opportunity.
    Serving as the U.S. Trade Representative holds special 
resonance for me as the daughter of immigrants. My parents were 
born in mainland China and grew up in Taiwan. The immigration 
reforms set in motion by President Kennedy opened a path for 
them to come here as graduate students in the sciences, and 
they made the most of their American opportunity.
    At Walter Reed, my dad helped the Army research treatments 
for illnesses that debilitated GIs during the Vietnam War, the 
war in which my father-in-law fought bravely as a young man.
    My mom still works at the National Institutes of Health. 
She has a clinical trials network developing treatments for 
opioid addiction that will help to stem an epidemic causing so 
much suffering in our communities.
    I am proud of their service to the Nation that welcomed 
them, and I am proud to live in a country where, in just one 
generation, their daughter could grow up to represent the 
United States and our interests around the world. That sense of 
pride and patriotism will ground me every day, if I have the 
honor to be confirmed as United States Trade Representative.
    I know that the challenges ahead are significant. Our first 
task will be to help American communities emerge from the 
pandemic and economic crisis. USTR has an important role to 
play in that effort. Working with Congress, the entire Biden-
Harris administration, and other countries and trusted 
partners, USTR will help to build out strong supply chains that 
will get our economy back on track.
    In the longer term, we must pursue trade policies that 
advance the interests of all Americans--policies that recognize 
that people are workers and wage earners, not just consumers; 
policies that promote broad, equitable growth here at home; 
policies that support American innovation and enhance our 
competitive edge.
    That is why I will make it a priority to implement and 
enforce the renewed terms of our trade relationships with 
Canada and Mexico. Too often in the past, Congress and the 
administration came together to finalize and pass a trade 
agreement, but then other urgent matters arose, and we all 
moved on.
    The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a uniquely 
bipartisan accomplishment that must break that trend. It 
represents an important step in reforming our approach to 
trade. We must all continue to prioritize its implementation 
and success. We must continue to pursue trade policies that are 
ambitious in achieving robust bipartisan support.
    I will also prioritize rebuilding our international 
alliances and partnerships, and re-engaging with international 
institutions. We must do the hard work and secure the necessary 
reforms that allow the world to come together and address 
common threats like climate change, the COVID pandemic, and a 
global economic downturn.
    That duty of leadership extends of course to addressing the 
challenges posed by China. I previously served as America's 
chief enforcer against China's unfair trade practices. I know 
firsthand how critically important it is that we have a 
strategic and coherent plan for holding China accountable to 
its promises and effectively competing with its model of state-
directed economics.
    I know the opportunities and the limitations in our 
existing toolbox, and I know how important it is to build what 
the President has termed ``a united front of U.S. allies.'' We 
must recommit to working relentlessly with others to promote 
and defend our shared values of freedom, democracy, truth, and 
opportunity in a just society.
    China is simultaneously a rival, a trade partner, and an 
outsized player whose cooperation we will also need to address 
certain global challenges. We must remember how to walk, chew 
gum, and play chess at the same time.
    That means here at home, we must prioritize resilience and 
make the investments in our people and our infrastructure to 
harness our potential, boost our competitiveness, and build a 
more inclusive prosperity. We must also impart the values and 
rules that guide global commerce, and we must enforce those 
terms vigorously.
    Having spent my career fighting for American workers, I am 
honored by the opportunity to work alongside the bright and 
dedicated public servants at USTR, with our partners and 
allies, and with each of you.
    Having served nearly 7 years in the House of 
Representatives, I know that U.S. trade policy is most 
successful when it is conducted through a healthy partnership 
between the administration and the Congress.
    I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tai appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Tai. We have some 
obligatory questions that we have to ask before we get into 
members' questions. I think you are aware of that.
    First, is there anything that you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest with the 
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Tai. No.
    The Chairman. Second, do you know of any reason, personal 
or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 
which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Tai. No.
    The Chairman. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond 
to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Congress, if you are confirmed?
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    The Chairman. Finally, do you commit to provide a prompt 
response in writing to any questions addressed to you by any 
Senator of this committee?
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    The Chairman. Very good. Now Senator Crapo and I will begin 
with our questions. We have lots of member interest so, 
colleagues, we are going to try to stick closely to the 5-
minute rule.
    Ms. Tai, it seems to me we have to begin with the reality 
that America sacrificed 4 years of trade leverage, particularly 
stiffing allies who wanted to work with us on key questions, 
particularly China. So my first question to you is, how do you 
intend to work with our trading partners to direct a full-court 
press against China to force an end to their policies of 
stealing our intellectual property and forced transfer of 
technology to them?
    Ms. Tai. Chairman Wyden, thank you for your question, and 
for highlighting this important aspect of the trade policy that 
the United States needs to have going forward.
    I think, with respect to working with others, I want to 
acknowledge right up front that working with others is hard 
work. And I think that that hard work begins by engaging, 
reaching out, and having the conversations, which will 
sometimes be quite difficult, about how we can work together 
and how we can capitalize on our shared interests to make more 
effective policy together.
    The Chairman. Now, with respect to the next major area, 
USMCA, the Trump administration proceeded, while several 
outstanding issues were up in the air. To this day, Canada has 
not come into compliance on dairy requirements; Mexico lags on 
implementation of their labor laws. We wrote this law so that 
it would have real teeth, and I am very pleased that we were 
able to get in a brand-new Brown-Wyden rapid response mechanism 
to address labor violations and ensure that we would have the 
strongest labor standards ever in a U.S. trade agreement. Could 
you just kind of give us your top priorities going forward when 
you hit the ground, if you are confirmed--I am convinced of it. 
What are going to be your top priorities for using these new 
tools to enforce USMCA?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Wyden, I think the top priority for USMCA 
is to use those tools. The renegotiation of the NAFTA--I 
believe that all of you have been through that effort. It was 
hard. That was hard work. And the agreement that we have now 
has, as Ranking Member Brady referenced, an improved overall 
enforcement mechanism, improved from the original NAFTA.
    And as you have referenced, Chairman Wyden, it has new 
mechanisms on labor enforcement, in particular, that are novel 
not just to this agreement, but to U.S. trade agreements across 
the board.
    The key to using the USMCA and making it successful is to 
exercise the tools that were so hard-fought to be incorporated 
into the agreement.
    The Chairman. Let me go next to the question of digital 
taxes, because we are seeing many countries around the world in 
effect deploying what I call a digital dagger. And it is right 
at the heart of American companies that provide high-skilled, 
high-wage jobs. It really just seems an effort to hold our 
companies back to advantage others.
    What tools and forums can you use at USTR to beat back this 
kind of digital protectionism that can do so much damage to our 
sector that really leads in these areas? That is why countries 
are targeting it.
    Ms. Tai. Chairman Wyden, I am aware of the development and 
proliferation of the digital services tax efforts by different 
countries around the world. I want to acknowledge that, if 
confirmed, this will be an area that will require close 
coordination, not just between the administration and Congress, 
but the different parts of the administration, in particular 
USTR and the Treasury Department.
    I know that the Biden administration is committed to 
cooperative multilateral efforts at the OECD and the G20, and 
if confirmed, I will look forward to working with colleagues in 
the administration and with the Senators on this committee, the 
members of the Ways and Means Committee, and Congress overall 
to address the issue.
    The Chairman. Let me close on the issue of tariffs. Under 
section 232, the previous administration imposed tariffs on 
steel and aluminum imports that they said threatened to impair 
national security. The tariffs are still in place for most 
countries, including many of America's allies, and as a result, 
a number of our trading partners have imposed retaliatory 
tariffs on our exports.
    Recognizing that the Commerce Department administers this 
rather than USTR, you are also going to play an important role 
in tariff policy, because it is part of the trade toolbox.
    In your view, what role should these tariffs play in a 
worker-
focused trade policy?
    Ms. Tai. Well, Senator Wyden, the tariffs--I want to 
acknowledge that you are absolutely right, the 232 program is 
under the authority of the Commerce Department, but if 
confirmed, I would hope very much to work closely as USTR with 
the Commerce Department and other parts of the administration 
on the landscape that we have before us.
    I also want to say with respect to tariffs, that tariffs 
are a legitimate tool in the trade toolbox. It is because of 
tariffs that the Senate Finance Committee and the Ways and 
Means Committee have original jurisdiction over trade. And 
tariffs are a very important part of our fair trade remedies 
toolbox.
    Having said that, I think that with respect to the 232 
tariffs on steel and aluminum that you mentioned, we have to 
acknowledge that we have overall a very significant global 
marketplace problem in the steel and aluminum markets that is 
driven primarily by China's over-capacity that it has built in 
production of these materials. But it is not just a China 
problem.
    And what we are going to need in a worker-centered trade 
policy is an effective solution that looks at the whole slew of 
policy tools to address that larger problem.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I am over my time.
    Senator Crapo?
    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again welcome, 
Ms. Tai.
    I want to follow up a little bit on some of the USMCA types 
of questions that Chairman Wyden already started addressing 
with you. With regard to its commitments under the USMCA, 
Mexico is taking a number of steps in the wrong direction.
    In agriculture, Mexico is maintaining or enacting new 
restrictions on the U.S. that lack any scientific 
justification, including on potatoes--as I have already 
mentioned--biotech crops, and others.
    In the energy industry, Mexico appears to be discriminating 
against U.S. businesses to favor its state-owned oil and gas 
giant Pemex. If confirmed, how would you employ the tools 
available under the USMCA, including dispute settlement, to 
resolve such issues, if we do not see progress on them in the 
next few months?
    Ms. Tai. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Crapo, for 
that question. I am aware of some of the ongoing concerns with 
Mexico's implementation of the USMCA in these areas, and in 
others. I think, to echo my earlier comments, we have a full 
set of tools, a lot of them new in the USMCA, for engaging with 
Mexico--and with Canada, for that matter--to address ongoing 
irritants and ongoing frictions.
    Again, if confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the 
stakeholders, with the really expert staff at USTR, and with 
all of you to begin our engagement with the Mexican Government 
on how to resolve our problem.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. I appreciate your focus on 
dispute resolution. The fixes and improvements that we have 
made in the USMCA, I believe were badly needed.
    I just want to focus again once more on that, and this time 
with regard to Canada. An issue that is very important to us in 
the Pacific Northwest is softwood lumber. I am deeply concerned 
about the impact of subsidized and dumped Canadian lumber 
imports on American businesses and jobs--and this is an issue, 
as you know, which we have been dealing with for years and 
years, and one we have had tons of litigation on. We are 
engaged in litigation now.
    Can you commit to me that, if confirmed, you will 
aggressively defend our trade remedy measures on Canadian 
lumber, including by allocating whatever resources are 
necessary to mount a successful defense in the litigation that 
is now underway?
    Ms. Tai. Ranking Member Crapo, if confirmed, I commit to 
you to work closely with you and the Senators and members for 
whom the lumber industry is very important on, as you noted, 
our longstanding issues in this area with Canada. And I hope to 
have that opportunity to do that.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    America's innovative industries are second to none. From 
creative content to digital commerce to pharmaceutical 
research, America's innovators are what is getting us through 
the pandemic and what will get us out of it. We need to 
preserve our leadership in this field. And the April release of 
the USTR's Special 301 report is intended to assess whether 
U.S. trading partners provide effective intellectual property 
protection.
    Do you agree that the focus of the Special 301 report 
should be to directly call out countries and practices that 
injure America's interests, rather than to simply abstractly 
address what IP measures benefit the interests of our trading 
partners?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Crapo, your question about Special 301 is 
an excellent one. I think, sitting here before you today, my 
answer would be that I believe that Special 301 should be 
considered one of the tools in the IP enforcement and 
monitoring toolbox and that its use should be focused on 
effectiveness, and making it as effective as possible in 
promoting the interests and resolving problems for America's 
innovators.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And as my question implies, 
I am very concerned about getting a much stronger focus on IP 
protection in our U.S. trade negotiations and activities.
    Do you personally support the notion that is being put out 
about appointing a Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property 
Negotiator at the USTR?
    Ms. Tai. So, Senator Crapo, I know we talked about this 
before----
    Senator Crapo. Yes.
    Ms. Tai. The position has been created in law. I believe it 
was in 2015. And the position has actually not been filled 
before. I know there are Senators who are in this very room 
right now who were critical in the creation of that position.
    What I commit to you today is to be in consultation with 
all of you on what you intended for that position, and to 
address how we can accomplish the goals that we share.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. My time has run out. I was 
going to also ask a question on digital services, but Senator 
Wyden covered that. I just want to indicate to you that I 
strongly support the concerns that Senator Wyden raised with 
you as well.
    The Chairman. We will work together on that.
    Senator Stabenow?
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member. And Ms. Tai, congratulations. I am extremely pleased to 
see President Biden put forward your name for this very, very 
important position. I appreciated the opportunity to talk with 
you as well about specific issues for Michigan.
    We make things and grow things in Michigan, and we need 
markets. But we also need a level playing field. And real work 
on trade enforcement, and creating that level playing field, is 
very important. I am always telling folks in Michigan: we want 
to export our products, not our jobs. And so I think that is 
really our goal.
    The pandemic has wreaked havoc on families and the economy 
in so many different ways. I want to touch on a specific one 
today that is really right in front of us in Michigan and 
across the country, and that is the vulnerability of our global 
supply chains.
    Right now, for example, our manufacturers of automobiles, 
home appliances, other products, are being forced to shut down 
a line or a plant temporarily because of a single company in 
Taiwan which has reduced its shipments of semiconductor chips 
to our manufacturers.
    It is only a slight change, but we have seen profound 
losses, billions of dollars in losses in key U.S. manufacturers 
because of that decision. So I have raised this with multiple 
people within the Biden administration. I have met with the 
Ambassador for Taiwan. I appreciate her attention to this. I 
know people are focused on this now, and I very much appreciate 
and commend President Biden's executive order to conduct a 
thorough supply chain review. This is incredibly important. In 
fact, we need these chips being made in the United States. And 
that certainly is something that we all need to be working on.
    If confirmed, how do you view the role of the USTR in 
addressing these really important supply chain issues?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Stabenow, if confirmed, I will really look 
forward to being at USTR to bring USTR's talents and insights 
to bear on the interagency process, and the coordination and 
collaboration within the Biden-Harris administration to review 
and craft a strategy on supply chains and supply chain 
resilience.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
    Let me turn now to workers in this process. As you know, 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers program expires 
June 30th of this year. And it is really important that this be 
reauthorized. I know the chairman agrees as well.
    I plan to reintroduce my TAA bill that permanently extends 
the TAA for Workers program. It expands eligibility. It ensures 
petitions are certified quickly. It provides States with more 
outreach tools, and expands training opportunities.
    So, do you support the reauthorization of the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program? Do you support the kinds of 
reforms that I just mentioned? And I wonder about any other 
thoughts that you have on having a better TAA process for 
workers.
    Ms. Tai. Senator Stabenow, I know how important the TAA 
program is for members of this committee, and certainly members 
of the Ways and Means Committee, and to the workers of America. 
I think that your question is a really timely one, given the 
disruptions that are happening in our economy today because of 
the pandemic, and with respect to disruptions in trade flows.
    Let me begin by acknowledging that the TAA program is run 
by and administered by the Department of Labor. But clearly the 
strong trade component of the program means that, if confirmed 
as USTR, I will want to be part of that conversation, and I 
will want to be part of that conversation with you and with the 
others in Congress to figure out how we can make our policies 
work better for our workers. In my mind, the TAA program falls 
squarely into that category.
    Senator Stabenow. It is a very important part of the 
process, the agreement that we made, moving forward in terms of 
focusing on our workers, and that the workers are not left 
behind in this process. So I really appreciate that.
    One final question, on USMCA. I so appreciate all your 
incredible work and leadership in this area in terms of 
enforcement. I am glad to see that, as of last December, Canada 
is now working to uphold its dairy market access commitments 
since that first enforcement action was brought, which I 
thought was--but my question is: the previous USTR verbally 
agreed in a hearing last year to create a forum for vehicle 
suppliers and manufacturers to discuss USMCA implementation. If 
confirmed, will you support creating a similar kind of 
consultation?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Stabenow, if confirmed, you have my 
commitment to consultation and good process, which I firmly 
believe leads to good outcomes. So with respect to this 
particular forum, I do not know much about it yet, but I look 
forward to studying up on it, and I look forward to coming back 
to you with thoughts on it.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Grassley is next, and then Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congratulations, Ms Tai. I appreciated my telephone 
conversation with you.
    Last year, the United States took the first-ever U.S.-
Mexico-
Canada Agreement enforcement action on Canada's dairy tariff 
rate quotas. The announcement showed that our government is 
going to be working really hard so that our dairy farmers and 
processors realize additional market access, because that was a 
big thing in the agreement. So we want it carried out.
    Last year, Canada undermined the agreement by setting aside 
a percentage of the quota for processors, for so-called further 
processors, limiting U.S. dairy access. Are you going to pursue 
the same enforcement action?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Grassley, I am aware of the concerns about 
Canada's dairy policies, in particular the ones on which they 
made very clear promises as part of completing USMCA. I also 
want to acknowledge that U.S.-Canada dairy tensions also feel 
like some of those U.S.-Canada issues that date back to the 
beginning of time.
    I know that Ambassador Lighthizer initiated consultations 
under the dispute settlement mechanism of the USMCA with Canada 
on this issue. If confirmed, I look forward to digging into 
this file also. I know how important it is to Senators like 
yourself in your support for the new agreement, and I look 
forward to exploring all of the options in the agreement, all 
the tools we have to resolve the problem.
    I know that, in this area, stakeholder consultation is 
going to be very, very important for us. And I look forward to 
the opportunity to engage.
    Senator Grassley. Yes.
    Our country and the UK have been negotiating since May of 
2020. Now that the UK has left the EU, we can bring our 
economic relationship to a level befitting our longstanding 
political special relationship. Will you continue that 
negotiation?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Grassley, I too have followed the U.S.-UK 
sessions very closely from my perch on the Ways and Means 
Committee. I think what I would say to you today is that I just 
observe that the initial notifications that Ambassador 
Lighthizer sent to this committee, and to the Ways and Means 
Committee, date back to, I believe October 2018. So that is 
almost 2\1/2\ years ago.
    If confirmed, it will be important to me to review the 
progress in the conversations so far, and to review the 
objectives in light of all the changes that have taken place in 
the last 2\1/2\ years. As you have indicated, the UK has 
negotiated two agreements with the EU in the meantime, one to 
leave the EU, one on its future relationship with the EU.
    We have all been going through a pandemic reality for the 
last year, and we are all still in the midst of it, working to 
get out of it. I would want to have the opportunity, if 
confirmed, to review the discussions and negotiations that have 
taken place so far, in light of all of these developments in 
the most recent years and months.
    Senator Grassley. I want to bring up ethanol and the 
country of Brazil. They have a 20-percent tariff on our ethanol 
going down there, and we let their ethanol come to the United 
States free of that. And so, Ambassador Lighthizer late last 
year tried to negotiate some and was not successful.
    Are you thinking about continuing those negotiations?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Grassley, I know that you are a leading 
voice on the issue of ethanol trade. I commit to you that, if 
confirmed, I would--it would be my honor to come back to you to 
talk through this particular issue and trade irritant.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. But you do not know whether you are 
inclined to continue those negotiations and try to force Brazil 
to be fair to us right now? I am not saying down the road you 
will not change it, but you are not prepared to say that now? 
Is that right?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Grassley, I feel like, at the moment, I 
lack the preparation and the background to engage with you 
smartly on this issue.
    Senator Grassley. Okay.
    This will be my last question. Our Department of 
Agriculture projected China would purchase $31 billion of U.S. 
farm exports this year. That is a little bit short of the $38 
billion they were supposed to do, but that is still pretty 
positive news considering the virus. But the Phase One deal was 
not only about purchases. It was also intended to result in 
structural changes to China.
    Do you intend to push China on those structural changes?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Grassley, I am glad you asked this 
question. So the agreement that we have with China is the 
agreement that we have, and there are promises that China made 
that China needs to deliver on.
    With respect to structural changes within China, I think 
that we would all be delighted to have those structural changes 
in China, to have our economies be more compatible. I think it 
is absolutely worth exploring with China, but I also want to 
note that those are conversations, and those are roads that 
have been well-worn by U.S. Trade Representatives before me.
    And so on this issue of the U.S.-China trade relationship, 
I would like to say that we need to be exploring all of our 
options.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    We have so many members here. Senator Cantwell very 
graciously said that Senator Carper could go next, as he has a 
meeting that is time-sensitive.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to 
Senator Cantwell.
    Welcome.
    She is not here today, but I want to shout out to Lucy 
Xiao, who is now my new legislative director, succeeding Jan 
Beukelman, who is over your right shoulder. Lucy came to me 
right after the election, and she said, ``Katherine Tai would 
be terrific.'' I called Ritchie Neal, and he said, ``She would 
be terrific; don't steal her.'' And the administration stole 
her. But you have a good guy sitting over your right shoulder 
there in Jan Beukelman.
    You also have sitting behind you your mom and your husband. 
I just want to say to your mom, thanks for raising this gal and 
your willingness to share her with all of us; and to your 
husband, thank you so much for your willingness to share your 
wife.
    We have been blessed with two terrific Trade Reps in the 
last 8, 12 years: Michael Froman and, more recently, Robert 
Lighthizer, and so you follow some really good, exceptional 
people.
    One thing those two guys did not agree on was TPP. They 
sharply disagreed. Take 30 seconds to just give us some idea: 
is it a fool's errand to ever think we could sort of rejoin it 
and get back into a deal like that which has 40 percent of the 
world's economy, 12 nations, and we are one of them? We are on 
the inside; China is on the outside. The last administration 
pulled out of this agreement, I think very foolishly.
    Any chance we could get back into that? Just take 30 
seconds.
    Ms. Tai. Senator Carper, are you really only going to give 
me 30 seconds? [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Please.
    Ms. Tai. Look, I----
    Senator Carper. And you can answer longer for the record. 
Just very briefly.
    Ms. Tai. All right. Let me try to be as brief as I can on 
this, because I think it is an important question, and I know 
it is a question that a lot of people, a lot of Senators and 
House members, are asking themselves.
    I think that the formula for TPP, which is for the United 
States to engage robustly with countries and economies with 
which it has a lot of shared interests, economic interests and 
also strategic interests--in particular with respect to those 
interests in Asia and with respect to the challenges coming 
from China--that is a solid equation, if you will.
    But I also want to acknowledge that, sitting before you 
here today in 2021, that the world is very different in 
important ways from the way the world was in 2015 and 2016. And 
so, if confirmed, what I would like to do is to work with the 
administration, work with you and your colleagues in the Senate 
and in the House----
    Senator Carper. I am going to stop you right there. It is a 
deal. Thank you. Let me turn the page.
    I have the privilege of serving as chair of the Committee 
on the Environment and Public Works. And we have a particular 
interests, as you may recall, in environmental trade policy. As 
the lead congressional negotiator for the new NAFTA, you and 
your team were instrumental in securing the strongest-ever 
environmental standards in free trade. Thank you for that. 
Kudos.
    Of course the new NAFTA is not perfect, and it does not 
include everything that I and many of my colleagues would have 
liked to see with regard to environmental protection. At the 
same time, though, some of the improvements I am most excited 
about are the new environmental monitoring and enforcement 
tools and resources, some of which my office worked with you to 
develop and include in the new NAFTA implementing legislation.
    Should you be confirmed, what steps would you take to 
ensure that the U.S. Trade Rep is making full use of these 
tools, so that those who break the rules are actually held 
accountable? Just a brief comment.
    Ms. Tai. Senator Carper, to maximally use the tools that 
have been built into the USMCA will require USTR to work 
closely with partner agencies, whether it is the EPA, the 
Department of Commerce, NOAA, USDA, and others, CBP, on an 
enforcement strategy.
    I believe that the agency institutions required have 
started to be built up, and if confirmed, I would be keen to 
continue to make sure that those tools and those entities are 
made as useful as possible.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tai.
    I am going to take a minute and link trade policy and the 
environment--and climate change, if I could. While labor 
standards have been a traditional area of focus for our trade 
policies, robust environmental standards, as you know, have 
been a more recent area of focus. It is a great area of focus 
for this administration.
    I have long been interested in ensuring parity between 
environmental standards and our trade policies. After all, 
safeguarding our environment and addressing climate change 
require a global response. That is why I support policies such 
as adding environmental standards to the Generalized System of 
Preferences program.
    Can you discuss with us briefly how you would approach 
reviewing other aspects of trade policies that would benefit 
from being more closely linked to the environment and climate 
change going forward?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Carper, I will try to keep my response 
short. Which is, I believe that trade policy has a lot to 
contribute to the climate effort--trade policies and working 
with other countries. Sometimes it is cooperative. Sometimes it 
is more contentious. But climate is a collective challenge that 
is going to require a collective solution. And trade policy, I 
believe, will be able to contribute to that.
    I also want to note that the rest of the world is coming up 
with its own climate solutions, and that means that, as other 
countries and economies begin to regulate in this area, climate 
and trade policies become a part of our competitive policy 
landscape. And that is another area where I believe that trade 
can contribute.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for the time. I would just say 
in closing, we have a great opportunity to lead on climate 
change, a great opportunity. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Next will be Senator Cornyn, Senator 
Cantwell, and Senator Menendez.
    Senator Cornyn?
    Senator Cornyn. Ms. Tai, congratulations on your 
nomination. Let me just start where Senator Carper left off--
the point he raised about the TPP.
    The one thing we have that China does not have is friends 
and allies. And I think we improve our negotiating position on 
economic and national security matters by allying with our 
friends. So I would certainly encourage you and the 
administration to look at re-entering that. I thought that was 
a good idea by the Obama administration. I regret that the 
Trump administration decided only bilateral trade agreements 
made sense and not multilateral agreements, especially under 
these unique circumstances.
    And I would also suggest that we look at India as a 
potential addition to the TPP. We have grown much closer to 
India, of course the world's largest democracy, one that 
believes in the rule of law as we do, and a great counterweight 
as well.
    We have entered into what is known as ``the quad'' when it 
comes to national security cooperation with India, and I think 
it would be appropriate to include India in those discussions 
as well. I guess that is not so much a question as it is a 
statement.
    Let me also echo some of the concerns raised by Senator 
Stabenow when it comes to semiconductors, as we had a great 
visit with the President yesterday on supply chain 
vulnerability, and there is probably no greater current example 
of that vulnerability than that the automobile manufacturing 
industry in this country does not have the semiconductors 
necessary to be able to build the cars that it could sell if 
they could just get the semiconductors to build them with.
    If COVID-19 has shown us anything, it has shown us our 
vulnerabilities to supply chains. And that is true whether it 
was PPE, as you will recall, when the virus hit, made mainly by 
China, or semiconductors. Of course as you know, basically 
anything with an off-and-on switch relies on semiconductors.
    And the high-end semiconductors manufactured in Taiwan are 
the sole source of some of the most sophisticated technology in 
the world, including everything from the F-35 down to cell 
phones.
    So what role does the U.S. Trade Representative play in 
bolstering our vulnerable supply chains? I realize you may not 
be the end-all/be-all, but does the USTR play any role in that? 
And what would you suggest?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cornyn, I know what a leader you are on 
the issue of semiconductor supply chains, and I know that a lot 
of the most innovative thinking on this in the Congress is 
coming from members of this committee, bipartisan.
    I think what I would like to share in terms of thinking 
about the potential role of USTR and, if confirmed, my role in 
working through supply chain strategy, is that I think that 
U.S. trade policy, global trade policy, a lot of the 
assumptions that we have based our trade programs on, has 
maximized efficiency without regard to the requirement for 
resilience.
    And so I think that trade policy--setting aside the focus 
on consultations and collaboration in this issue area--trade 
policy itself needs to be rethought and reformed with 
resilience and strategy in mind.
    Senator Cornyn. I appreciate your comments. I think 
Congress also needs to reform our practices when it comes to 
strategic investments, due to the ossified nature of our 
appropriations process, setting spending caps and then 
allocating to various subcommittees in the Appropriations 
Committee. There is really no flexibility outside of emergency 
appropriations, or perhaps maybe tax policy like the tax credit 
that Senator Warner and I proposed as part of our CHIPS for 
America Act.
    I think we have to look at all the tools that are available 
to us in this competition with China, as President Biden and 
all of us have recognized. This is a threat to our dominance 
economically as well as to our national security. And I think 
we would be negligent in the performance of our 
responsibilities and the trust we hold for the American people 
if we did not rise to the challenge of dealing with that.
    So we look forward to working with you and the 
administration, as well as all of my colleagues, in trying to 
fill that gap. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Just very quickly. On this point of the 
semiconductor issue, Senator Crapo and I consider this a top 
bipartisan priority for this committee. We have, in our part of 
the world, some of the arguably purest technology companies in 
this field anywhere. So we are looking forward to working with 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on what is hugely 
important to the American economy.
    Senator Cantwell?
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want 
to say again to Betty Tai, congratulations on your daughter's 
nomination. We so appreciate you being here today, and you have 
raised a very smart and talented daughter, and she is going to 
be very busy. At least I hope she is going to be very busy.
    I would like to follow on kind of the point that Senator 
Cornyn was making, which is, I am done with the Trump 
administration's approach to trade. I feel like, when I look at 
the analytics there--Moody Analytics estimated that the trade 
war with China cost us nearly 300,000 American jobs. U.S. 
companies lost $1.7 trillion in the price of their stocks as a 
result. JP Morgan estimates the trade war cost American 
households between $600 and $1,000 per year.
    So I am hoping that you and the Biden administration are 
going to embrace a new trade regime. And while I mentioned to 
you I am all for enforcement, I am all for capacity building. I 
have spent many, many hours of my time getting those into 
aspects of the USMCA and other agreements.
    We cannot just be about those aspects. We have to be for 
opening up new markets. And I hope that you will take that back 
to the Biden team and answer some questions today about what we 
can do to open up those markets.
    So particularly, my colleague just mentioned India. What 
can we do to open up the Indian market to U.S. apples and 
reduce the horrific tariffs that are on those apples, 
particularly with the Trump administration terminating the GSP 
program? And so it is basically, when would the Biden 
administration restore India's GSP status and help us with 
apple exports?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cantwell, it is great to see you today. I 
really enjoyed our conversation earlier and my take-away from 
it: your interest in apples and aircraft, and for the U.S. to 
be at the top rung of the ladder, which in my interpretation 
means your interest in the U.S. leading on trade around the 
world.
    On your question on GSP and India, let me just say that, if 
confirmed, this is very high on my radar, coming from the Hill 
as I will be, to USTR. And I do not have a good answer for you 
right now, for lack of having good briefing, just by virtue of 
being on the outside, but it is something that I look forward 
to engaging with you on robustly.
    Senator Cantwell. When China joined the WTO in 2001, it 
agreed to a tariff rate on wheat. So it committed to imports of 
up to 9.64 million metric tons of wheat. And as a result--they 
definitely have not made that, and there are other markets in 
Southeast Asia, like Vietnam and Indonesia, that also offer 
great potential.
    So what will the Biden administration do to help us 
increase wheat exports in Asia overall?
    Ms. Tai. So I know that wheat is of particular interest for 
Washington State as well. And part of the agricultural trade 
agenda for the Biden administration will be to help American 
agriculture and American farmers build back better as well. And 
trade will be a tool in that, I am quite confident.
    I did want to take an opportunity to address something that 
you had said earlier about concerns that the Biden 
administration will stand still on trade. And I just want to 
take this opportunity to share with you that, to the extent 
that I have been privy to conversations or have been made aware 
of the Biden administration's outlook, I do not expect, if 
confirmed, to be put on the back burner at all.
    Senator Cantwell. Great. Well, I will tell your mom right 
now, I will be right behind you pushing you. Okay? Because I 
come from a trading State, and I believe that we live in a 
global economy; I want to talk to you about digital trade. But 
the notion that the last 4 years is a way to approach this, it 
is not.
    I believe trade changes culture. So I am with Senator 
Cornyn: we should be engaging. As I said to you--I am glad you 
remember--we should be on the top rung of the ladder discussing 
what a trade regime looks like when 95 percent of consumers 
live outside of the United States.
    Can I just ask you one last thing about the European issue 
on Airbus? Will you prioritize reaching agreement on commercial 
aircraft subsidies to end European subsidies and tariffs?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cantwell, this dispute has been going on 
since, I believe, 2005-2006. It is arguably one of the disputes 
that started to break the WTO dispute settlement system. I 
think that between the U.S. and the EU, if confirmed, I would 
very much be interested in figuring out, pardon the pun, how to 
land this particular plane, because it has been going on for a 
very long time.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I think leaning in to the regimes 
that we do have, and making them work, seems like a really 
positive thing to be doing, to me. And then again, going back 
and opening up markets for U.S. products--I think this is what 
you will hear from all my colleagues today, because we do 
believe, as my colleague from Michigan said, that we do make 
and grow things, and we would like them to reach new 
opportunities.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Thank you.
    Ms. Tai, congratulations on your nomination. After the last 
4 years, it is clear that we need more transparency in our 
trade 
policy-making, and USTR is one of the few Cabinet agencies that 
does not have an Inspector General.
    As we have seen across the executive branch, Inspectors 
General help agencies do their jobs better by promoting greater 
transparency, accountability, effectiveness, all of which leads 
to better results.
    Last year, I led all the Finance Committee Democrats in 
introducing legislation to establish an Inspector General for 
USTR so we can use this proven, effective tool to help us make 
better trade policy in the years ahead.
    Are you supportive of having an Inspector General at USTR?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Menendez, thank you for this question. I 
know the leadership role you have had on this particular issue. 
I think what I would say is, understanding that Inspectors 
General answer to the mandate of overseeing and ensuring that 
there is no waste, fraud, or abuse going on in the executive 
branch, I am very supportive of accountability and 
transparency, in particular with respect to Congress.
    I know that there is no Inspector General apparatus set up 
for the Executive Office of the President agencies. I am not 
aware of the specific legalities around that, but with respect 
to your desire for more transparency and accountability, I am 
very supportive of that.
    Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. I recognize that 
USTR's placement in the Executive Office of the President poses 
some unique challenges, but they are not novel or 
insurmountable. So I look forward to working with you to 
address those issues.
    Let me turn to China as well. You have heard this. We all 
believe, collectively on a bipartisan basis, it is one of our 
biggest challenges. The last Congress, I led the introduction 
of the America LEADS Act. It is a cross-jurisdictional piece of 
legislation to not only confront China, but to compete with 
China at the end of the day.
    Do you believe that domestic investments are part of our 
response to the challenge of competing with China?
    Ms. Tai. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Menendez. And particularly, at USTR there is a 
special investigations unit that would be responsible for trade 
agreement violations and section 301 investigations. One of the 
things that you can do is to get U.S. companies that refuse to 
share information with the U.S. Government about China's 
predatory practices out of fear that the Chinese authority will 
discriminate against the firm--but knowing about those 
predatory practices is important to us as we deal with China.
    Is that something that you believe that you would pursue, 
that is of value to us?
    Ms. Tai. So, Senator, just to be clear, is your question 
whether or not I would be interested in pursuing deploying this 
particular group at USTR in working with stakeholders who may 
be shy about sharing the problems they are running into in 
China?
    Senator Menendez. Yes.
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Okay.
    One of the most important things, including in the 
competition with China, is that innovation and R&D have to be a 
central part of our response. As you may know, New Jersey is a 
center of innovation, from telecom to medical products to 
pharmaceuticals. So it is critical for manufacturers in my 
State that USTR advance and defend strong intellectual property 
rules in our trade agreements in a global forum like the World 
Trade Organization.
    In confirmed, would you work to protect American innovators 
and the millions of American workers in IP-intensive 
industries?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Menendez, I know New Jersey's place in 
America's innovation economy, and I know that one of the things 
that distinguishes our economy is the innovation that goes on 
here.
    I think that is in large part due to the balance that is 
achieved by the Congress in terms of our intellectual property 
protection and rights laws. And yes, I believe it is important 
for our trade policies to reflect that balance as well between 
the rights of innovators and the rights of those seeking access 
to the fruits of their innovations.
    Senator Menendez. Finally, let me turn to Europe. USTR, 
following on Senator Cantwell's comments, imposed 25-percent 
tariffs on EU food products such as cheese, wine, and olive 
oil, after winning a case against the EU. But those tariffs 
have been devastating to food importers and restaurants in New 
Jersey struggling, particularly due to the pandemic. They can 
ill-afford to have increased costs at a time like this. And a 
year and a half into these retaliatory tariffs, I do not think 
anyone can say that the strategy of targeting food and beverage 
products on an aircraft dispute is working to bring a 
resolution to this dispute.
    Would you make it a priority to review the Airbus tariffs 
and listen to our food importers, our restaurants, so that the 
businesses that have nothing to do with the underlying dispute 
can get some relief?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Menendez, I know the disruption and the 
pain that these particular tariffs are imposing on the affected 
stakeholders. I also want to acknowledge that this is part and 
parcel of the longstanding aircraft dispute between the U.S. 
and EU. And in some ways, this is the way the WTO system is 
supposed to work. You inflict pain on each other's stakeholders 
to try to motivate each other to come to a resolution.
    So I think my answer to you will essentially be a version 
of my answer to Senator Cantwell, which is: I think at the core 
of this--whether it is the tariff piece or the overall 
dispute--is the need for the U.S. and EU to come together to 
figure out an answer.
    Senator Menendez. I would like to find ways to create 
challenges for them but not for us in doing so. Cheese does not 
fly.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. We are going to just 
keep going.
    Senator Portman, and then Senator Thune.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Tai, as you know from our meeting last month, I am 
delighted that you have been nominated. I would like to start 
by thanking Dr. Tai, though, behind you, for her work on 
finding alternative ways to treat opioid addiction, an 
incredibly important issue.
    On trade, as you know from your time at USTR, it is a very 
special place. It is full of career experts on trade. Almost 
all of them could make a lot more money in the private sector. 
They are committed and passionate, and I know you are going to 
thrive there. Largely because of commitments that I made when I 
was before the Senate Finance Committee 16 years ago, I 
conducted what was called the top-to-bottom review of China. We 
issued an extensive report. We also established a prosecutor. I 
said, ``We need a prosecutor just for China,'' so it became 
sort of the Chief Counsel, and you later had that job.
    Let me ask you if you would make a commitment today to 
update that top-to-bottom review. Everybody on this panel has 
talked about China. I mean, I think it is clearly the most 
important single trade issue we face. Would you commit today to 
updating that and providing it to the committee?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Portman, I think that the Biden 
administration itself is committed to a holistic review on 
China, and U.S.-China strategy. If confirmed at USTR, I think 
that is an excellent idea, and yes, absolutely I would want to 
make sure that that review happened at USTR as well.
    Senator Portman. I am sorry to surprise you with that, but 
I was just thinking about it as we heard all the questions, and 
I think it is timely. A lot has changed in 16 years, mostly 
changed in the way that China has become even more competitive, 
using more subsidies, and under the current regime has decided 
that state-owned enterprises and heavy subsidies are going to 
be the norm rather than the exception.
    And this goes to semiconductors. There has been a lot of 
discussion about the semiconductors. I appreciate what the 
chairman said, the ranking member, Senator Stabenow, Senator 
Cornyn, and others. I mean, this is an urgent issue. We are 
looking at serious impacts on our economy because of the supply 
chain issues.
    Here is what China is doing on semiconductors. They are 
heavily subsidizing it. One study found that major Chinese 
semiconductor firms have received subsidies equal to 20 to 40 
percent of the revenues--subsidies of up to 40 percent of the 
revenues.
    We cannot compete with that. And so, Phase One with China 
was a good start. And Bob Lighthizer has not gotten love in the 
room today. He did a lot of hard work on that, and I appreciate 
that.
    But we need to take it to the next level, because it is 
really more than just non-market. I think it is a techno-
nationalist approach to trade that we have to stand up to.
    How would you propose we do a better job of addressing 
those unfair industrial subsidies and their proliferation, 
particularly by state-owned enterprises?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Portman, I think this is part and parcel 
of some of the most important questions that are facing us 
today, and not just on trade but across the board, which is how 
we compete more effectively with China.
    China has done an incredible job of articulating its 
ambitions in its 5-year plans, and accomplishing a lot of the 
goals that it has set for itself. You mentioned semiconductors, 
and I want to acknowledge that that is an area where there is a 
lot of focus right now, which is really great, about how we 
more strategically shape our supply chains.
    I would just say that the Chinese are not shy about 
articulating their ambitions. And semiconductors are just a 
part of what we have to compete with. We cannot compete by 
doing the things China does, so we have to figure out how we 
compete, marshaling all the tools and resources that we have in 
the U.S. Government.
    Senator Portman. That is the idea of the CHIPS Act we 
talked about earlier. I was at the White House yesterday in a 
good meeting on that.
    Let's switch to WTO for a second. The World Trade 
Organization was established to have rules that were beneficial 
to countries like ours that are willing to play by the rules on 
a level playing field. And it is important that we have those 
rules for our exporters.
    But the current system seems broken to me. The WTO's 
negotiation role has faded. Instead, we have activism by the 
Appellate Body that has constrained our ability, frankly, to 
respond to China's non-market activities, as well as other 
countries'.
    This is a critique that is longstanding. It is bipartisan. 
Senator Cardin, who was here earlier and I think is coming 
back, and I introduced legislation on WTO reforms. I know you 
have seen those. Again, USTR Lighthizer made some progress on 
this, but we have to continue this work.
    My question for you, I guess, would be--you have said you 
want a positive agenda for WTO reform. Specifically, what do 
you propose we do to restore the WTO to being more for 
negotiation rather than litigation?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Portman, it is a special honor to be 
speaking to you as a Senator on this committee, but also a 
former USTR. And as such, you I know have special insights into 
the U.S. relationship and the U.S. role at the WTO.
    I just want to say, the United States was a founding member 
of the WTO and of the GATT before that. It has always been a 
leader in Geneva. We cannot afford not to continue to be 
engaged and a leader in Geneva at the WTO.
    The WTO does need reform. And I believe that the focus 
should be--with the WTO now in its 26th year of existence, we 
need to be having hard conversations in Geneva in a 
constructive way, to be asking what is the value of the WTO to 
its members? Is it accomplishing the goals that its founders 
and members expect of it? And also, in today's world in 2021, 
how does the WTO rise to the challenges of today's world, 
whether the challenges that are facing all of us, or the 
challenges that exist between the WTO's countries?
    Senator Portman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Thune?
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Tai, cattle producers in South Dakota and across our 
Nation work hard to produce high-quality beef. Americans 
recognize this, and by and large they want to know where their 
food is coming from, which is why I am a long-time supporter of 
country-of-origin labeling.
    And while the World Trade Organization, which you were just 
discussing, made a ruling in 2015 on COOL for beef, pork, and 
other meat products, this remains an important issue to many 
producers in my home State. In fact, the South Dakota 
legislature just passed a resolution calling on the Biden 
administration to remove barriers to mandatory country-of-
origin labeling when negotiating trade deals.
    So I am going to ask you the same question that I asked the 
nominee for Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and that is, what are 
your thoughts on the WTO's COOL ruling and its impact on U.S. 
producers, particularly its impact on beef producers? And then 
as a follow-up, if confirmed, would you be willing to work with 
me on finding a path forward, preferably in a WTO-compliant 
manner, on country-of-origin labeling to help address the 
concerns of, not only South Dakotans, but livestock producers 
all across the country?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Thune, I cannot remember if I mentioned 
this in my earlier conversation, but the first case that I was 
handed when I walked in the door at USTR in 2007 was to take on 
the longstanding case between the U.S. and the EU on the EU 
import ban on U.S. beef. So I feel like I learned a lot about 
the U.S. industry back then, and I myself obviously was raised 
on American beef and am a very happy consumer of it.
    On the WTO COOL ruling, that has not been a popular ruling 
back here at home with Senators like yourself and stakeholders 
themselves--and also on the other side of the aisle in terms of 
those who really supported COOL as a consumer right, and for 
the policy space for Congress to act.
    As you noted, this is an area where USTR and USDA have a 
lot of good work to do together. If confirmed, I look forward 
to working with Secretary Vilsack on this. And I do commit to 
you to coming back to you to talk about the continued interest 
of yours and the industry in having country-of-origin labeling 
that will survive WTO challenge.
    Senator Thune. I would say, we have labels on so many 
things that come into this country--the things that we wear. It 
is ironic to me that we cannot have labels on the things we put 
in our mouths. And the American people, I think, deserve to 
know where their beef is coming from.
    Our farmers and ranchers depend on open markets and 
reliable trading relationships around the world for expanding 
market access and ensuring our producers remain competitive as 
a key to stabilizing the U.S. ag economy and powering our 
national economy forward.
    If confirmed as our Nation's lead trade negotiator, what 
specific steps will you take to expand U.S. ag products in new 
markets such as Southeast Asia and Africa? And I would ask, if 
you could, just comment too in talking about that on Phase One 
with China. Our exports to China significantly increased since 
November, which is welcome news to American agriculture, but 
they are still quite a ways short of their Phase One 
commitments, What would USTR intend to do with respect to 
making sure that they comply with the Phase One targets?
    And then also--there is a lot in there--but expanding 
market access is critical. And so equally important is the 
proper enforcement of the ones, the trade agreements we already 
have, which if confirmed, the question I would have is, what 
steps would you take to ensure that our trading partners are 
playing by the rules agreed to in existing agreements, and in 
particular USMCA?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Thune, there are a lot of questions in 
there. There is a lot for me to respond to, but if I focus on 
the main themes, I think that I would like to thank you for 
this opportunity to clarify, when I talk about being confirmed 
and advancing a worker-centered trade policy, that ``workers'' 
does absolutely include agricultural workers--our farmers, our 
small family farmers in particular, real people who make up the 
American economy.
    So I want to make that clear. And in terms of a trade 
policy that works for our workers, a trade policy that works 
for agricultural workers is very much a part of that focus as 
well.
    On the enforcement side on USMCA, I talked earlier in my 
opening statement about caring and nurturing the agreements 
that we have to make sure that they deliver on the promises 
that have been made. That also goes for the other trade 
agreements, obviously, that we have under our belts. And so I 
just want to make clear that that is a priority for me.
    Senator Thune. Phase One China?
    Ms. Tai. Phase One China as well. A different kind of 
agreement, but it is an agreement.
    Senator Thune. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I have perhaps a 
question on network security, but I will defer that, or perhaps 
submit it for the record, but, Ms. Tai, thank you, and we look 
forward to working with you.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. It is 
going to be a hectic morning. We have now four Senators on the 
web who are going to be asking questions: Senator Cardin, 
Senator Cassidy, Senator Brown, and Senator Lankford.
    Senator Cardin, are you out there in cyberspace?
    Senator Cardin. I am with you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 
much.
    The Chairman. Very good. Very good.
    Senator Cardin. Ms. Tai, thank you very much for your 
willingness to continue in public life. We very much appreciate 
that.
    I want to first ask you about a provision that I led an 
effort in 2015 to include as a principal negotiating objective: 
good governance and anti-corruption. And I know that the Biden 
administration has been very strong in its commitment to deal 
with corruption and recognizes it as a national security issue, 
and all countries can do better.
    So can you share with me how you intend to promote good 
governance, rule of law, anti-corruption, in any trade 
negotiations or agreements that take place under your watch, if 
you are confirmed and when you are confirmed?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cardin, it is an excellent question. Good 
governance, rule of law, anti-corruption are fundamental values 
that we as Americans want to hold ourselves to, and that we 
will want to hold our trading partners to.
    So I believe your question is, if confirmed, how will that 
be incorporated in trade policies under my leadership at USTR?
    And I would just commit to you that these types of 
questions are exactly the ones that I hope will animate the 
trade policy and trade agenda that the Biden administration 
undertakes.
    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you. I just want to compliment 
Ambassador Lighthizer. He worked very closely with our 
committee. He worked very closely with our office in regards to 
the good governance provision. So I would just request that we 
have a close working relationship as you negotiate agreements 
as to making sure that we increase the standards on good 
governance. It is something that I think is very important to 
our country.
    Let me go to the USMCA, which includes a stand-alone 
chapter on small business that I was very appreciative to see 
in there. I chair the Small Business Committee in this 
Congress. Can you share with us how you intend to help small 
businesses in negotiations? They have a harder time, as you 
know, in dealing in international trade.
    So what priority will you give these efforts so that we can 
include our smaller businesses in international trade 
opportunities?
    Ms. Tai. Well, Senator Cardin, I completely agree with you 
in terms of the importance of small businesses to the American 
economy. Small businesses, mom and pop shops, these are our 
companies that have faces and names and operate like families.
    I think a worker-centered trade policy and, more broadly, 
my interpretation of the Biden administration's foreign policy 
that works for the middle class, will really prioritize the 
interests of small businesses.
    I know exactly what you mean in terms of how difficult it 
can be for smaller businesses, smaller-scale businesses, to 
access the levers of trade. And I know that there are some 
really good programs that are housed in different parts of the 
government.
    I would commit to you that, if confirmed, I will make it a 
priority and I will take care to ensure that there is the 
coordination that is needed to make those programs work, and to 
build on those programs where we can.
    Senator Cardin. The voices of small businesses need to be 
heard as you are negotiating these agreements. And I know that 
the first question asked to you by Chairman Wyden was, would 
you agree to participate in our committees? I would ask that 
you work with us on the Small Business Committee as you do your 
trade agreements so that we can have input as to how we can 
expand opportunities for smaller companies.
    I want to follow up on the point that Senator Portman made 
in regards to the WTO. The two of us will be introducing some 
legislation in that regard. You talked about the reform in WTO. 
I am a strong believer in our participation in the WTO, but we 
know that it needs to be reformed.
    So as you are looking at ways in which to strengthen the 
role that WTO can play that can be in the best interests of the 
United States, I hope that you will share those thoughts with 
our committee, and that we can work together to strengthen the 
U.S. role in reforming the WTO.
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cardin, the U.S. participation in the WTO 
is made possible by the work of this committee, the House Ways 
and Means Committee, and I know that the investment that 
members like yourself make in thinking through U.S. 
participation at institutions like the WTO is critical. So that 
is an easy commitment for me to make, to be very fully engaged 
with you, with Senator Portman, and others in the Congress who 
care about the WTO.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you. And again, thank you for your 
willingness to serve.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And I also want to emphasize that the Senator 
is talking about something very important in which Ms. Tai was 
a very strong ally when it came to promoting the rule-of-law 
and the anti-corruption provisions in the USMCA, and we thank 
her for that.
    Senator Cassidy?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Senator Cassidy, are you out there on the 
web?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. All right; it appears that we should move on.
    Senator Brown, are you there on the web?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Senator Lankford, are you on the web?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. All right. I believe Senator Bennet may be 
with us in person. If that is the case, we will call on--pardon 
me?
    [Off-microphone comment.]
    The Chairman. Good. I believe we have Senator Bennet coming 
in person. And I hope that we will be able to deal with our 
audio challenges.
    Senator Cassidy is--is Senator Cassidy ready, or would he 
like me to go to Senator Bennet? Why don't we just go to 
Senator Bennet, and then we will take Senator Cassidy?
    Senator Bennet? And if you all can make sure that Senator 
Cassidy will be next, that would be great. Senator Bennet?
    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry; it is 
going to take me one moment.
    Thanks, Ms. Tai. It is good to see you, and I am glad you 
are here. Thanks for bringing your mom.
    Trade is really important to Colorado's agricultural 
economy, as you and I discussed when we had a conversation, 
which I really enjoyed, by the way. I learned a lot from it. 
There are producers in Colorado who contend with severe drought 
and labor challenges. I would like to think that our trade 
policy is one area that would not be a headwind but might 
actually support them and bring some stability. That has not 
been the case over the last 4 years. Our farmers have lost 
markets. They have faced higher input costs. And their products 
were hit with retaliatory tariffs.
    On top of that, the highly touted Phase One deal with China 
is failing to live up to expectations. And American farmers and 
ranchers produce top-notch agricultural goods, and I am hoping 
that, in the years ahead, they will once again be able to 
compete fairly on the global stage.
    I would just like you to talk a little bit about how we can 
recover and grow markets for American agriculture, while also 
holding bad actors like China accountable? How are we going to 
begin to undo the damage and take advantage of our posture as 
it is right now after the last 4 years, and how will farmers 
and ranchers factor into your review of existing tariffs?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Bennet----
    Senator Bennet. I have one other question I want to get to, 
but--sorry.
    Ms. Tai. Okay; I will try to make sure to keep my answer 
short. I just want to observe that I think that, with respect 
to our trade policies for the past several decades, we often 
fall into a pattern where one sector of our economy, and one 
segment of our workers, feels like their livelihood and their 
opportunities are sacrificed to another part of our economy. 
And in the past, it may have been our manufacturing workers who 
felt like they were sacrificed in the interests of our farmers, 
and the past couple of years perhaps our farmers felt like they 
were being sacrificed for the interests of our manufacturing 
workers.
    I think one of our challenges going forward is to figure 
out how to craft our trade policies, and how to coordinate our 
trade policies with our other domestic and foreign policies, to 
break out of that pattern so that what we are doing in trade is 
coordinated with what we are doing in other areas, but also not 
forcing us to pit one segment of our workers and economy 
against another.
    Senator Bennet. That is a very good answer. I had ups and 
downs with your predecessor in this job, but one of the downs 
was when I asked him a similar question about our farmers and 
ranchers, his answer was, ``They have our sympathy.'' What they 
do not need is ``sympathy.'' What they need is a coherent trade 
policy that is going to support their work.
    Ms. Tai, President Trump had a go-it-alone approach--I 
think he was proud of it--launching trade wars around the world 
that alienated our allies and undermined effective global 
response to China.
    At the same time, China was strategically investing in 
Mediterranean and African countries, expanding its reach in the 
South China Sea region, and implementing the ``one belt, one 
road initiative.'' And while China is an important market for 
agricultural products, as we have discussed, they have failed 
to live up to their agreement.
    How will you work with partners and allies and the broader 
administration to hold China accountable for its mercantilist 
and predatory practices? I should say the Chinese Communist 
Party--not the Chinese people, but the Chinese Government. You 
mentioned earlier in an answer to one of my colleagues that 
there had been a well-worn path trod by former trade 
ambassadors who were expecting China to somehow adopt our 
system--our economic system.
    That is clearly not going to happen. So what tools are 
available to us, maybe even beyond the trade tools, to be able 
to push back and ensure that we continue to lead?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Bennet, again I feel like this is one of 
the most consequential questions that we collectively, as 
servants in the U.S. Government, will need to figure out. You 
know, just in terms of how to answer your question, I guess 
there are a couple of ways that I would think about it.
    One is rules that China has clearly signed up for and 
agreed to. Those may be agreements that it has struck with 
trading partners; they may be the WTO rules--so rules that they 
have taken on as a member of a larger organization.
    And when we are in that area, we have designed for use 
enforcement tools to engage with the Chinese and hold them 
accountable: ``You promised to do X; you need to deliver on 
X.''
    There are also a lot of areas that are gray areas, where 
the rules are not clear, or where we do not have rules yet. And 
I think that in that area, in terms of working with others, we 
have a couple of options. One is that we create and we craft 
new rules to address the gray areas. Separately, I think that 
that provides us with a lot of opportunity as well to think 
strategically about how to respond to the strategy that China 
is pursuing.
    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Ms. Tai. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. We are going to just 
keep going and try to stick with our queue. Senator Cassidy is 
next. Senator Brown may intervene, but then Senator Lankford, 
and we can get all three of you.
    Senator Cassidy?
    Senator Cassidy. Ms. Tai, thank you very much. I enjoyed 
our phone conversation. I like the nuanced way in which you 
spoke of our relationship with China. And so I was listening 
elsewhere--you could not hear me, but I could hear you, but 
that is another story--and so, thank you for that perspective.
    A couple of issues important to my State. You have already 
spoken to Senator Grassley regarding the UK trade agreement. 
Right now, they love our rice. We love to sell a lot of 
Louisiana rice in the UK. It turns out, they love it. The issue 
of course is, there is a 25-percent countervailing tariff that 
says it is caught up in other aspects of our trade war. So I 
just encourage that that be resolved ASAP so the folks back 
home who work in rice mills have fuller employment, if you 
will.
    Also an issue back home is shrimp. India is sending a lot 
of shrimp here. They heavily subsidize, I am told, their 
shrimpers. And then the EU is refusing to accept them over 
phytosanitary concerns.
    So we are getting subsidized shrimp refused elsewhere 
because of phytosanitary concerns, putting my folks out of 
business. And if they want to compete on price, that is fine, 
but make sure it is clean, it does not have antibiotics, et 
cetera, but also that it is not unfairly subsidized.
    What tools do you think you have as USTR, in that role, to 
address that particular issue?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cassidy, thank you for the questions and 
for raising your interests and the interests of the State of 
Louisiana in rice and shrimp. In terms of the tools that are 
available, we have an existing toolbox, and some of the tools 
are within USTR's purview. I imagine that some of them are in 
Commerce's purview, and other agencies have a role to play as 
well.
    So my first-level answer to you is, if confirmed, I would 
want to take every opportunity to work this issue, not just at 
USTR, but in partnership with the other agencies that have a 
stake and have a role to play.
    More broadly, though, I think that we have our existing 
trade tools and trade enforcement tools. I think that there are 
a number of challenges that are facing the U.S. economy, U.S. 
workers and industries, where there may be opportunities for us 
to think about new tools to address the challenges that we face 
today.
    So maybe it is a bit of a two-part answer in terms of the 
tools that we have, and then an interest in working on new 
tools that are more appropriate to the challenges that we have 
today.
    Senator Cassidy. I would love to work with you on those new 
tools, because it does seem as if we need creativity. The 
current process is so cumbersome that people exploit it for so 
long they get their way, if you will, and then they gradually 
kind of go through a third country. And then we end up with the 
same problem all over.
    Next, another thing: counterfeit goods. There are stories 
on the Internet, the child getting the Christmas gift that has 
a battery and it explodes. It seems to be the name-brand 
product, which we expect to be safe, but in reality it is a 
knock-off, and that knock-off is unsafe.
    So I am concerned about that, and I know that you have 
addressed that. What can USTR do to combat the rising tide of 
counterfeits?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cassidy, USTR has a number of existing 
tools with respect to--I think this falls into intellectual 
property protection. And we spoke about it a little bit earlier 
with Ranking Member Crapo, about the Special 301 report.
    You know, again I think this is also an area where we look 
at the rules and the tools that you have in terms of the 
agreements and enforcement mechanisms that are available 
internationally, but also you look at what you have available 
domestically. And, you know, not to sound like a broken record, 
but as we have a lot of experience in this area, I am sure that 
there are people in the think tank world, here on the Hill, in 
the stakeholder world, and within the U.S. Government, who have 
ideas about how we can make our enforcement of these rights 
more effective.
    Senator Cassidy. Let me finish with this, because we spoke 
of this on the phone. Obviously, the U.S. has trade 
relationships, and in those treaties with Mexico, for example, 
Central America, we have certain labor standards and 
environmental standards that we expect them to adhere to and we 
enforce. China does not enforce those. And with that lack of 
enforcement, it turns out to be an expense, an avoided expense, 
to further subsidize somebody moving from Mexico, or Guatemala, 
moving their factory to China.
    It strengthens the Chinese economy. But it weakens that of 
a key trade partner of the U.S. We have spoken about that, but 
if you do not mind, for this broader audience if you will, 
could you comment on that?
    Ms. Tai. I would be happy to, Senator Cassidy.
    I think that for a very long time our trade policies were 
based on the assumption that the more we traded with each 
other, and the more liberalized our trade, the more peace and 
prosperity there would be, that the rising tide would lift all 
boats.
    I think that what we see is--in the parlance of some of the 
economists who have been thinking about this--that over time 
the trends we see are a race to the bottom, many times; that 
with increased economic activity and trade activity, we are not 
necessarily seeing that bring up standards with respect to 
workers and environmental protection; that there is an 
opportunity for competition with lower standards across the 
board.
    I think this prompts us to really have this inform our 
rethink of our strategic trade policy and figure out how trade 
policy can be conducted in a way that it does truly lift up all 
boats; it does not just create a larger pie, but it--I do not 
know where I am going with this particular---- [laughter]
    Senator Cassidy. I know where you are going with that. We 
protect the U.S. worker as we enforce those standards. Thank 
you.
    The Chairman. We are going to have to move on. Senator 
Brown is on the web. And then it would be Lankford and Daines.
    Senator Brown, are you available?
    Senator Brown. I am here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 
thrilled to be here, and congratulations, Ms. Tai, for you. I 
understand I got on late. I am sorry I did not hear your 
opening statement. I understood it brought tears to the eyes of 
some of my staff, and I am so glad your mother is there. Please 
tell her--I do not know if she can hear this now or how this 
technology works--but tell her she raised an incredible 
daughter.
    And I would also add that you made a great hire in Nora 
Todd. Your gain is my office's loss, but thank you for helping 
her do even more public service than she has already done.
    Congratulations. I enjoyed our meeting last--well, I guess 
it was 6 weeks or so ago. I enjoyed especially, and what makes 
me excited about your nomination, so many things, but 
especially your work on the Brown-Wyden rapid response 
mechanism in the USMCA. You are exceptionally qualified for 
this job, and I support you with great enthusiasm.
    You gave a great speech to the National Foreign Trade 
Council Foundation. You talked about the humanity and the 
dignity of Americans. Your comments reminded me a lot of the 
``dignity of work'' agenda that sort of informs what I do here, 
and I know informs much of what you have done.
    Can you talk a little bit about what a ``dignity of work'' 
trade agenda means to you, Ms. Tai?
    Ms. Tai. Absolutely. Thank you for this opportunity to 
address this particular issue, which I think really lies at the 
heart of where U.S. trade policy needs to go in this next 
phase.
    I think that, for a very long time, regular people, 
ordinary Americans and workers, have felt disconnected from our 
trade policies; that they are policies that are concocted by 
people in places like Washington, Brussels, and Geneva, that at 
best have not a lot of relevance to their lives, or at worst 
undercut and undermine the livelihoods that they have been used 
to having.
    And I think that, if confirmed, where I would very much 
like to focus my efforts and contribute to the Biden 
administration's efforts, is to center U.S. trade policy in 
terms of thinking through, how does it affect regular people, 
American workers across the different sectors? And how do we 
make trade policy feel like--in Chairman Wyden's words, how do 
we expand the circle of winners in trade policy?
    Senator Brown. Thank you. Thanks for that answer. I voted, 
as you may remember, for USMCA. It is the first trade agreement 
I have ever voted for. And I did because it included the Brown-
Wyden rapid response mechanism that would allow us to enforce 
labor standards quickly at the factory level.
    My question is a pretty simple one. Do you commit to using 
that provision to the maximum extent possible to defend the 
rights of workers in the United States and Mexico?
    Ms. Tai. Yes, Senator Brown. And I would add that using 
that mechanism is also to reinforce the implementation of 
reforms that Mexico has made--so to reinforce Mexico's own 
reform efforts.
    Senator Brown. Good. Thank you.
    Senator Wyden and I also led the effort to make sure U.S. 
law prohibits any imports coming into our country that were 
made with forced labor. In the years since our amendment 
passed, the U.S. Government has made some--but only some--
progress in forced labor enforcement.
    China's state-sanctioned large-scale forced labor programs, 
especially for millions of Uyghurs and other Muslims, show that 
we need to do more.
    If confirmed, will you commit to making forced labor 
enforcement, particularly a crackdown on China's massive forced 
labor program--will you commit to making that a top priority?
    Ms. Tai. Yes, Senator Brown. I think that the use of forced 
labor is probably the crudest example of the race to the bottom 
that I was talking about earlier with Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Brown. Thanks.
    And the last question, Chairman Wyden--and I appreciate the 
time. From your time on Ways and Means' dignity of work trade 
agenda, you recognized as essential--from your work, I can see 
that--building trust with Americans. In Ohio and other States 
they know their livelihood and their families have not been the 
focus of trade policy. My opposition to our trade policy has 
been grounded in the fact that it has really hurt workers in my 
State, across the industrial Midwest, and really nationally.
    My question is this, in the last few seconds: what are some 
of the first things you will do as USTR to start to regain the 
trust of Americans on trade? How do you plan to build that 
framework in future trade negotiations? What do you start 
doing? What do you start saying--listen to what I say, but 
watch what I do? What do we do to regain the trust of Americans 
on trade?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Brown, I think you start by listening. You 
start by indicating that the formulators of U.S. trade policy 
care how it is impacting America, and regular Americans.
    I know in my earlier conversation with you, we talked about 
trade's impact on the citizens and the residents of Mahoning 
Valley. You know, I think that that is where you start. And in 
terms of where you go from there, then, you do not just have to 
listen, but you also have to take what you are hearing and 
translate that into an adjustment and changes to the approach 
that you have been taking.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Ms. Tai. I look forward to 
working with you as USTR. Best wishes.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague very much. And as you 
and I have talked about, Ms. Tai, part of what Senator Brown 
and I set out to do, which we are touching on, is to try to 
bring Americans together in terms of the cause of creating more 
high-skill, high-wage jobs. And we thank you.
    Senator Lankford?
    Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Tai, thanks for stepping up and being able to take this 
on. There are folks in Oklahoma right now who are working on 
the wheat, and cotton, and beef, and pork, and chicken, and 
manufactured goods that are all headed out of the country, who 
are very dependent on what you do and how well you do your job.
    So this does have a direct impact on a lot of people--and I 
know their names--because they are counting on not only 
maintaining good trade relationships, but expanding to new 
places.
    The first question that I typically get from folks is, 
``Where are we expanding to next? Glad we have this agreement, 
now what is the next agreement that we are actually working 
on?'' Because they are always looking for new markets and new 
places, because we produce great products in Oklahoma, and the 
world would buy them if they had access to them and we could 
actually get the tariffs all worked out back and forth. So I 
look forward to seeing your leadership there. A lot of folks 
are counting on you in that.
    One of the other areas that goes in the other direction is 
the issue of 301, and we have talked about this before. The 301 
exclusion process is a process you do not care a thing about 
unless you are directly affected by it. And we have multiple 
companies in Oklahoma that are.
    The 301 exclusion process--it is extremely important that 
it is run efficiently, and that people get answers to it. 
Otherwise, they are directly affected and so are all their 
employees.
    Tell me what you are going to do on that 301 exclusion 
process and how you are going to manage that.
    Ms. Tai. Senator Lankford, it is a great question. And I 
know that the 301 tariffs have touched directly a lot of 
people, and have disrupted a lot of people's lives and 
livelihoods.
    I think what I would say to you is, if confirmed, that I 
would bring the focus of what I spoke about earlier with 
Senator Cardin, about the emphasis on good governance, as well 
to the processes and the responsibilities that USTR has itself.
    So with respect to the exclusions process, just in the job 
that I have had over the past few years, I am aware of the many 
concerns that have arisen with the process. If confirmed, this 
is very high on my radar in terms of assessing the process that 
is in place for exclusions, the decision-making, with an 
understanding that the transparency, predictability, due 
process, are all critical to the way we want our government to 
function.
    Senator Lankford. Right, and speed of decision. And to know 
when the decision is made, the decision is going to carry over 
from year to year, and they are not constantly worried about 
now next year, now next year; they just cannot plan from there.
    Critical minerals is another area that you and I have 
talked about before. We are obviously very exposed in that area 
with China. China has made it very clear, and recent articles 
have been out there saying they are targeting using that 
leverage to cut nations off from actually distributing critical 
minerals to them.
    That should make us wake up even more in this process. Part 
of the challenge that we have is, when an American company 
starts their mining process and finally gets through all the 
environmental restrictions, they have to be able to produce it 
here. China can cut the price there. It cuts off access to 
capital here and growth here, and so we have a problem.
    So one of the big issues we have, if we are going to have a 
clean energy, or if we are going to produce steel, or any 
number of other things, is we have to produce our own critical 
minerals, or develop new relationships with allies that we can 
trust that will provide critical minerals.
    What is your strategy on that?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Lankford, I know that the Biden 
administration issued a supply chains executive order yesterday 
that specifically calls out critical minerals as one of the 
supply chains for special focus in crafting a strategy.
    So, if confirmed, I look forward to participating in that 
process and supporting that review. In terms of the strategy, 
and coming from the USTR, as you know, because we talked about 
it in our earlier conversation, one of the big cases that I 
worked on at USTR related to China's export restrictions on 
rare earths and a number of other critical materials and 
minerals that come out of the ground.
    I think that in this area trade has an important part to 
play, but the trade piece is part of a larger strategy that 
relates to our supply chain resilience. And so, if confirmed, I 
will look forward to being not just a connector between 
Congress and the administration, but being well-coordinated 
with the other parts of the administration that are thinking 
and making plans in this area.
    Senator Lankford. Right. So identifying some of the rare 
earth and critical minerals that we are exposed on, and finding 
other places to be able to get them so we have multiple 
sources, and developing those relationships, should be part of 
our strategy.
    I know you have had some brief comments about this. I will 
not go into it in depth. The trade relationship with the UK is 
extremely important to many people in Oklahoma. It is an area I 
want us to continue to be able to develop. I know that is 
difficult. They have a problem with chlorinated chicken. We 
have a problem with E. coli. So apparently they do not have as 
much of a problem with it as we do.
    But all those issues can be worked out, should be worked 
out in the days ahead, and I would encourage you to do that. 
And as we have talked about before, as you are developing 
multiple different trade relationships, I would encourage you 
to develop a relationship with the State Department to be 
innovative in the area of smaller countries with less economic 
development, so that we can actually partner with State to be 
able to do some of those things under your guidance and 
leadership.
    So I thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Daines is next. Senators Daines, Casey, and Young 
are the next three.
    Senator Daines?
    Senator Daines. Great. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. 
Tai; good to see you again.
    My colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Lankford, talked about 
cotton and some of his products. It is a little cold in Montana 
to grow cotton, but we are excited about beef, wheat, barley, 
wool products, as well as pulse crops.
    In Montana, we realize that 95 percent of the world's 
population lives outside the United States. To access these 
markets is critically important, certainly for some of our ag-
focused States.
    Believe it or not, Montana is the number one pulse crops 
producing State. Now what are pulse crops? You know what those 
are, but for the benefit of those who do not, it is peas, 
lentils, chickpeas. We are now number one. Our farmers realize 
that they put nitrogen actually back into the ground. Our wheat 
and barley producers are now rotating those crops in. It is a 
great success story to diversify our crops for sustainability.
    Access to India's pulse crop market is very important for 
our Montana farmers, for Montana jobs, and for our economy. 
Unfortunately, as you know, U.S. pulse crops face high tariffs, 
a very unfair playing field there with India. And that is why 
last year Senator Cramer and I sent President Trump a letter 
urging him to prioritize the issue. He took that letter 
directly to Prime Minister Modi in fact. In fact, the President 
sent me back a picture as they hand-delivered that letter to 
Prime Minister Modi during the visit.
    So my question for you: would you commit to engaging India 
on this issue and prioritize the removal of those tariffs and 
other barriers to trade with India as you look at more trade 
negotiations with India?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Daines, it is nice to see you as well. I 
know that our interests with India are manifold. I commit to 
you to having an awareness of the importance of pulse crops 
trade. And if confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the 
Indians on our trade relationship and will keep pulse crops in 
mind.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. It is very critical we support 
our pulse crop farmers. If we get a level playing field, we are 
going to see continued growth in overseas opportunities for us. 
So thank you for that.
    Shifting gears to TPP, back in 2018 I led over two dozen of 
my colleagues in sending a letter to President Trump urging him 
to reengage with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And I am 
calling on President Biden to do the same.
    I know politically that was not seen to be the most 
attractive issue at that time, but I believe strongly that this 
multilateral approach with our allies is very important to 
think about in the long term of trade.
    Given China's growing economic and geopolitical influence, 
it is essential that we work with our allies and partners in 
the region. We had a great conversation, and we both spent time 
living in China, working in Guangzhou. My question for you is, 
do you support reengaging with the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
and pursuing multilateral trade agreements with our friends and 
allies in APAC and around the world to improve access to 
important markets and counter China's growing influence?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Daines, again I know your interest in this 
area and your experience with respect to China and the Asia-
Pacific. To follow on the exchange I had earlier with Senator 
Carper, I want to emphasize that today, even today in 2021, the 
basic formula of TPP, which was to work with our partners with 
whom we have very important shared interests economically and 
strategically, and with the challenge of China in mind, is 
still a sound formula.
    I think that what I would add is that, a lot has changed in 
the world in the past 5 or 6 years. And a lot has changed in 
terms of our own awareness about some of the pitfalls of the 
trade policies that we have pursued as we have pursued them 
over the most recent years.
    So what I would say to you today is, with respect to 
working with other countries on a multilateral basis in the 
Asia-Pacific with the China challenge in mind, that if 
confirmed, those are absolutely elements that I believe are 
worth pursuing.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    I want to shift gears here--there are so many things to 
talk about in a short amount of time--and that is China and 
polysilicon. For years, the U.S. polysilicon industry has been 
targeted by China, and retaliatory tariffs are threatening 
high-wage manufacturing jobs--in fact, one of our facilities, 
REC Silicon in Butte, MT. Polysilicon was specifically included 
in the Phase One agreement as well, and China committed to 
opening its market but has failed to do so to this point.
    Could you provide any updates on any developments regarding 
polysilicon and how China is moving forward with any purchases?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Daines, I am sorry to hear, and I am upset 
to hear from the polysilicon industry that China has not 
followed through on promises that it made in that agreement. If 
confirmed, I want you to know that working on the relationship 
with China on the implementation of the China agreement, and to 
continuing to dynamically work on a vision for where we take 
the U.S.-China trade relationship, is absolutely critical in my 
mind.
    Senator Daines. Last quick question is----
    The Chairman. And very quickly.
    Senator Daines. I will go quickly. It is about beef, a big 
deal for us in Montana. I will be quick on this. If confirmed, 
would you work closely with USDA to remove these nontariff 
barriers relating to beef exports to our trading partners and 
advocate for science-based and rules-based standards?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Daines, if confirmed, yes.
    Senator Daines. We have three cows per person in Montana. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Very good. Thank you, colleague.
    Let's see; we have Senator Casey on the web.
    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. And I want 
to thank Ms. Tai for her willingness to continue public 
service. Just a remarkable personal story, and I want to 
commend you for the work you have already done, and we are 
inspired by your story and your commitment.
    I especially appreciated your reference to, quote, ``trade 
policies that enhance the interests of all Americans,'' 
unquote. I am putting the emphasis on the word ``all'' because 
all of course would include men and women having the 
opportunity, the equal opportunity, to reach their full 
potential and have the same opportunity to contribute to 
society. And that should be reflected in our trade policy, 
where we should affirm values that we all hold dear as 
Americans.
    Senator Cortez Masto and I have developed a series of 
policies to incorporate measures on women's--women's--economic 
empowerment and participation in our trade laws. And I know 
this is work that you are not only well familiar with, but have 
helped to advance.
    If confirmed as USTR, will you work with us in our efforts 
to incorporate measures on women's economic empowerment and 
participation in our trade laws and make this a priority at 
USTR?
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    Senator Casey. Thank you. It is great to have brevity in an 
answer that incorporates so much. We are not used to that.
    But I also wanted to add to that. As you undertake your 
work at USTR in furtherance of the President, President Biden's 
racial equity executive order, I want to note the 
intersectional issues of gender and race, and hope that they 
would be incorporated and considered. And I will assume your 
answer to that is ``yes'' as well.
    Let me move, secondly, to China. And I know that has been a 
focus of your attention and the attention of the members of the 
committee on so many fronts.
    We face just a myriad of challenges when it comes to the 
Chinese Government especially. We have to engage, I think, in 
coordinated efforts to address a number of issues. Market 
distortions is one. Second, subsidies. And third, 
anticompetitive behavior the Chinese Government engages in.
    Through our Trade Subcommittee in the Finance Committee, in 
the last Congress, Senator Cornyn and I worked on a range of 
issues posed by the Chinese Government, including the Belt and 
Road Initiative, extraterritorial censorship, and market access 
challenges.
    These, of course, are cross-cutting issues which will 
require both coordination and cooperation. You have 
significant--I think that is an understatement--significant 
experience in this regard. Can you discuss your observations 
with respect to the evolution of tactics and strategy employed 
by the Chinese Government in the trade and economic space and 
how USTR can work in coordination with the interagency to 
combat some of these efforts to support domestic production and 
competition?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Casey, I watched those hearings that you 
and Senator Cornyn have put on here in the Senate Finance 
Committee and appreciate the levels of expertise and interest 
that you have demonstrated with respect to our China trade and 
competition issues and challenges.
    I am just thinking through how to provide you with a pithy 
response to your really meaty question, and I think that what I 
would say is that, with respect to the nature of the Chinese 
challenges, I think it is clear that when we as Americans, with 
our economic traditions, look at the Chinese economy, what we 
see is an extremely formidable competitor where the State is 
able to conduct the economy almost like a conductor with an 
orchestra, whether or not through companies that are officially 
state-owned, or just companies that are part of the Chinese 
economy.
    I think that traditionally, we in our system have been very 
trusting of the free market, of the invisible hand that Adam 
Smith described in terms of the market forces taking care of 
our economy in global competition. And I think that what the 
most recent years have taught us is that we need to revisit how 
we conduct our economic activity, our cooperation, and our 
trade policies, not to become China but how to be true to 
ourselves and our traditions and be more strategic, knowing the 
quantity and the strategy and the ambition that we are up 
against.
    Senator Casey. Well, thanks very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Young?
    Senator Young. Welcome, Ms. Tai. It is good to see you 
again. I enjoyed our visit prior to this committee appearance.
    I know that a topic of mutual interest for you and me, and 
I also know the administration, is the issue of supply chains 
and domestic reshoring. In fact, I look forward to working with 
the administration and you on that. So much of the pandemic's 
negative impact can be attributed to this lack of domestic 
sourcing capacity for a variety of products: PPE, 
semiconductors, batteries, chemicals--you know, the list goes 
on and on.
    Compounding this problem is the fact that our supply chains 
are nearly solely reliant on manufacturing in China. The 
President's executive order released yesterday is, I would say, 
a step in the right direction, but I would caution you and 
others about timeliness and expediency.
    I have been in Congress long enough to know that these 
multi-agency reviews can take a lot longer than we hope for, 
and sometimes projected. And we have industries that know their 
own faults right now. But we cannot expect them to build a 
factory overnight. So I just hope that we approach this issue 
with great humility moving forward, and move as quickly as 
possible nonetheless.
    You and I have discussed various strategies to support 
domestic reshoring while ensuring that businesses are not 
further harmed during these strenuous times. ``Aggregated 
demand mapping'' is a term that most people are probably 
unfamiliar with, but it is something I think we may have 
discussed in our earlier conversation. So that is one area that 
is of great interest to me, and it pertains to supply chains.
    And then just more robust Federal support for U.S.-based 
innovation is also something I support. Both of these issues 
and policy initiatives are embedded in my legislation, the 
Endless Frontier Act, which would go a long way to both 
understanding and addressing the problem of supply chains.
    So, Ms. Tai, do you believe it is possible to work on 
understanding and addressing our supply chain problem 
simultaneously--understanding it, and addressing it at the same 
time?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Young, thank you for that question. I sure 
hope so, because I think that is exactly what we need to do.
    Senator Young. Okay. My sense is, that is the 
administration's objective, because with the executive order, 
attempting to understand it, there is still some lack of 
clarity as to what resources that had been publicly reported 
are going to be dedicated towards this issue, what they will be 
spent on as we seek to understand. So we need to strike the 
right balance there.
    What levers do you anticipate using to promote domestic 
reshoring?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Young, I think--as I am just thinking 
about it, if confirmed, I am really eager to get in and to have 
USTR do its part in this process.
    In terms of reshoring--and I like the term ``reshoring'' as 
opposed to ``onshoring,'' because reshoring suggests that we 
will be doing something here in the United States to rebuild 
our manufacturing capacity, to reindustrialize, but it also 
suggests that we will be taking another look at our supply 
chains and the partnerships that we have with other sources of 
supply.
    In terms of USTR's role, I think that there are clearly 
trade relationships, trusted trade relationships, that can be 
leveraged.
    Senator Young. Did Ambassador Lighthizer in the previous 
administration adopt the appropriate approach, in your view?
    Ms. Tai. Um, I am not quite sure--with respect to supply 
chain?
    Senator Young. With respect to reshoring.
    Ms. Tai. Oh, with respect to reshoring. You know, that is 
an interesting question. I think that I will have to think 
about it to give you my best answer, but I know that with 
respect to Ambassador Lighthizer's policies, there has been a 
lot of disruption and consternation that have accompanied some 
of those policies.
    I would want to accomplish similar goals----
    Senator Young. Yes----
    Ms. Tai [continuing]. In a more effective, process-driven 
manner.
    Senator Young. Let me ask you one more question here, 
knowing that intellectual property is really our value-added 
for so much of our economy. In my home State of Indiana, 
roughly $8 billion in R&D investments occur annually in the 
State of Indiana.
    In order to protect jobs and investments here domestically, 
we have to rein in abuses and focus on international IP law 
reforms. I know we are still trying to get clarity on President 
Biden's approach vis-a-vis China on a range of different 
issues, and he is working to bring clarity on those issues, I 
think, as well. But it can be assumed that he is not going to 
tolerate any sign of lapses in China's IP protections, or from 
other foreign countries.
    Can you elaborate briefly on how you would help to develop 
President Biden's coherent strategy to ensure that IP-intensive 
industries are supported through U.S. trade policy?
    Ms. Tai. Yes. Let me--let me think through your particular 
question. So, as you may know, Senator Young, President Biden 
and his administration are committed to undertaking a 
comprehensive China review. And that will involve IP 
protections, and it will also go across the board in terms of 
our strategic interests and across disciplinary policy areas.
    With respect to the specific issue of respect for 
intellectual property rights, I think that that is a particular 
example of just a flagrantly unfair trade action. And I want to 
acknowledge that the section 301 investigation that Ambassador 
Lighthizer started was based on a very voluminous and a lot of 
hard work in documenting really examples of that kind of abuse.
    So the section 301 investigation is itself one example of 
IP enforcement, and how far we can take it. I think that 
clearly there ought to be other tools as well. And I would be 
very interested, if confirmed, in working with you on these 
issues.
    The Chairman. We are way over here, and my colleague is 
talking about something very important here. We are going to 
need to call in some audibles here, I would say to the nominee, 
Ms. Tai.
    Senator Cortez Masto will chair and will ask some 
questions. I am going to run over and see if I can get back 
very quickly, but it is our intention, between Senator Crapo 
and I, to keep this going.
    Senator Cortez Masto, are you there?
    Senator Cortez Masto. I am here; thank you.
    The Chairman. Wonderful. Thank you, colleagues, so much, 
and you are recognized, and I will run over and be right back, 
and we thank our nominee for her patience.
    Senator Cortez Masto [presiding]. Thank you.
    First of all, let me start off by thanking you and 
congratulating you, Ms. Tai, on your nomination. I too am 
excited. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.
    Let me start by asking a few questions here, and then I 
will open it up to others as well. This past October, the 
former administration issued a proclamation that increased 
tariffs on solar energy to 18 percent in 2021 from the 
previously announced level of 15 percent.
    The proclamation also authorized a new investigation that 
could extend these tariffs beyond the 4 years originally 
levied. At the end of last year, I signed on to a letter with 
several of my colleagues urging the Biden administration to 
repeal these tariffs, as they have resulted in nearly 62,000 
workers being either laid off or never hired, as well as the 
loss of 10.5 gigawatts of solar capacity.
    So my question to you is, if confirmed, what would be your 
approach to reviewing and addressing this issue?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cortez Masto, the solar section 201 
safeguard action has been going on for a number of years, and 
so I am familiar with its origins and some of the developments 
since then.
    I think that one of the challenging aspects of a case like 
this one is that you have petitioners here in the United States 
who sought the review and won the remedy. And here we are, 
because it has impacts on different sides of the industry in 
the United States where we find ourselves really challenged to 
figure out how to thread the needle in a situation where an 
industry is trying to stay afloat in the face of China 
cornering the market on solar panels.
    So I want to just start by acknowledging that this is a 
really tough issue. If confirmed--USTR does have a role to play 
with respect to the section 201 process, and I commit to you to 
engaging in that process in good faith, and keeping in good 
touch with Senators like yourself who have a stake in the 
outcome of this proceeding.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And that is really all I 
could ask right now. Thank you for that commitment. I think 
that is so helpful.
    Let me jump to an issue that Senator Casey also talked to 
you about. As you are aware, legal authorization for the 
Generalized System of Preferences program expired on December 
31st in 2020. As a result, U.S. imports entering the United 
States after that date that were previously eligible for duty-
free treatment under GSP are subject to regular, normal trade 
relation rates of duty.
    Prior to its expiration, Senator Casey and I introduced the 
Women's Economic Empowerment Trade Act to ensure countries 
receiving trade preferences under GSP strengthen standards on 
workers rights and the rights of women.
    So can you discuss your thoughts on GSP? And do you see a 
need to update GSP to ensure stronger standards and equity in 
representation?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Cortez Masto, I know that GSP enjoys 
bipartisan support up here, on the Hill in particular. And if 
confirmed, I look forward to engaging from USTR on efforts that 
I know are ongoing here on the Hill to update and to continue 
the GSP program.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for that.
    Let me talk a little bit about China's Belt and Road. One 
area I am proud of in Congress's work in response to the China 
challenge is what we have done to respond to China's Belt and 
Road Initiative. And although there is more work to be done, we 
passed bipartisan legislation, which I supported, to establish 
the Development Finance Corporation.
    I remain dedicated to ensuring the United States is 
stepping up to the plate to address the challenges and 
opportunities posed by competition with China.
    From your perspective, what measures should Congress be 
taking, like the Development Finance Corporation, to improve 
the U.S.'s ability to compete with China?
    Ms. Tai. Well, Senator Cortez Masto, I just want to 
acknowledge my awareness of the high levels of energy, 
interest, and innovative thinking in the Congress about this 
very question of how the United States can compete more 
effectively with China.
    So with respect to the Development Finance entity that you 
described, and what else Congress may want to do, I just want 
to indicate to you that, if confirmed, I will be very 
interested in being part of the administration's conversation 
with Congress about what we do in our whole-of-government 
approach to addressing this question.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Ms. Tai, thank you. I know my time is 
up, but I thank you so much for your willingness to serve, and 
congratulations again on your nomination.
    Now, let me go through the list to see who might be next in 
line to ask questions. Is Senator Warner available? I know many 
of the Senators are on the floor voting right now. Is Senator 
Warner available?
    [No response.]
    Senator Cortez Masto. If not, we will move to Senator 
Sasse.
    [No response.]
    Senator Cortez Masto. All right, let's try for Senator 
Whitehouse.
    [No response.]
    Senator Cortez Masto. All right, I understand Senator 
Barrasso is available in there. Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. I am in the 
committee room.
    And congratulations, Ms. Tai. Thank you for taking the time 
to visit with me last week by phone. I enjoyed it very much. 
Congratulations again.
    As we discussed, one of the issues that is so critically 
important to my home State of Wyoming is soda ash. And I think 
you, in the introduction, talked about your parents coming to 
the country because of efforts by President John Kennedy. I 
think I mentioned to you that, when Caroline Kennedy was 
nominated to be Ambassador to Japan, she came here and we 
talked about soda ash. Since then, she always, every time I see 
her, she refers to me as ``Senator Soda Ash.'' So it is really 
critically important to our State. In the United States, our 
natural soda ash is refined from a mineral called ``trona.''
    The Green River Basin in Wyoming has the world's largest 
trona deposit. Soda ash is a key manufacturing component for 
glass, detergent, soaps, chemicals. U.S. natural soda ash sets 
the standard for quality, for purity, energy efficiency, and 
production. And, like many U.S. industries, soda ash faces 
significant trade barriers around the world.
    So, as part of your effort to promote U.S. industries in 
international markets, will you commit to advocate for 
eliminating trade barriers for soda ash and other important 
U.S. industries in the international marketplace?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Barrasso, the short answer is ``yes.'' I 
want to let you know that I did a little bit of my own research 
on soda ash in your State, the trona ore. You mentioned that 
one of the benefits of producing soda ash from trona ore is 
that it is more clean, the process we have here, and in terms 
of the competition that soda ash producers face. They are 
facing producers who are working with dirtier processes. So I 
just want to say ``yes''--in terms of working through our trade 
policies, in advancing our soda ash producers, but also my 
interest, if confirmed, in working with the other parts of the 
government to look at the question more holistically in terms 
of how we advantage our producers.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, I appreciate that very much.
    I did want to talk about energy. In 2019, the United States 
became a net energy exporter for the first time since 1952.
    U.S. energy independence, I believe, is critically 
important for our national security. American energy production 
provides good jobs, funding for the schools and public 
services, all of these things.
    So the United States' liquefied natural gas and other 
energy exports limit the ability of countries like Russia to 
wield energy supplies as geopolitical weapons. There is no 
evidence that a reduction in U.S. fossil fuel production is 
going to in any way reduce global production or consumption of 
energy derived from fossil fuels. The need worldwide is going 
to continue, whether we make it here or whether we have just 
become dependent on Saudi Arabia, or we turn the market over to 
Russia or other countries.
    Can you please explain how the U.S. Trade Representative, 
under your leadership, is going to support and encourage 
growing our energy exports and the jobs that are so critical 
that this industry provides?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Barrasso, let me acknowledge that energy 
policy is critical, and I know that in these winter months it 
is on the minds of many Americans in terms of our access to 
energy and having good energy policy.
    Let me also acknowledge my own limitations in terms of my 
background in this area. Obviously we do trade in energy, 
import and export. But I also know that this is an area where, 
if confirmed, USTR will need to work closely with other 
departments of the administration--the Department of Energy, 
primarily in my mind--in terms of what we do for U.S. policy. 
And I look forward to doing that.
    Senator Barrasso. Could I also ask you about U.S. beef and 
cattle production? And cattle producers in Wyoming and across 
the West are responsible stewards of pastures and rangelands. 
We sequester carbon while producing a premium product on land 
that is typically not suitable for growing other food products.
    I know Senator Daines has talked to you about that as well. 
He and I went to China and took U.S. beef with us to China. And 
as climate and environment concerns begin to have a greater 
role in international trade policies, will you commit to 
working with the cattle producers to defend our science-based 
production practices and show the rest of the world how 
American cattle producers are really part of the solution and 
not the problem?
    Ms. Tai. If confirmed, Senator Barrasso, it would be my 
pleasure to work with the American cattle ranchers on their 
solution to the problem and advancing their interests.
    Senator Barrasso. And my final question--I am running out 
of time--how does the U.S. Trade Rep intend to protect U.S. 
farmers and ranchers overall?
    Ms. Tai. So that is an important question, Senator 
Barrasso, and it gives me an opportunity to reinforce a point I 
made earlier, which is, in thinking about crafting a worker-
centered trade policy, that very much has in mind agricultural 
workers and the need to break out of the pattern of pitting one 
sector of our workers against another sector.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, and congratulations 
again on your nomination. Thank you.
    Ms. Tai. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. I think, Ms. Tai, I am up 
next, and chairing for the moment as well. So thank you very 
much for being here. I wish you every success. I am delighted 
that you raised climate at the front of your priorities list. 
That may have been alphabetical, but I hope it actually was 
not.
    We, I believe, in Congress live in a fairyland of folly 
about how serious this problem is that is brought on primarily 
by the fact that we live in a world in which fossil fuel 
influence has more clout than fact. So I am delighted to see 
that.
    I am also delighted that your introducers described you as 
somebody who would be all about enforcement, enforcement, and 
enforcement. I hope that is true. I have been in Congress 14 
years, and enforcement has never been an adequate priority, in 
my view, ever.
    So I hope when you are done improving enforcement, you then 
improve enforcement, and then you improve enforcement again.
    There are two topics I would like to touch with you on. 
First is the ISDS issue. In my view, when big American 
industries deploy legions of lawyers to intimidate small 
countries--like the way the tobacco industry went after little 
Togo on the African coast--when they are trying to protect 
their people, these countries, from the dangers of the products 
of those big lawyer-laden industries, that may be good for the 
industry, but that is also the face of America. And it is a 
lasting face of America for the people in the country who were 
bullied through this process.
    And it is not the face of America that I think we want to 
see. We are a country that lives in many respects by virtue of 
the power of our example, and of our principles, and of our 
values. And the face that we present to, particularly smaller 
countries I think, is vitally important.
    So I urge you to think of that in the way in which we 
handle all these ISDS supports. The tobacco industry has 
revenue far greater than that of the government of little Togo, 
and going after them the way they did was disgraceful and 
damaged us with not only the Togolese, but also many other 
countries that witnessed that phenomenon.
    That has to stop. That is not the way America should 
present itself to the world. It has foreign policy and national 
security consequences when we let that run wild. So I hope that 
you will take that to heart as we look at the ISDS problem.
    Is that a fair comment, in your view?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Whitehouse, you have made clear your views 
and critiques of ISDS. On this, I would just acknowledge and 
recognize that President Biden himself has articulated his 
opposition to ISDS on the basis of the chilling effects it has 
on other countries' policy-making.
    And I think that the other data point that I would share 
is, Ambassador Lighthizer himself also had real objections to 
ISDS.
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes. There were surprising improvements 
in the USMCA that I was actually surprised and pleased by.
    The last topic for me is that our oceans are being trashed 
right now. There is bipartisan support here to fix that. We 
have done a lot of work on measures that have passed by 
unanimous consent. We have set up new funding. We have given 
USAID new programs. There has been a lot of work, and there is 
more coming.
    But even with the stated support for cleaning up the 
plastic trash in the ocean from the previous President, from 
his Secretary of State, and from Ambassador Lighthizer, when he 
actually got to the negotiation to try to do something about 
the plastics problem, every time there was a conference on this 
subject, what came out of it in the press was that the United 
States had been the obstacle. The United States had been the 
laggard. The United States had been the spoiler.
    And I do not know what happened between President Trump and 
Secretary Pompeo and Trade Representative Lighthizer and those 
negotiating teams that caused those negotiating teams to feel 
comfortable being the worst player in the room trying to solve 
this problem, but that really has to stop, in my view.
    And this is not an issue in which big business--in your 
position, big business is going to be pressuring you like 
almost nobody else in government. They want their stuff through 
trade and, as you know, you will be living at the center point 
of an enormous press in corporate forces. None of them are 
going to be pressing to clean up our oceans.
    That is going to have to be on you and on your team to make 
sure that that stays at the front of the agenda. Are you ready 
to do that?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Whitehouse, I know your interest and 
passion on this particular issue, and I was really well 
educated in our first conversation by you on congressional 
efforts and the fact that they are bipartisan on this issue. I 
want to acknowledge that USMCA's environmental chapter has 
language that addresses marine debris and the ocean plastics 
problem, and that in the renegotiation between the Democrats 
and the Trump administration there were additional 
appropriations that were made available to support U.S. 
Government efforts.
    So let me just say that this is very much on my mind, in 
particular because it is so important to you, and I think that 
there is an important and positive role for USTR to play, and 
if confirmed, I will follow up on this.
    Senator Whitehouse. Good. So will I.
    And I turn over now to the redoubtable Senator Hassan of 
New Hampshire.
    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Senator Whitehouse. And 
consider this New England neighbor another salt water Senator 
who cares a great deal about marine debris, as do members of 
both parties, as you heard.
    And I want to thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo 
for holding what is truly an important hearing today, and thank 
you, Ms. Tai, for not only appearing here but for your 
willingness to serve our country during this difficult time. 
And thank you to your family as well.
    I want to follow up on a discussion that I know you have 
already had with some of the other committee members. I was 
encouraged by the bipartisan discussion that I joined at the 
White House yesterday on securing and strengthening U.S. supply 
chains. We have to take on the Chinese Government and reinvest 
in American manufacturing in order to protect our national 
security, our public health, and our economic independence.
    The President's executive order yesterday is a necessary 
first step to rebuilding our domestic supply chains for 
strategically critical technology, and the supplies we need to 
address COVID-19, for example.
    I know others have asked some questions about this, so 
could you follow up on those previous questions and expand on 
the importance of building resilience in securing domestic 
supply chains? And can you give the committee a sense of the 
USTR's role in implementing the presidential view of 
strategically critical U.S. industries?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Hassan, I would be pleased to. I think 
that I may have mentioned earlier, but the COVID-19 pandemic in 
particular provided those of us working on trade policy with a 
lot of food for thought about the supply chain disruptions, and 
how we could find ourselves in such a vulnerable position 
scrambling for goods that the rest of the world needed all at 
the same time.
    I think that has led to some very reflective and positive 
bipartisan conversations around not just the supply chain 
strategy itself, but also its implications for how we adjust 
the assumptions that we build into our trade policies and what 
we try to accomplish with our trade policies.
    On your second question of USTR's role in the 
administration's effort that was rolled out yesterday, if 
confirmed, I really look forward to bringing USTR and all of 
its talents and insights to bear on the interagency process, 
and in the conversation with Congress, to craft the best 
strategic policies we can to put the U.S. on the strongest 
footing we can.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you.
    I want to talk about another issue. Ms. Tai, exports of 
manufactured products support 18,000 jobs in my State. New 
Hampshire's largest manufacturing export category is computer 
and electronics products, which make up about one-fourth of 
our--actually, a little bit over a fourth of our exports.
    How will you work at USTR to support U.S. manufacturing 
jobs and strengthen U.S. exports in the computer and 
electronics industry?
    Ms. Tai. Well, Senator Hassan, if confirmed and at USTR, I 
would be delighted to work with you and your State and your 
stakeholders on supporting their productivity and their access 
to export markets.
    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you. That is something I look 
forward to working on with you as well. I spoke with President 
Biden about this issue yesterday when we were at the White 
House, and it includes the critical need to invest in domestic 
production of semiconductors, which I know other people have 
talked to you about. We do not want to cede that to China 
either. And I look forward to working with you on that.
    One other issue, if I could. The bipartisan U.S.-Mexico-
Canada Agreement cut red tape for small exporters by expanding 
electronic filing of Customs forms and making more exports into 
Mexico and Canada tariff-free. The small business chapter of 
the USMCA also created a committee dedicated to giving a voice 
to small businesses in shaping trade policy.
    Will you work at USTR to ensure that small businesses are 
represented on this committee, and to ensure that the views of 
the committee are reflected in our efforts to support 
innovative U.S. businesses that are competing in the global 
economy?
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. I yield the rest of my 
time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. And I think we have had 
a number of Senators pitching in in the collegial Finance 
Committee fashion, and I thank them all.
    I think now we have, on the web, first Senator Warren and 
then Senator Toomey, and we may have a couple of others, and I 
thank our nominee for her patience. We are going to--I think--
finish before the time that it took with your colleague, Mr. 
Becerra, and that will be good.
    Okay; Senator Warren?
    Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So trade agreements have a tremendous impact on our 
economy. They touch everything that people have been talking 
about this morning, from jobs and wages to the quality of the 
air we breathe.
    Ms. Tai, I want to talk about processes, the way processes 
produce rigged outcomes. And I am worried that the processes 
that structure our trade policy are stacking the deck against 
American families.
    One big piece of this is, who is actually writing our trade 
deals? When the people who are whispering in the ears of our 
trade negotiators are corporate executives and industry 
lobbyists, you can bet that the outcome is probably not going 
to be great for American workers and American families. And 
that is exactly what happened with TPP. About 85 percent of the 
people sitting in on our Trade Advisory Committees when that 
deal was negotiated were representatives from corporations and 
industry. And by the way, it took months to even uncover this 
information. It was not even publicly listed.
    So, Ms. Tai, do I have your commitment that each of our 
existing Trade Advisory Committees will have more 
representatives from labor, consumer, and environmental groups 
than from corporations?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Warren, thank you for your question. I 
know how important this is to you, and I wanted to share with 
you as well that I am a firm believer that good process 
provides good substance.
    In terms of the composition of the advisory committees, I 
commit to you to reviewing how those advisory committees are 
composed. There is a statute that governs in this area, and I 
will be very eager, if confirmed, to come back to you to look 
at that statute and to look at how the composition of those 
advisory committees actually happens.
    Senator Warren. Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate 
that you are going to come back to me on this. But I have to 
say that if the administration will not ensure that the 
interests of American workers and American families are 
prioritized over corporations when we are writing trade deals, 
then we are never going to get beyond a trade policy that 
leaves American families on the losing side.
    This needs to happen. So I am looking forward to following 
up on this.
    I want to ask you about another important piece of process, 
and that is about what the public is allowed to see before 
trade deals are enacted. After corporate executives and 
lobbyists are done shaping the terms of an agreement, Congress 
is usually asked to fast-track it--you know, greasing the skids 
so that that agreement can pass with a simple up or down vote, 
no ability to make changes on it.
    But the public does not actually know what their 
representatives are fast-tracking, because they never got to 
see the agreement. It is secret. So workers and families have 
no idea how corporations may have thrown them under the bus 
until after Congress has already tied its hands and given up 
some of its ability to fix the agreement.
    So it is time, I believe, that Americans should be able to 
see for themselves whether or not trade deals that are being 
negotiated are actually good deals for them and for their 
families.
    Can you commit to releasing the draft bracketed text of any 
trade agreement under negotiation at least 2 months before 
Congress is asked to fast-track it, give us a chance to read 
it?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Warren, I want to make clear to you how 
important the principles are that you are articulating here 
with respect to those who advise our trade negotiators, and 
with respect to making the results of trade negotiations 
available to the public. So I want to start from there.
    I maybe want to go a step further and let you know that 
this interest in transparency and connecting with the American 
people directly on our trade policies, in my mind goes beyond 
what we do in the context of negotiating large trade 
agreements, and I very much hope, if confirmed, to bring these 
principles to the conduct of U.S. trade policy on a day-to-day 
basis
    Senator Warren. Well, I very much appreciate that you want 
to engage with the American people on this, but what I am 
really looking for here is a hard commitment. You know, to me 
this is another place where the administration needs to take a 
hard line.
    Trade negotiations must be open and transparent to the 
public. And without that commitment, you are denying Americans 
the ability to know if what is being negotiated on their behalf 
actually benefits them, because they do not get any real input 
into the process. But trade agreements need to happen on terms 
that strengthen American workers and the American economy.
    And if we want American families to come out ahead on trade 
deals, we need to start by fixing the processes that have 
produced these rigged outcomes. We need to make sure that 
representatives from labor and consumer and environmental 
groups, not just from corporations, are the ones who are 
filling the seats at the table.
    And we need to give the public an opportunity to actually 
see and evaluate the trade agreement that will have such a huge 
impact on their lives and on their communities. This would be a 
really big step toward making our trade policy work better for 
America.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Is my colleague from Massachusetts finished?
    Senator Warren. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Next will be Senator Scott.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tai, thank you 
for your willingness to serve our Nation.
    As you may know, I worked closely with your predecessor on 
the issue of seasonality. I consistently hear from my growers 
in South Carolina and agricultural producers back home about 
the unfair trade practices and disadvantages they continue to 
face as they compete with foreign food producers.
    Our current policies, frankly, or the lack thereof, force 
my producers to compete against subsidized foreign growers with 
one hand tied behind their back, while continuing to grapple 
with the pandemic at the exact same time.
    Given your experience negotiating USMCA, and understanding 
that seasonality was included as a TPA negotiating priority, if 
confirmed, will you commit to working with me on this issue and 
keeping me updated on the steps taken to make sure that we 
address the unfair trade practices that put American farmers 
last?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Scott, yes.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, ma'am.
    As we work to recover from the recession the pandemic 
caused, we must continue to put America's workers, small 
businesses that employ them, and all job creators first.
    President Biden, a long-time ally of labor leaders, has 
been vocal about his plan to pursue a worker-centric trade 
policy agenda. Today, roughly 10.8 percent of all wage and 
salaried workers in this country are members of unions--it is 
their right--including thousands of South Carolina's employees.
    What can we expect this worker-centric trade policy agenda 
to encompass, and if confirmed, can you assure me that the 
roughly 90 percent of American workers and 98 percent of South 
Carolina's workers who are not union members will also stand to 
benefit from the agenda?
    Ms. Tai. Thank you for this important question and 
opportunity to elaborate on the spirit of a worker-centered 
trade policy, Senator Scott. I want to assure you, as I have 
done earlier with some of your colleagues on the committee, 
that in a worker-centered trade policy, the term ``worker'' 
really is expansive and covers our workers in all different 
segments of our economy and industries, and workers who are 
unionized and workers who are not unionized.
    If you are an American and you work, you are an American 
worker, as I envision the way we are talking about this.
    The other element I would like to highlight for you is 
that, in talking about a worker-centered trade policy, it 
really is a signal that the patterns that we have had in our 
earlier trade policies, where regular Americans, regular 
workers, may have felt that their livelihoods were being traded 
away for other interests in our trade policies, that is a 
pattern that we are trying to break out of.
    Senator Scott. Well, Ms. Tai, I will just say that there is 
no doubt in my mind that folks back in South Carolina in my 
textile industry, and throughout the State, who saw their jobs 
and their companies just shuttered, or destroyed during 
previous trade negotiations, welcome that definition of a 
worker-centric approach. So thank you, very much.
    A critical part of South Carolina's economy is the advanced 
manufacturing and automotive sectors. These industries 
significantly contribute to our growth, workforce development, 
and frankly the exporting power of the State. Roughly one in 10 
jobs in South Carolina is supported by manufacturing. 
International automakers alone generated nearly 80,000 jobs in 
the State before the pandemic.
    This is why I believe it is so important that we work to 
reduce trade barriers and unleash the full potential of our 
Nation's exporting capabilities. Key to this is ensuring the 
speedy and proper implementation of the USMCA.
    If confirmed, will you commit to consulting with those in 
the manufacturing, automotive, and agricultural sectors to 
ensure any obstacles that arise during USMCA implementation are 
addressed?
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your time.
    Ms. Tai. Thank you.
    The Chairman. All right, let's see. I believe we are 
waiting for Senator Warner.
    Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I am here.
    The Chairman. Why don't you go ahead, Senator Warner?
    Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Tai, thank you for being with us today, and I 
appreciate your willingness to serve.
    I want to go back to some questions on China, and I think I 
have tried over the last few years to always make the point 
that, in talking about China, my beef is with the Communist 
Party of China and President Xi Jinping, and it is not with the 
Chinese people. And I think that message needs to be always 
reflected.
    One of the areas that I have been very active on the last 
couple of years is how we deal with the question of Huawei. And 
I think finally we have come to some policies that have been 
able to keep Huawei out of the American market, but the truth 
is, protecting a secure digital infrastructure has never been a 
priority in our trade negotiations. If we simply keep Huawei 
out of American domestic markets but Huawei gets the rest of 
the world, we are not going to be successful.
    So I think we should have been aware of this earlier. 
Digital security of our infrastructure ought to be in part of 
our trade organizations. So will you support including the 
promotion of secure and trusted digital infrastructure, 
including potential prohibitions on reliance on untrusted 
vendors, in any future TPA efforts? And I actually have a bill 
on this with Senator Thune, so I want to make sure I give 
Senator Thune appropriate credit as well.
    Ms. Tai. Senator Warner, thank you. And I am aware of the 
legislation that you and Senator Thune have worked on before. I 
think that the issue of our critical infrastructure and its 
reliability, and the degree to which we can trust it, is of the 
highest level of importance.
    And with respect to being informed by this issue and these 
types of issues in our trade policy, what I would share with 
you is, if confirmed, my inclination is to take this beyond 
just the informing of objectives for a trade agreement 
negotiation, to say that this is something that I think that 
the U.S. Government, the administration, and the Congress 
should be laser-focused on across the board.
    Senator Warner. Thank you.
    One of the things I think--and I am seeing this more from 
my role on the Intelligence Committee, where the chairman 
serves with me--is that for a long time in this country, we 
kind of presumed that virtually every major innovation would 
take place in America, or if it did not take place in America, 
we would be able to set the rules, protocols, and standards. I 
think 5G is the first place where, again, we have seen China 
start to take that increasingly important role.
    I fear that we could see a duplication of that in 
artificial intelligence, facial recognition, quantum computing, 
a host of other areas. It is not directly USTR's 
responsibility, but my fear is what I call the authoritarian 
capitalism model where China allows a national champion to 
emerge that dominates 75, 80 percent of the Chinese market, 
which translates into 20, 25 percent of the global market. And 
then it gets virtually unlimited Chinese Government support to 
expand. That is a business model where any American and, for 
that matter, any western company will be at a disadvantage.
    So I would like you to talk a little bit about your views 
around multilateralism and the fact that I really think, around 
technology development, we are going to need a coalition of the 
willing that includes not simply our Five Eyes in NATO, but the 
Japans and the South Koreas and Taiwans and Singapores, India 
and Israel. But how do we think about this broad-based 
technology competition?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Warner, I think you are also asking 
questions that get to the heart of the vision that we need to 
have for the role that the United States plays in the future of 
our world, and in our global relationships.
    The technology race implicates fundamental aspects of our 
political and economic value. And also it implicates this 
notion of trust that we have in the providers and in the 
designers of technology development that is touching all of our 
lives so directly and so comprehensively--so in terms of the 
elements that you have just mentioned: multilateralism, working 
with others, really thinking strategically ahead about how we 
work through challenges and opportunities with respect to our 
technology, our trade and economic policies, and our strategic 
relationships.
    I, if confirmed, look forward to engaging in these issues 
in depth with yourself and with your colleagues.
    Senator Warner. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I just want to say, there are--I think your point 
that there are values that are actually reflected sometimes in 
technology standards is a point that sometimes is overlooked. 
So I really look forward to supporting you and working with 
you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. And, Ms. Tai, I think 
that--oh, excuse me. Senator Toomey awaits on the web.
    Senator Toomey, I did not mean to intentionally pass over 
you.
    Senator Toomey. I am sure you would not do that. Can you 
hear me okay?
    The Chairman. Perfectly.
    Senator Toomey. Okay; thank you very much.
    Ms. Tai, thank you, and thanks for your----
    The Chairman. Senator Toomey, now you are coming in a 
little bit faint. If you can be a little louder----
    Senator Toomey. Okay, am I coming through?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Toomey. Okay. Ms. Tai, thank you for your endurance 
here. I am hoping I am last, for your sake.
    I want to go back to some process issues here. Article I, 
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress 
the responsibility to, quote, ``levy and collect taxes and 
duties,'' end quote, and also to, quote ``regulate commerce 
with foreign nations,'' end quote.
    [Sound interference.]
    Senator Toomey. So that makes it clear that the regulation 
of trade is a power of Congress.
    Now as we know, as a condition of Congress's delegation of 
some of our constitutional trade powers to the executive 
branch, Congress has specified certain consultation and 
reporting requirements to ensure that the executive branch is 
pursuing a path that Congress supports.
    In my view, the previous administration did not always 
follow all of these requirements. So can you commit to us that 
you will follow and adhere to all of the consultation, 
disclosure, and fine-line requirements under TPA, if we are 
pursuing a trade agreement under TPA?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Toomey, thank you. Article I, section 8 is 
seared into my awareness from my 7 years working on the Hill. I 
want to reinforce your description of the relationship and the 
partnership that is required between the administration and 
Congress on trade as a constitutional and legal matter.
    I would just add that the creation of the Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, and this particular position of U.S. 
Trade Representative, is a creation of Congress. This function 
was taken out of its traditional place inside the State 
Department, put inside the Office of the President, and made 
responsive to Congress.
    So I would be willing to do you one better and say, 
separate from the specific statutory expression of the deal 
that is struck for a TPA, that you have my commitment that the 
good process that leads to good substance starts with good 
process and relationship between the U.S. Trade Representative 
and the Congress.
    Senator Toomey. Right. So you will adhere to the 
consultation, disclosure, and timeline requirements?
    Ms. Tai. Yes.
    Senator Toomey. Okay.
    As you may recall, the previous administration also failed 
to comply with one of the longstanding norms. Although it is 
not explicitly required in the statute, a mock markup has been 
the process by which the Senate Finance Committee has expressed 
its views about the implementing legislation.
    There was no mock markup for the USMCA. So my question is, 
again, if we are pursuing a trade agreement pursuant to TPA, 
and this committee requests your presence for a mock markup, 
will you make yourself available and cooperate with us so that 
we can use that traditional mechanism for communicating our 
concerns and interests?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Toomey, the letter and the spirit of the 
law are important to me, as a matter of rule of law and good 
governance in the U.S. Government. And so my answer to you is, 
``yes.''
    Senator Toomey. Great. Thank you.
    As you know, the previous administration also repeatedly 
threatened to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA prior 
to the completion and adoption of USMCA. The Senate Finance 
Committee added report language to the USMCA legislation that 
says, and I quote, ``The United States cannot withdraw from a 
congressionally approved trade agreement without the consent of 
Congress,'' end quote.
    So do you agree with this committee's position that as a 
legal matter, a President cannot unilaterally withdraw from a 
congressionally passed trade deal without Congress's consent?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Toomey, because you are speaking to me, 
and I have a law degree and also two bar licenses, I have to 
confess to you that I have not, myself, studied the legal 
question to the point where I can say that to you definitively, 
but let me say to you what I can, as of today, which is, again, 
my conviction that the best U.S. trade policy is trade policy 
that has strong, robust, bipartisan support and is crafted 
through the partnership of the administration and Congress.
    Senator Toomey. Okay.
    Let's talk about some of the trade agreements that we might 
pursue under the Biden administration. And I would just like to 
get a sense of how you think about trade agreements.
    So, specifically, if we are engaged--if we have a trade 
agreement with a modern, developed economy, in an ideal world, 
in your ideal world, would the goal of that trade agreement be 
to end up with a mutual and reciprocal zero-tariff, zero-quota, 
zero-obstacles-to-trade arrangement with respect to goods and 
services between our country and that modern, developed 
economy?
    Ms. Tai. Senator Toomey, that is a great question, and a 
really intellectually stimulating one, because I know you are 
serving up to me a certain set of facts that are very clean. 
But I have to confess to you my dilemma is that, maybe if you 
had asked me this question 5 or 10 years ago, I would have been 
inclined to say ``yes.'' But sitting here before you today in 
2021, having gone through 4 years of Trump administration trade 
policies, the previous years of efforts to negotiate the TPP, 
and the last year of living in a pandemic world, I think that 
our trade policies need to be nuanced and need to take into 
account all of the lessons that we have learned--many of them 
very painful--from our most recent history.
    And so, while I acknowledge this may be frustrating to you, 
I think that the most intellectually honest answer I can give 
to you right now is, I am not sure, and I think it would really 
depend on the specific facts, the specific partner, and the 
kinds of consultations that we have with Senators like yourself 
and your constituents and our stakeholders.
    Senator Toomey. Well, I have more than run out of time, but 
I do have to say I am very disappointed with that answer. I 
thought, within the caveats that I laid out, the answer should 
be pretty clear. But that does give me some concern about what 
your goals would be in a negotiation. But I see I am over my 
limit, and I thank the chairman for his indulgence.
    The Chairman. I thank our colleague.
    Ms. Tai, it has been a long morning, now seeping into the 
afternoon, and I thank you for your patience and your family's. 
I just want to highlight a couple of points.
    I appreciated your picking up on that point I made when we 
were having discussions with respect to trade really being 
about expanding the winner's circle. Because for so much of 
this debate--and I am going to talk a little about 
transparency--people, I believe, just feel in the dark, and 
sort of almost feel out of control. You know, the world has 
shrunk, with both modern communications and modern 
transportation.
    People hear all about these trade agreements and they say, 
``I don't know. I have to know more about what this means.'' 
And that is part of the transparency debate. And it seems to me 
that what we have been discussing, this idea that on your watch 
under President Biden's leadership, we would expand the 
winner's circle, kind of makes the point of really trade done 
right. Because if you can grow it at home, and make it at home, 
and add value to it at home--which so often helps to boost 
wages, which is hugely important in America--then you expand 
the winner's circle.
    And that is what Senator Crapo and I are going to be doing 
in terms of leading this committee on the semiconductor issue. 
We have it in our States, and we have these companies that pay 
good wages, high-skill jobs, and I have companies that arguably 
are pure technology companies, that are ideally positioned, if 
government policies make sense, to capture even a greater 
space, particularly in what I call expanding the winner's 
circle.
    Now, on the transparency issue, I want to give you a little 
bit of an insight into where we have been without chewing up a 
lot of time, because I think this is so important. You heard 
members on both sides of the committee talk about how we need 
more transparency.
    So I have made this a calling card in my time in public 
service. I have had 970 open-to-everybody town hall meetings. 
No speeches. Just come in, people; ask anything you want.
    And for years in the discussion of trade, people would say, 
``Ron, I don't know anything about this. I've been reading, and 
I can't figure out what this is all about.''
    And finally, there was a change to make sure that a trade 
agreement has to be public for at least 60 days before it is 
signed by the President. But I think so much more needs to be 
done to open this process up.
    And what I would like to ask of you--and I realize that we 
have not gotten into it--could you and your people, and I say 
when you are confirmed, because I believe you will be 
confirmed, within say 30 days of your taking office, when I 
believe you are confirmed, could you get to the bipartisan 
leadership and share with members your ideas for the next steps 
on transparency?
    Ms. Tai. I would be happy to.
    The Chairman. Very good. And finally, I just want to end 
where we talk a little bit about you. You have been there, and 
you have done it all on these trade issues. I mean, rarely do 
we get somebody who is so experienced and savvy on the 
challenges. And you know you are going to have heavy lifting. 
You could spend your entire time just on China and do nothing 
else, because it is such a consequential relationship. Probably 
the only thing we have not touched on with respect to China--
and Senator Crapo and I have talked about it--is the Chinese 
really regard economic security and national security as two 
sides of the same coin.
    So we have some heavy lifting to do here. I think you are 
uniquely qualified. And I have enjoyed my time in public 
service, but I think one of the most enjoyable moments to come 
will be to go out on the floor of the United States Senate 
after you get a resounding vote of approval in this committee, 
with Senator Crapo, and we can in effect present your 
nomination to the whole Senate. And I look forward to that day 
very much. And I so appreciate the sweat equity that you put in 
to making it possible for your family to be here, and our 
special bond as first-generation immigrants.
    Let me give the last word to my friend, Senator Crapo.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you, Senator Wyden. I will be 
brief. I again want to also thank you, Ms. Tai, for your 
willingness to serve, and spending your time here with us today 
to discuss your nomination.
    I think that you have proven out what I suggested in my 
opening statement, that you have the training, the background, 
the experience, and the capabilities to do this job, and to do 
it well.
    We all look forward to working with you to make sure the 
priorities that we have, and that we have shown that you share, 
are achieved, and that we not only show that trade is a 
bipartisan issue in Congress, but it is one where we can build 
a very strong, unified approach with the administration and 
move forward to significantly expand the opportunities for the 
American worker and American businesses in this country.
    Thank you, very much.
    The Chairman. One little bit of procedural work to do, and 
we will wrap up. Regarding questions for the record, the 
deadline for members of the committee to submit these questions 
will be tomorrow, Friday, February 26th, by 5 p.m. That 5 p.m. 
deadline is firm.
    We want to thank everyone for their cooperation this 
morning, and particularly thank our nominee.
    And with that, the Finance Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


                Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Idaho
    WASHINGTON--U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), ranking member of the 
U.S. Senate Finance Committee, delivered the following remarks at a 
hearing to consider the nomination of Katherine Tai to be the United 
States Trade Representative.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tai, welcome, and congratulations on 
your nomination.

    The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is a very important position, 
where today's decisions will be felt for years to come. A successful 
trade policy means more high-paying jobs. We need these jobs more than 
ever if we are to emerge from this pandemic stronger than before. I 
know the importance of free trade very well. Idaho exports over $4 
billion in goods annually, including $1.7 billion in computer and 
electronics products.

    Remarkably, 85 percent of Idaho's exporters are businesses that 
employ fewer than 500 people. We cannot forget that. Free trade does 
not just strengthen the powerful; it empowers all Americans, including 
those running and working in smaller businesses. It does so for a 
simple reason: we sell high-quality goods and services that people 
around the world want.

    We do not need to be intimidated by foreign competitors. Our market 
is already one of the most open in the world. Our problem is not about 
whether to open our market further; it is, in fact, that too many 
foreign markets remain closed to us. History demonstrates repeatedly 
that Americans do very well in foreign markets, if only given the 
chance--the chance to participate in an environment of fair trade.

    For example, bringing down just some of Japan's agricultural 
barriers in the U.S.-Japan Phase 1 deal increased Idaho's agricultural 
exports by over a third. The importance of fair trade, and the price of 
it being denied, is also well understood by the people of Idaho.

    Idaho is home to Micron Technology--a global leader in 
semiconductor technology. Chinese state-owned companies stole Micron's 
trade secrets in order to secure an unfair advantage. China's 
systematic theft of American innovation has been estimated to cost the 
United States nearly half a trillion dollars each year.

    Idaho's softwood lumber producers face an uneven playing field 
against subsidized Canadian exports. We cannot let the 750,000 jobs in 
the lumber industry or the 420 million acres of family-owned 
timberlands be threatened by unfair subsidies.

    Idaho's world-famous potatoes cannot be shipped more than 16 miles 
south of the Mexican border because of protectionism disguised as a 
safety measure. Potato farms, including Cranney Farms in Oakley, ID, 
gave away millions of potatoes last year because domestic customers 
dried up as a result of the pandemic.

    Put plainly, the United States does not just lose potential 
opportunities when its leaders fail to engage appropriately on trade. 
Our businesses and workers lose ground here at home, in every State. 
This is why the United States needs an effective USTR to tear down 
trade barriers and confront abusive trade practices.

    President Biden has nominated someone with extensive trade policy 
experience, including experience litigating major trade disputes 
against China. I look forward to hearing more from you, Ms. Tai, 
regarding how you would use your experience to engage the numerous 
challenges facing the United States, if confirmed as USTR. Your 
experience no matter how extensive will go to waste if the Biden 
administration's approach to trade policy ends up being a ``time out,'' 
as some officials have suggested.

    In particular, I am referencing statements by administration 
officials who have asserted that the President will not sign any new 
trade agreements until he sees his domestic priorities achieved, 
including strengthening ``Buy American'' requirements in government 
purchasing. Ms. Tai, you must make the President understand that trade 
is a domestic priority for hundreds of millions of Americans.

    I am happy to discuss ``Buying American.'' However, our businesses 
and workers are ready to ``Sell American'' to all foreign customers--
right now. While often said, it is worth repeating: most of the world's 
customers are outside of U.S. borders. Americans deserve to sell their 
products and need access to that huge foreign marketplace. Our 
businesses need that access more than ever, because other countries are 
not standing still.

    The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy in the world. And 
the UK is taking advantage of its newfound freedom from EU restrictions 
to aggressively negotiate its own new trade deals. Our special 
political relationship with the UK must now be complemented with a 
special economic relationship that will increase employment and output 
on both sides of the Atlantic.

    It is not just our allies that are moving forward. Other countries 
are taking steps that may push us back even further if the United 
States is seen as standing still and not negotiating trade deals. 
Notably, China is moving forward with the Regional Comprehensive 
Economic Partnership or RCEP. It is arguably the largest free trade 
agreement in the world. Yet, the RCEP has weak rules on intellectual 
property and on protecting foreign investment. And the RCEP has no 
rules whatsoever on state-owned enterprises, labor rights, or 
environmental protection.

    If the Biden administration wants a ``worker-centered'' trade 
policy, as it claims it does, then our USTR should ensure that the 
international trading regime strongly reflects American values rather 
than those of China's government.

    In short, the need for an energetic and effective trade policy is 
more compelling than ever.

    I expect Ms. Tai will well demonstrate in today's hearing that she 
has the requisite skill set to deliver as much. But the question is 
whether she will have the President's support to do so. I hope for 
America's sake, that she will.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I look 
forward to hearing from Ms. Tai.

                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Katherine C. Tai, Nominated to be United States 
  Trade Representative, With the Rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and 
           Plenipotentiary, Executive Office of the President
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

    The chance to serve the American people, fight on their behalf, and 
represent them on the world stage once again will be the greatest honor 
of my life. It's a privilege I've experienced before at the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative--and a responsibility that, if 
confirmed, I look forward to embracing once again. I thank President 
Biden for providing me with this opportunity.

    Serving as the top U.S. trade representative around the globe holds 
special resonance for me as the daughter of immigrants. My parents were 
born in mainland China, and grew up in Taiwan. The immigration reforms 
set in motion by President Kennedy opened a path for them to come here 
as graduate students in the sciences. And they made the most of their 
American opportunity.

    My dad became a researcher at the Walter Reed Army Institute of 
Research. He helped the Army develop treatments for illnesses that had 
debilitated GIs during the Vietnam War--the war in which my father-in-
law fought bravely as a young man.

    My mom still works at the National Institutes of Health. She heads 
a clinical trials network, developing treatments for opioid addiction 
that will help to stem an epidemic causing so much suffering in our 
communities.

    I am proud of their service to the Nation that welcomed them. And I 
am proud to live in a country where, in just one generation, their 
daughter could grow up to represent the United States and our interests 
around the globe. That sense of pride and patriotism will ground me 
every day if I have the honor to be confirmed as United States Trade 
Representative. I know that the challenges ahead are significant.

    Our first priority will be to help American communities emerge from 
the pandemic and economic crisis. USTR has an important role to play in 
that effort. Working with Congress, the entire Biden-Harris 
administration, and other countries and trusted partners, USTR will 
help to build out strong supply chains that will get our economy back 
on track.

    In the longer term, we must pursue trade policies that advance the 
interests of all Americans--policies that recognize that people are 
workers and wage earners, not just consumers; policies that promote 
broad, equitable growth here at home; policies that support American 
innovation and enhance our competitive edge.

    That's why I will make it a priority to implement and enforce the 
renewed terms of our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico. Too 
often in the past, Congress and the administration came together to 
finalize and pass a trade agreement, but then other urgent matters 
arose, and we all moved on. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
(USMCA) is a uniquely bipartisan accomplishment that must break that 
trend. It represents an important step in reforming our approach to 
trade. We must all continue to prioritize its implementation and 
success. We must continue to pursue trade policies that are ambitious 
in achieving robust, bipartisan support.

    I will also prioritize rebuilding our international alliances and 
partnerships, and reengaging with international institutions. We must 
do the hard work, and secure the necessary reforms that allow the world 
to come together and address common threats like climate change, the 
COVID pandemic, and a global economic downturn. That duty of leadership 
extends, of course, to addressing the challenges posed by China.

    I previously served as America's chief enforcer against China's 
unfair trade practices. I know firsthand how critically important it is 
that we have a strategic and coherent plan for holding China 
accountable to its promises and effectively competing with its model of 
state-directed economics. I know the opportunities and limitations in 
our existing toolbox, and I know how important it is to build what the 
President has termed ``a united front of U.S. allies.'' We must 
recommit to working relentlessly with others to promote and defend our 
shared values of freedom, democracy, truth, and opportunity in a just 
society.

    China is simultaneously a rival, a trade partner, and an outsized 
player whose cooperation we'll also need to address certain global 
challenges. We must remember how to walk, chew gum, and play chess at 
the same time. That means here at home, we must prioritize resilience 
and make the investments in our people and our infrastructure to 
harness our potential, boost our competitiveness, and build a more 
inclusive prosperity. We must also impart the values and rules that 
guide global commerce--and we must enforce those terms vigorously.

    This is work I am eager to take on once more. Having spent my 
career fighting for American workers, I am honored by the opportunity 
to work alongside the bright and dedicated public servants at USTR, 
with our partners and allies, and with each of you. Having served 
nearly 7 years in the House of Representatives, I know that U.S. trade 
policy is most successful when it is conducted through a healthy 
partnership between the administration and the Congress.

    I look forward to bringing our trade relationships to bear, helping 
American communities emerge out of crisis and into greater prosperity. 
And I look forward to answering your questions.

    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name (include any former names used): Katherine Chi Tai.

 2.  Position to which nominated: U.S. Trade Representative.

 3.  Date of nomination: December 10, 2020 (date of announcement of 
nomination).

 4.  Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):

 5.  Date and place of birth: March 18, 1974; New Haven, CT.

 6.  Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        Harvard Law School, 1998-2001, JD May 2001.

        Yale University, 1992-1996, BA May 1996.

        Sidwell Friends School, 1983-1992, diploma June 1992.

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        May 2014-present: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
            January 2019-present: Majority Chief Trade 
Counsel, Trade Subcommittee Staff Director. Responsibilities: Lead 
advisor to the chairman and Trade Subcommittee chairman on all trade-
related legal and policy matters.
            July 2017-December 2018: Chief Trade Counsel, 
Democratic Staff. Responsibilities: Lead advisor to the ranking member 
and Trade Subcommittee ranking member on all trade-related legal and 
policy matters.
            May 2014-July 2017: Trade Counsel, Democratic 
Staff. Responsibilities: Provided counsel and advice to the ranking 
member and Democratic committee members as trade staff lead on the 
Trump administration's NAFTA renegotiation and the Obama 
administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiation; trade 
enforcement and dispute settlement; and the intersection of trade and 
worker and environmental standards and protections.

        August 2007-May 2014: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 
Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC.
            May 2011-May 2014: Chief Counsel for China 
Trade Enforcement. Responsibilities: Developed and managed legal 
strategy, including investigation and litigation, of U.S.-China 
disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO), coordinating within 
USTR and between agencies, with U.S. stakeholders and WTO member 
countries and organizations. Provided legal analysis, advice, and 
support to USTR's China Affairs Office.
            August 2007-May 2011: Associate General 
Counsel. Responsibilities: Served as lead lawyer and litigator on 
behalf of the United States in WTO disputes. Provided legal advice and 
support to USTR negotiators on WTO and other international trade rules.

        August 2006-August 2007: Baker and McKenzie LLP, Washington, 
DC.
            Associate. Responsibilities: Counseled clients 
on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.S. export 
controls and economic sanctions regulations. Managed internal 
compliance investigations.

        November 2004-August 2006: Miller and Chevalier Chartered, 
Washington, DC.
            Senior associate. Responsibilities: Counseled 
clients on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.S. 
export controls and economic sanctions regulations. Managed internal 
compliance investigations. Prepared memoranda and briefs in section 337 
intellectual property litigation. Conducted research and drafted 
memoranda on government contracts law.

        September 2003-September 2004: U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia.
            Law Clerk to the Hon. John D. Bates. 
Responsibilities: Researched and composed draft judicial opinions on 
dispositive motions in civil cases arising under all areas of Federal 
and State law.

        August 2002-August 2003: U.S. District Court for the District 
of Maryland, Greenbelt, MD.
            Law Clerk to the Hon. Deborah K. Chasanow. 
Responsibilities: Researched and composed draft judicial opinions on 
dispositive motions in civil cases arising under all areas of Federal 
and State law.

        May 2002-August 2002: Sidley Austin Brown and Wood LLP, 
Washington, DC.
            Associate. Responsibilities: Conducted research 
and analysis in providing advice regarding U.S. investment treaty and 
WTO commitments.

        October 2001-May 2002: Powell Goldstein Frazer and Murphy, 
Washington, DC.
            Associate. Responsibilities: Conducted research 
and analysis in providing advice regarding U.S. investment treaty and 
WTO commitments.

        January-May 2001: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and 
Sciences, Cambridge, MA.
            Teaching fellow, Foreign Cultures 48: ``The 
Chinese Cultural Revolution'' (Prof. Roderick MacFarquhar). 
Responsibilities: Led post-lecture discussion groups with 
undergraduates, graded papers and exams, held office hours.

        July-August 2000: Dewey Ballantine, New York, NY.
            Summer associate. Responsibilities: Researched 
and drafted memoranda on corporate and ERISA law.

        May-July 2000: Covington and Burling, Washington, DC.

            Summer associate. Responsibilities: Researched 
and drafted memoranda on e-commerce, antitrust law.

        May-August 1999: Department of Justice, Office of Overseas 
Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training (OPDAT), 
Washington, DC.
            Summer intern (unpaid). Responsibilities: 
Researched and drafted memoranda, compiled briefing books.

        June/July 1999: Harvard Program on Negotiation, Cambridge, MA.
            Teaching assistant. Responsibilities: Co-led 
breakout, discussion, and practice groups of participants in two-week 
executive training program on negotiation at Harvard Law School.

        August 1996-August 1998: Yale-China Association, New Haven, 
CT.
            Teaching fellow at Lingnan (University) 
College, Sun Vat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 
Responsibilities: Designed and taught English language courses for 3rd- 
and 4th-year undergraduate international business and finance majors.

        June-August 1996: American Enterprise Institute, Washington, 
DC.
            Summer intern (unpaid). Responsibilities: 
Provided research assistance to economists Herb Stein and Murray Foss.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        N/A.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        Trustee, Yale-China Association, New Haven, CT: 2000-2006; 
        2007-2013.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        Maryland State Bar Association: member since 2001.

        DC Bar: member since 2002.

        Women in International Trade: member from June 2017-July 2019.

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18.

       N/A.

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination.

       N/A.

        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Cycle         Date                   Recipient                 Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020                 Joseph R. Biden, Jr.                      $350
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              09/08/2020                                            $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              08/10/2020                                            $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020                 Jaime Harrison                            $350
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              09/19/2020                                            $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              07/18/2019  .....................................     $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020     09/19/2020  Gina Ortiz Jones                          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020     09/26/2020  Dr. Cameron Webb                          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020     09/26/2020  Desiree Tims                              $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020     09/19/2020  Theresa Greenfield                        $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020     09/19/2020  Betsy Dirksen Landrigan                   $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-2020     08/21/2020  Kate Schroder                              $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     09/16/2018  Elissa Slotkin                            $400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018                 Julia Brownley                            $239
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              09/16/2018                                             $25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              12/28/2017                                            $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018                 Cheri Bustos                              $239
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              09/16/2018                                             $25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              12/28/2017                                            $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018                 Annie Kuster                              $239
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              09/16/2018                                             $25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              12/28/2017                                            $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018                 Stephanie Murphy                          $239
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              09/16/2020                                             $25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              12/28/2017                                            $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     09/16/2018  Betsy Dirksen Londrigan                   $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     09/16/2018  Katie Porter                              $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     09/16/2018  Gina Ortiz Jones                          $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     09/16/2018  Haley Stevens                             $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     09/16/2018  Amy McGrath                               $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     04/30/2018  Sister District Project                    $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     12/28/2017  Suzan DelBene                             $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     12/28/2017  Jacky Rosen                               $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     12/28/2017  Elizabeth Esty                            $214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018                 Erik Jones                                $125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              12/28/2017                                             $25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              07/30/2017                                            $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018     06/12/2017  Kathleen Clyde                             $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2017     12/06/2016  Justin Fairfax                            $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2016     10/10/2016  Hillary Clinton                           $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2012     06/19/2012  John Daniel Couriel                       $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------


14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        National Latin Exam Scholarship, 1992. Small award for 
        continued study of Latin in college, freshman year.

        USTR Agency Award for Extraordinary Performance for the 
        successful prosecution of the China--Raw Materials and China--
        Rare Earths WTO case, 2013.

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

        The New York Times, Letter to the Editor, ``Marriage, Any 
        Style,'' re: Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider's Op-Ed about the 
        television show ``Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?'', February 
        21, 2000 (https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/21/opinion/l-
        marriage-any-style-893102.html?searchResultPosition=2).

        The Yale-China Review, ``Deng's Death: the End of One 
        Countdown,'' Spring 1997: Volume 5, Number 1, Special Issue on 
        Hong Kong.

        Yale Daily News, Commencement edition, A Senior's Perspective, 
        ``Four Course Groups Leave Education Incomplete,'' May 27, 
        1996.

        Yale Daily News, The Misanthrope column, fall 1995: ``America 
        Writes New Fairytales From News Stories,'' October 18, 1995; 
        ``Golden Arches Stretch Across the World,'' November 1, 1995; 
        ``Today's Politics Faces a Paradox of Values,'' November 15, 
        1995.

        The New Republic, Letter to the Editor, ``Ringing Twice;'' re: 
        Stanley Kaufman's review of the movie ``The Postman,'' August 
        7, 1995.

        The Yale Herald, The Misanthrope column, spring 1993-spring 
        1995 (dates included where known): ``The Shopping Affliction;'' 
        ``Sleep No More,'' September 23, 1994; ``The Correspondence,'' 
        October 7, 1994; ``A-ha!'' January 20, 1995; ``School Days,'' 
        February 3, 1995; ``Babette's Feast;'' ``Miller's Mystique;'' 
        ``The Geniuses of IQ;'' ``The Tonya Story;'' ``Playing House;'' 
        ``Asclepian Aspiration;'' ``Upperclass Life;'' ``The Campus 
        Cults;'' ``Save the Group IV Major;'' and ``Kindergarten 
        Sentiments.''

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates):

        January 12, 2021: Opening Remarks at National Foreign Trade 
        Council (NFTC) Virtual Conference and Awards Ceremony, https://
        buildbackbetter.gov/speeches/keynote-remarks-as-prepared-for-
        delivery-by-ustr-designate-katherjne-tai-at-the-national-
        foreign-trade-council-foundation-virtual-conference-and-awards-
        ceremony/.

        December 11, 2020: Intended Nominee of President-elect Biden 
        for U.S. Trade Representative, remarks, https://
        www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aTwwgMgpdQ.

        October 13, 2020: Panelist, Center for the Advancement of the 
        Rule of Law in the Americas (CAROLA), Georgetown Law, ``The New 
        Labor Regime under USMCA,'' https://www.youtube.com/
        watch?v=hTP8ToO-QuO.

        September 2, 2020: Panelist, American Society of International 
        Law (ASIL), ``International Law and the 2020 Presidential 
        Election Session Two: Engaging the Global Economy: 
        International Law, Trade, and Investment,'' https://
        www.asil.org/events/engaging-global-economy-international-law-
        trade-investment.

        August 5, 2020. Panelist, Center for American Progress, 
        ``Progressive Visions for Trade,'' https://
        www.americanprogress.org/events/2020/07/30/488355/progressive-
        visions-trade/.

        March 28, 2018: Panelist, Center for Strategic and 
        International Studies, ``Defending Intellectual Property: Is 
        Section 337 the Right Answer?'', https://www.csis.org/events/
        defending-intellectual-property-sectjon-337-right-answer.

        March 7, 2017: MIT-Harvard International Conference on Cyber 
        Norms. Closed-door, off-the-record panel presentation on 
        ``Strategic Implications of China's Emergence as a Global 
        Player in ICT Industries.'' Powerpoint presentation on 
        ``China's Commercial Policy Aspirations, Seen Through U.S. 
        Trade Challenges'' attached.

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        The U.S. Trade Representative is responsible for leading the 
        development and coordination of U.S. trade policy and 
        conducting international trade and trade-related investment 
        negotiations. The U.S. Trade Representative is also authorized 
        to set U.S. policy on key trade issues, including the assertion 
        and protection of the rights of the United States under all 
        bilateral and multilateral international trade and commodity 
        agreements. In addition to being the principal advisor to and 
        spokesperson for the President on trade policy, the U.S. Trade 
        Representative and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
        were created by Congress to be directly accountable to both the 
        President and the U.S. Congress.

        I have spent the past 13 years working in U.S. trade law and 
        policy for the U.S. Government, grappling with some of the 
        biggest challenges and seeking to harness some of the greatest 
        opportunities presented internationally and domestically. From 
        2007 to 2014, I worked at the Office of the U.S. Trade 
        Representative in the General Counsel's office, primarily as a 
        litigator enforcing U.S. trade agreement rights at the World 
        Trade Organization (WTO). From 2011 to 2014, as Chief Counsel 
        for China Trade Enforcement, it was my job to lead the 
        development of strategies and viable cases against China at the 
        WTO, working in concert with other WTO members like the 
        European Union and others, whenever possible.

        In 2014, I left the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for 
        the U.S. Congress. I joined the staff of the House Ways and 
        Means Committee, initially as trade counsel, becoming Chief 
        Trade Counsel for the Democratic staff in 2017 and Trade 
        Subcommittee Staff Director in 2019. Over these 6\1/2\ years, I 
        have engaged in trade policy oversight and trade negotiations 
        consultations with two different administrations (including for 
        the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and 
        Investment Partnership, and the renegotiation of the North 
        American Free Trade Agreement), alongside Democratic and 
        Republican colleagues serving members from both the House Ways 
        and Means and Senate Finance Committees.

        My experiences span both trade enforcement and trade 
        negotiations, on behalf of both the U.S. executive branch and 
        the U.S. Congress. These are the qualifications that have 
        prepared me to assume the responsibilities of the U.S. Trade 
        Representatives, at this time in our history, to chart a course 
        for a trade policy and a vision for the future that serves the 
        interests of the United States and the American people in a 
        changing and increasingly challenging global economic 
        environment.

                   B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        Yes.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        No.

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable? If not, explain.

        Yes.

                  C.  POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted 
        with the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of the 
        Designated Ethics Official of the Office of the U.S. Trade 
        Representative to identify any potential conflicts of interest. 
        Any conflict of interest will be resolved according to the 
        terms of an ethics agreement I am entering into with the Office 
        of the U.S. Trade Representative and that will be provided to 
        this committee.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        N/A; I have been employed by the U.S. Government during the 
        last 10 years.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
Government need not be listed.

        N/A.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        Any conflict of interest will be resolved according to the 
        terms of an ethics agreement I am entering into with the Office 
        of the U.S. Trade Representative and that will be provided to 
        this committee. In the event that an actual or potential 
        conflict of interest arises during my appointment, I will 
        consult with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 
        Designated Agency Ethics Official and take the measures 
        necessary to resolve the conflict.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

 6.  The following information is to be provided only by nominees to 
the positions of United States Trade Representative and Deputy United 
States Trade Representative:

        Have you ever represented, advised, or otherwise aided a 
        foreign government or a foreign political organization with 
        respect to any international trade matter at any time in any 
        capacity? If so, provide the name of the foreign entity, a 
        description of the work performed (including any work you 
        supervised), the time frame of the work (e.g., March to 
        December 1995), and the number of hours spent on the 
        representation.

        Yes.

        Entity: Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative's Office 
        (TECRO).

        Description of work: I was an associate at Miller and 
        Chevalier, a law firm that had an engagement with TECRO. As 
        part of my work at Miller Chevalier, I completed one assignment 
        that required creating a table summarizing trade-
        related U.S. legislation. I did not supervise any work relating 
        to TECRO. The assignment did not relate to any specific trade 
        negotiation or trade dispute with the United States.

        Time frame: Sometime between November 2004 and March 1, 2005.

        Number of hours worked: 8.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide 
details.

        Yes. I am named on the caption of a complaint brought by my 
        mother on behalf of my father's estate against the United 
        States of America, through the Walter Reed National Military 
        Medical Center. I am named as a plaintiff since I am an heir. 
        The complaint is filed with the U.S. District Court for the 
        District of Maryland (Ref.: Tai et al v. United States of 
        America, 8:20-cv 03680-PJM).

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, provide details.

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        N/A.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.

 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
                               Attachment

_______________________________________________________________________

                China's Commercial Policy Aspirations, 
                   Seen Through U.S. Trade Challenges

            And What They Mean for China's Cyber Aspirations



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                   Policy: Ascending the Value Chain

                          High Value Products

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2521.002


                   .epsRaw Material, Low Grade Inputs

_______________________________________________________________________

                  Policy: Building a Global Reputation

                             Famous Brands

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                       Generic, Unknown Goods

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

               Policy: Establishing Chinese Alternatives

               Dominant Chinese Player (State Champion) 
                       Dominant Chinese Products

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


           Dominant Players, Products Are All Non-Chinese

_______________________________________________________________________

                              Policy Tools

                       Ascending the Value Chain 
                          High Value Products

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                      Raw Material, Low Grade 
                                 Inputs

                        Export Restraints, e.g.:

                              Export Quotas

                              Export Duties

                         Licensing Restrictions

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

                              Policy Tools

                      Building a Global Reputation

                             Famous Brands

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                       .epsGeneric, Unknown Goods

                        Export Subsidies, e.g.:

                                 Grants

                                  Loans

                             Tax Incentives

              Made available on condition of exportation 
                     or based on export performance

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

                              Policy Tools

                   Establishing Chinese Alternatives

                Dominant Chinese Player (State Champion)

                       Dominant Chinese Products

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

           .epsDominant Players, Products Are All Non-Chinese

                      Restrictions on Non-Chinese 
                      Participation in the Market

                        Procurement restrictions

                      Subsidies, financial support

_______________________________________________________________________

                           Other Policy Tools

                 Restrictions on Non-Chinese Investment

                 Acquisition of Technology, Knowledge 
                    (Voluntary, Forced, ``Stealth'')

                     ``Soft'' Rules and Requirements

             Threats and Acts of Retaliation or Retribution

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

                Other Policy Considerations Recognized 
                             by Trade Rules

                      Cultural, Moral Requirements

                        Public Health and Safety

                        Environmental Protection

                    Conservation of Natural Resources

                  Short Supply or Other Critical Shock

                            National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                           Cyber-Trade Nexus

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                            Policy Goals

                              Policy Tools

                             Policy Concerns

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to Katherine C. Tai
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
                      worker-focused trade agenda
    Question. It is critical that we make trade policy work for 
American families. Workers here at home must see the benefits of our 
trade deals.

    President Biden has said he wants to reorient trade policy to 
better serve American workers. This will include advancing a rules-
based trading system that serves the interests of American workers and 
promotes high standards on labor, the environment, human rights, and 
the rule of law.

    How do you intend to promote a trade agenda that will better serve 
American workers--whether in our domestic policies, in our free trade 
agreements (FTAs), or at the WTO?

    Answer. A worker-centered trade policy starts by ensuring workers 
have a seat at the table when crafting trade policy. In addition to 
consulting with workers and worker advocates, if confirmed, I will seek 
to determine the impact of trade policies on workers' wages and 
economic security and take that impact into account as we develop new 
policy. Finally, if confirmed, I will pursue a trade policy that is 
consistent with President Biden's Build Back Better agenda, and invests 
in American workers by promoting American innovation, incentivizes 
domestic manufacturing, and strengthens U.S. supply chain resilience.
                         boeing/airbus dispute
    Question. As a longtime trade professional, you're well-aware of 
the history of the Boeing/Airbus dispute, a case that has spanned well 
over a decade. At the end of the WTO process, American businesses 
continue to be in an untenable position. The Europeans are continuing 
to subsidize Airbus to the detriment of U.S. competitors, while small 
American businesses--already suffering from COVID-related challenges--
are facing extra tariffs on a variety of European products.

    The Boeing/Airbus dispute is just one ``trade irritant'' between 
the United States and Europe. There are numerous others--including 
digital services taxes, biotech authorization processes that aren't 
based on science, and protectionist policies in standards development.

    What's going to change under the Biden administration--and a USTR 
Tai--to ensure that Washington and Brussels can bring this dispute to a 
meaningful and timely conclusion? And ultimately, what would a positive 
outcome look like?

    Answer. The Boeing/Airbus WTO litigation has been ongoing for more 
than 15 years. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to resolve this 
long-running dispute in a way that ensures Boeing and its workers can 
compete on a level playing field.
                               wto reform
    Question. It was not always clear that the previous administration 
saw the value in the WTO. In contrast, the Biden administration has 
pledged to work with our allies and reengage in multilateral 
institutions like the WTO.

    That said, there has been bipartisan agreement that the WTO is in 
need of reform. There are numerous issues with the institution--from 
the lack of meaningful negotiations, to failure to comply with 
notification and transparency requirements, to ongoing concerns 
regarding the Appellate Body.

    Where do you recommend the United States start in restoring the WTO 
to a functioning and useful institution?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to reengage with like-minded 
partners who similarly recognize the importance and necessity of WTO 
reform. Since the founding of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade (GATT) in 1947, U.S. leadership has been critical at every 
juncture when the global trade system has required a major update. This 
will be difficult work that may take some time, but I remain hopeful 
that with proper U.S. leadership, we can achieve the necessary reforms.

    Question. How can the United States support the incoming Director 
General, Dr. Okonjo-Iweala, in building consensus and ultimately 
ensuring that the WTO makes the needed reforms?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with Dr. Okonjo-Iweala, 
following her own historic appointment, to tackle these challenges in a 
practical and constructive manner. Dr. Okonjo-Iweala brings a wealth of 
knowledge from her 25 years of experience at the World Bank and her two 
terms as Nigeria's Finance Minister. She is widely respected for her 
leadership and management skills. The U.S. stands ready to assist her 
in building the consensus required to achieve the much-needed reforms.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
    Question. USMCA includes a number of groundbreaking commitments for 
a U.S. trade agreement. Unfortunately, it appears Mexico is taking a 
number of steps in the wrong direction. In agriculture, Mexico is 
maintaining or enacting new restrictions on U.S. agriculture that lack 
any scientific justification, including on potatoes, biotech crops, and 
glyphosate. In the energy industry, Mexico seems to be discriminating 
against U.S. businesses to favor state-owned PEMEX.

    If confirmed, would you use all the tools available under USMCA, 
including dispute settlement, if we do not see progress on these issues 
in the next few months?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the reports of discriminatory 
action against U.S. agriculture and in Mexico's energy sector that you 
have highlighted, and I will consult with stakeholders and Congress on 
these issues. I commit to quickly engage the Mexican government if it 
violates the agreement and to use all dispute settlement tools to fully 
enforce USMCA whenever necessary.

    Question. America's innovative industries are second to none. From 
creative content to digital commerce to pharmaceutical research, 
America's innovators are what have gotten us through the pandemic--and 
will get us out of it. We need to preserve our leadership in this 
field. To that end, I want to ask two specific questions.

    The USTR Special 301 report is anticipated to be released in April. 
This congressionally mandated report is intended to assess whether 
trading partners provide effective IP protection.

    Do you agree that the focus of the report must to be call out 
countries and practices that injure Americans interests rather than 
more abstractly address what IP measures may benefit the interests of 
our trading partners.

    Answer. The Special 301 process is among the critical tools in 
USTR's toolbox to monitor our trading partners' intellectual property 
practices. If confirmed, I will focus on leveraging Special 301 to 
resolve practices that harm America's innovators.

    Question. Would you support the appointment of a Chief Innovation 
and Intellectual Property Negotiator at USTR?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with this committee and 
Congress on its intentions when it created that position, and more 
broadly, your views on how USTR can best accomplish our shared goal of 
ensuring that our trade agreements benefit American innovators.

    Question. USMCA curtailed the ability of American citizens to have 
recourse to investor-state dispute settlement. The Senate Finance 
Committee's report on the USMCA Implementation Act raised serious 
concerns about that curtailment.

    With respect to ISDS, it provides recourse in a particularly 
challenging situation: when a U.S. citizen has been wronged by a 
foreign government, and would like to be heard in a forum other than 
courts controlled by that government. In this respect, ISDS has often 
been claimed to further the rule of law by removing incentives for 
corruption and politicization of courts. Finally, TPA 2015 contained a 
negotiating objective related to investment that, among other things, 
required the administration to seek ``to improve mechanisms used to 
resolve disputes between an investor and a government.'' Accordingly, 
the committee is of the view that the approach to ISDS in USMCA raises 
concerns.

    If confirmed, would you be willing to be a champion for these 
Americans by undertaking state-to-state dispute settlement on their 
behalf and follow TPA's instruction to improve mechanisms to resolve 
disputes between an investor and government?

    Answer. President Biden has stated that he does not believe 
corporations should get special tribunals in trade agreements that are 
not available to other organizations. He opposes the ability of private 
corporations to attack labor, health, and environmental policies 
through investor-state dispute settlement. If confirmed, I will pursue 
a trade agenda consistent with the Biden-Harris administration's Build 
Back Better agenda.

    Question. I have concerns about the power of technology companies. 
However, I am concerned that the EU is using such concerns as a fig-
leaf for discriminatory measures against U.S. businesses, including 
unreasonable digital services taxes or through measures that appear to 
target American companies in particular, like the Digital Services Act.

    Are you willing to aggressively challenge these types of measures 
whether through use of section 301 or through WTO dispute settlement?

    Answer. The previous administration started section 301 
investigations in response to the digital service taxes introduced by a 
number of countries, but it then suspended the introduction or 
implementation of specific remedies to allow time for negotiations. If 
confirmed, I will review the status of those actions and will work with 
my colleagues at the Treasury Department to address digital services 
taxes as part of the multilateral effort to address base erosion and 
profit shifting through the OECD/G20 process.

    Question. I am deeply concerned about the impact of subsidized and 
dumped Canadian lumber imports on American businesses and jobs. Canada 
has been engaged in a total war style of litigation to force us to 
settle.

    Can you commit me to me that if confirmed, you will aggressive 
defend our trade remedy measures on Canadian lumber, including by 
allocating whatever resources are necessary to mount a successful 
defense?

    Answer. The Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade 
Commission have repeatedly found that the U.S. lumber industry is 
harmed by Canadian subsidies and unfair trade practices. If confirmed, 
I commit to working with other agencies and departments to ensure that 
U.S. trade laws and remedies are employed to counter unfair trade 
practices and to aggressively defending those laws.

    Question. A number of exclusions from section 301 tariffs expire 
soon, including on personal protective equipment. The need for such 
equipment is not going away anytime soon. Moreover, the pandemic has 
made it more difficult for many companies to relocate supply chains.

    Considering that one of the criteria for granting an exclusion was 
severe economic harm, are you willing to support extending exclusions 
currently in force until the end of the year; restoring exclusions that 
have expired, with retroactive relief for import duties the recipients 
have had to pay since the exclusion expired; and reopen the process for 
companies to apply again for exclusions based on unanticipated 
challenges they are facing as a result of the pandemic?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. During the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974, and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices; account for their impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers; and support the U.S. response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic.

    Question. What is the status of negotiations with Mexico to improve 
access for U.S. potatoes, ensure timely approval of biotech crops, 
avoid implementation of a ban on glyphosate, and stop discrimination of 
U.S. firms participating in Mexico's energy sector?

    If negotiations do not result in progress soon, are you willing to 
undertake dispute settlement?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review Mexico's compliance with its 
USMCA obligations with respect to U.S. agricultural imports and in the 
energy sector and the status of any discussions to obtain that 
compliance. I commit to fully enforcing the USMCA.

    Question. What is the status of the USMCA dispute with Canada 
concerning dairy tariff-rate quotas? Will you continue the dispute?

    Answer. I understand the important gains that were secured in the 
USMCA for U.S. dairy producers. At the end of last year, the previous 
administration requested consultations with Canada regarding its 
allocation of tariff-rate quotas. If confirmed, I will review the 
status of this dispute and will use the tools available to USTR to 
ensure that our dairy producers benefit from the USMCA.

    Question. Please provide a breakdown of how the trade enforcement 
trust fund was utilized in the last fiscal year, including by reference 
to particular enforcement action.

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to provide you with the requested 
information about the trade enforcement trust fund.

    Question. WTO reform is of great interest to many members of this 
committee. In particular, there are bipartisan concerns about overreach 
by the WTO Appellate Body. While I see some utility in second-level 
review, we need to ensure reforms that stop activism by the Appellate 
Body, including through rulings that have undercut our trade remedy 
laws and environmental conservation measures.

    What are some concrete reforms that you think are necessary to 
ensure the Appellate Body operates as intended?

    Answer. Over the years, the Appellate Body has overstepped its 
authority and erred in interpreting WTO agreements in a number of 
cases, to the detriment of the United States and other WTO members. In 
addition, the Appellate Body has failed to follow existing rules 
created to ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely manner. 
Reforms are needed to ensure that the underlying causes of such 
problems do not resurface and that the Appellate Body does not diminish 
the rights and obligations of WTO members.

    Question. I am deeply concerned by various statements suggesting 
European Union officials are adopting a set of discriminatory measures 
targeting successful U.S. technology firms. For example, EU officials 
have been reported as stating that they are targeting a ``hit list'' of 
U.S. technology companies. The French Finance Minister states that he 
is building a ``new empire'' of European industrial powerhouses to 
resist American rivals. Other officials indicate that EU digital 
sovereignty ``is as much about the United States as it is about 
China.'' This discriminatory rhetoric is reflected in the proposed 
Digital Markets Act and other new regulations that target U.S. tech 
companies while intentionally shielding EU digital and non-digital 
competitors from scope.

    As USTR, how will you fight back against EU efforts to set the 
regulatory playbook for the world and to discriminate against U.S. tech 
exports?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will use a wide range of trade tools to 
address discriminatory practices that hinder U.S. workers and firms, 
including practices that discriminate against U.S. digital and 
technology exports.

    Question. I am deeply concerned about data localization 
requirements. The European Union appears to be invoking privacy 
concerns in the WTO e-commerce negotiations as an excuse to allow it to 
engage in protectionist practices with respect to data.

    Do you agree that that United States should not accept the EU's 
proposed exception to allow countries to engage in data localization?

    Answer. To participate in today's global economy, U.S. companies 
need the ability to access networks, transfer data and use secure data 
centers of their choice. If confirmed, I commit to using the tools at 
my disposal to ensure that American workers and innovators are able to 
compete effectively abroad.

    Question. The innovation of American pharmaceutical firms is what 
may ultimately lead us out of the pandemic. Accordingly, many are 
dismayed that the provision to provide regulatory data protection for 
biologic drugs was stripped from USMCA--especially since the term of 
regulatory data protection in U.S. law passed with overwhelming 
support.

    Do you agree that our trade agreements need to include provisions 
to ensure the innovations of America's pharmaceutical firms are 
properly protected?

    Answer. America's world-class pharmaceutical industry plays an 
important role in ensuring our health security. Proper protection of 
American pharmaceutical innovation is absolutely vital for ensuring the 
competitiveness of the industry. If confirmed, I commit to examining 
what provisions are appropriate and necessary to safeguard American 
innovation in each trade agreement.

    Question. One of your responsibilities will be overseeing the 
public interest review process for section 337 orders issued by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)--an agency noted for both its 
objectiveness and thoroughness. The ability to restrict infringing 
imports through section 337 is a key cornerstone of U.S. intellectual 
property rights (IPR) protection. Given the bipartisan concerns 
regarding theft of U.S. intellectual property, this is no time to 
weaken section 337 and no time to send a signal to our trading partners 
that we are weak on IPR protections.

    Can you confirm whether you agree that disapproval of section 337 
orders should only occur in exceedingly rare circumstances?''

    Answer. Under section 337, the President is required to engage in a 
policy evaluation of the ITC's determination to issue exclusion and 
cease and desist orders. This authority is assigned to the USTR. If 
confirmed, I commit to reviewing ITC orders in line with the relevant 
policy considerations as envisioned by Congress and as outlined in the 
legislative history of section 337.

    Question. The Trump administration was right to confront China's 
rampant theft of U.S. intellectual property, and its failure to provide 
adequate market access to American businesses.

    Do you believe the United States should continue to address these 
concerns by pursuing a Phase 2 deal with China?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is engaged in a review of 
the policies in place to respond to China's coercive and unfair trade 
practices, including the problems that you have noted. I understand 
that a comprehensive strategy to confront the China challenge will be 
formulated based on that review. If confirmed, I intend to explore 
every possible option available to address our longstanding concerns 
with China's intellectual property theft and inadequate market access.

    Question. China is moving forward with enhanced market access in 
the Asia-
Pacific region through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. 
It is vital that we engage with this part of the world so America 
writes the rules rather than China.

    How do you plan to strengthen our economic relations with countries 
in the Asia-Pacific region, including those that are members of the 
Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership?

    Answer. America's economic and national security is strongest when 
we work with our allies. It is critical that the United States engage 
in various regional initiatives to forge rules and norms that reflect 
our values, particularly in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region.If 
confirmed, I will make engagement with the Asia-Pacific region a 
priority.

    Question. The USTR Chief Agricultural Negotiator in my view should 
be someone who has experience with negotiations for agricultural market 
access, including a strong understanding of sanitary and phytosanitary 
(SPS) issues. Do you agree?

    Answer. Yes.

    Question. I am concerned about including the type of platform 
immunity reflected in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 
(CDA 230) in our trade agreements. The Internet today is very different 
from when Congress passed CDA 230, and accordingly a number of bills 
have been introduced on both sides of the aisle to reform CDA 230. I 
have concerns that Congress's hands will be tied if we include this 
type of commitment in our trade agreements.

    Please provide your views on whether we should include provisions 
that reflect CDA 230 type immunity in our trade agreements.

    Answer. There are a wide variety of views on this issue, and I 
commit to consulting with the relevant stakeholders, including 
Congress, on this and other provisions of our trade agreements.

    Question. The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) was not reauthorized 
last year. This hurts our manufacturers who rely on various inputs 
covered by the tariff relief in the bill.

    Do you agree that we need to provide the type of tariff relief 
provided for in the MTB; the process for determining which goods should 
be covered by the MTB should be objective and transparent; and that the 
process for the International Trade Commission to evaluate petitions 
for inclusion in the MTB has been a major improvement in developing the 
MTB?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with Congress on 
renewal of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.

    Question. What thoughts do you have on the U.S.-Israel economic 
relationship and potential avenues to expand this crucial partnership? 
I would be particularly interested in your views concerning a successor 
Agreement on Trade in Agricultural Products.

    Answer. The U.S.-Israel economic relationship is one of our 
Nation's strongest. If confirmed, I look forward to working with your 
office to identify agricultural products that could benefit from 
expanded trade between the two countries.

    Question. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests 
authority over trade with Congress.

    Do you agree that the U.S. Trade Representative should not table 
any potential text for a trade agreement without providing it to this 
committee first, even if the administration does not intend to submit 
the agreement for congressional approval?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to close consultations with the 
Senate Finance Committee on trade negotiations. I will work closely 
with the committee to identify ways to improve the flow of information 
in the development of trade policy.

    Question. Not only does the U.S. Constitution provide Congress 
authority over trade, the treaty clause provides that all treaties must 
be approved by the U.S. Senate. I am concerned by rumors that the 
administration may try to indirectly bind the United States to treaties 
the Senate has not confirmed by amending existing trade agreements to 
mandate the parties abide by various international agreements that 
never secured Senate approval.

    Can you confirm that you will not support such efforts?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress to ensure 
U.S. trade policy reflects existing statutory and international 
obligations and will implement it consistent with the treaty clause of 
the U.S. Constitution.

    Question. As you saw during the Finance Committee hearing, there is 
bipartisan interest in the UK and Kenya negotiations. Please provide 
your view on whether we should try to conclude the UK and Kenya trade 
agreement negotiations this year.

    Answer. In 2020, the United States officially launched negotiations 
to establish free trade agreements with Kenya and the United Kingdom. 
Since announcing the negotiations, the United States completed two 
rounds of negotiations with Kenya and four rounds of negotiations with 
the United Kingdom. If confirmed, I plan to review the state of the 
negotiations with the United Kingdom and Kenya, and, in consultation 
with Congress, chart a path forward that reflects the Biden-Harris 
administration's commitment to a trade policy that prioritizes the 
interest of America's working families.

    Question. Do you agree that Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)--
particularly the provision reflected in 19 U.S.C. Sec. 4203--requires 
that USTR provide the committee access to any proposals or negotiating 
text proffered by our trading partners in any negotiation taking place 
under the auspices of TPA, regardless of how they are characterized, 
including as a ``non-paper?''

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to consult with the Senate Finance 
Committee on trade negotiations. I will work closely with the committee 
to identify ways to improve the flow of information in the development 
of trade policy.

                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Debbie Stabenow
    Question. If confirmed, you will have a major role in how the U.S. 
confronts and combats China's unfair trade practices.

    Is the United States prepared and positioned to confront China's 
unfair trade practices and competitive ambitions?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is engaged in a review of 
the policies in place to respond to China's coercive and unfair trade 
practices. I understand that a comprehensive strategy to confront the 
China challenge will be formulated based on that review.

    Question. What kind of bilateral and multilateral approaches will 
this administration establish regarding trade policy in Asia?

    Answer. The Biden administration recognizes that America is 
stronger when it works with allies to address the unfair trade 
practices that distort the playing field in the Asia-Pacific region and 
disadvantage America's exporters and workers. If confirmed, I will be 
prepared to use a variety of approaches, including bilateral and 
multilateral ones, to tackle these challenges.

    Question. China is also a critical market for many Michigan 
farmers. From apples and cherries, to soybeans and dairy products, 
exports help drive the agricultural economy. China's purchases have 
surged recently, but are still below the short-term commitments in the 
Phase One deal, and China's opaque regulatory system poses many 
problems like years-long delays in approving new biotechnology traits.

    What opportunities do you see for U.S. producers in China going 
forward?

    Answer. America's farmers depend on stable access to the Chinese 
market. If confirmed, I commit to working with you to ensure that 
China's market is open and stays open to U.S. agricultural products.

    Question. What is your strategy to rebuild and expand this and 
other critical export markets for food and agricultural products?

    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with your office to 
identify new export markets for U.S. agriculture products.

    Question. We know that years of Chinese IP theft have given China a 
competitive advantage in the global technology space.

    What types of export controls or other restrictions do you think 
the U.S. should place on China to address this?

    Answer. China's illicit practices with regard to intellectual 
property theft have harmed American innovators, manufacturers, and 
workers. Export controls and other restrictions can play an important 
role in counteracting these harms. If confirmed, I will work actively 
with other Federal agencies to determine the export controls and other 
restrictions necessary to respond to China's illicit practices.

    Question. As you know, polysilicon is the foundational material 
necessary to produce solar cells and modules, semiconductors, and next 
generation batteries. For several years, an array of Chinese unfair 
trade and industrial policies has targeted and threatened the U.S. 
polysilicon industry and resulted in China capturing nearly the entire 
global solar supply chain. This puts at risk U.S. national security and 
clean energy interests, as well as critical U.S. manufacturing jobs in 
Michigan. The Chinese Government committed to open its market to U.S. 
polysilicon exports as part of Phase One, but so far it has broken that 
commitment.

    How will you prioritize a resolution to this issue?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will make resolving this issue, as well as 
other unfulfilled commitments of the Phase One agreement, an important 
part of my engagement with Chinese trade officials.

    Question. Last year, Senator Thune and I led a letter with 61 
bipartisan Senators urging USDA and USTR asking them to prioritize 
market access assurances for common food names that our food 
manufacturers, exporters, and producers use in their products. Many 
countries outside of North America exploit protections meant for valid 
geographical indications to limit competition and block imports.

    Will you commit to working with USDA on this issue in future U.S. 
trade negotiations and agreements to ensure the continued use of common 
food names?

    Answer. The United States secured historic protections for common 
food names in the USMCA. If confirmed, I commit to working with USDA on 
this issue to build on that success, and to prioritize the use of 
common food names during future trade negotiations.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Chuck Grassley
    Question. If confirmed, how will you use the tremendous leverage 
the United States has to revitalize the WTO's negotiating function so 
that the rules reflect the modern economy, including e-commerce?

    Answer. The WTO negotiating function has failed to keep pace with 
changes in the global economy. WTO rules need to be updated to reflect 
developments that have unfolded over the past quarter-century, 
particularly in the digital economy. If confirmed, I commit to work 
with like-minded partners to ensure that any new rules are high-
standard ones that reflect the Build Back Better agenda.

    Question. What reforms would the Biden administration be interested 
in pursuing to WTO's Appellate Body?

    Answer. Over the years, the Appellate Body has overstepped its 
authority and erred in interpreting WTO agreements in a number of 
cases, to the detriment of the United States and other WTO members. In 
addition, the Appellate Body has failed to follow existing rules 
created to ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely manner. If 
confirmed, I commit to seeking a comprehensive range of reforms to 
address these shortcomings.

    Question. Do you think China should be accorded developing country 
status at the WTO?

    Answer. If the WTO is going to succeed in promoting equitable 
economic development, it is critical that the institution rethink the 
ability of countries to self-select developing country status. The 
rules for special and differential treatment should be reserved for 
those countries whose development indicators and global competitiveness 
actually warrant such flexibilities; they should not be abused by 
countries that are already major trading powers.

    Question. Mexican President Lopez Obrador recently issued a decree 
that would ban glyphosate, a widely-used U.S. crop protection tool, and 
would ban GMO corn in Mexican diets--both by 2024. These actions have 
the potential for major trade disruption and could put Iowa corn 
farmers in the position where they must choose between access to the 
Mexican market or access to critical production tools that have enabled 
them to farm more sustainably and efficiently.

    If confirmed, would you support enforcement action against Mexico 
for its violations of USMCA with respect to agricultural biotech 
approvals?

    Answer. Mexico is a critical export market for American 
agriculture, with nearly $3 billion of corn exports each year. If 
confirmed, I will work with USDA to promote U.S. corn exports to 
Mexico, and commit to fully enforcing the USMCA.

    Question. Mexico had recently approved and started moving to a 10-
percent ethanol blend, but litigation and stalled regulatory action 
have caused market uncertainty and stifled the growth of ethanol 
demand. Moving to a ten percent ethanol blend in Mexico holds the 
potential of 1.2 billion gallons of additional ethanol demand in North 
America.

    What steps are you prepared to take with your Mexican counterparts 
to ensure that they move forward expeditiously with ten percent ethanol 
blending?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with USDA and the Department of 
Energy to protect market access for American ethanol producers in 
Mexico.

    Question. While I understand the rationale for China section 301 
tariffs, some of those tariffs are hurting U.S. renewable energy 
producers and job creation, and impeding the introduction of clean 
energy technologies in the United States, I believe we should be 
prepared to grant tariff exclusions where appropriate.

    With virtually all of the initial China 301 tariff exclusions now 
having expired, would you be prepared to stand up a new section 301 
tariff exclusion process for parts used in renewable energy products 
made in the U.S.?

    Answer. China's track record of using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology--to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers--is 
well-established. During the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation into China's unfair trade practices under section 301 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, and it found that China engages in unfair trade 
act policies and practices related to intellectual property, innovation 
and technology transfer. The United States imposed tariffs on products 
from China to address those findings. If confirmed, I will work with 
Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately responsive to 
China's practices and consider the impact on U.S. businesses, workers 
and consumers.

    Question. In the Phase One deal, China agreed to ``implement a 
transparent, predictable, efficient, science- and risk-based regulatory 
process for safety evaluation and authorization of products of 
agricultural biotechnology.'' However, we have seen no domestic 
movement in Beijing to move towards reforms.

    If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that China 
approves agricultural biotechnology products that are science-based?

    Answer. U.S. farmers are harmed when our trading partners, 
particularly China, undertake non-science-based regulatory processes to 
create barriers against our agricultural exports. If confirmed, I 
commit to utilizing the tools at my disposal in the Phase One agreement 
to ensure that China lives up to the obligations in the agreement.

    Question. Iowa is a leading hub for amino acid innovation and 
production for use in animal agriculture throughout the United States. 
I am concerned that unfair Chinese subsidies to its amino acid industry 
have resulted in unfair increases in imports of Chinese amino acids 
such as Lysine and Threonine. These unfair trade practices jeopardize 
the vitality of U.S. amino acid producers, the U.S. amino acid supply 
chain, and American corn growers.

    If confirmed, will you include the issue of potential Chinese 
unfair practices in the amino acid space as part of the Biden 
administration's international trade agenda with China? Will you also 
commit to briefing my office and the relevant Capitol Hill committees 
on this issue on a biannual basis?

    Answer. Chinese subsidies have harmed American producers and 
jeopardized the resiliency of American supply chains in a number of 
sectors, including amino acids. If confirmed, I will make it a priority 
to address the full range of unfair Chinese trade practices that 
disadvantage our farmers and workers and to consult Congress in those 
efforts.

    Question. The EU is targeting companies through its digital 
services taxes, competition proposals, and is threatening transatlantic 
commerce through the invalidation of the Privacy Shield. This is 
protectionism plain and simple. Equally concerning is the rapid 
proliferation of many of these policies globally. Unfortunately, rather 
than working together with the US to set global standards and address 
shared concerns like China, the EU is moving forward on their own. I 
did not always agree with the previous administration, but I was a 
strong supporter of using section 301 to defend American interests from 
discrimination abroad.

    If confirmed, what will your strategy be to stem the growing tide 
of protectionisms in Europe?

    Answer. I am aware of the concerns U.S. companies have raised about 
digital services taxes (DSTs) and the continued free flow of data. Many 
DSTs were designed by our trading partners in a way that unfairly 
singles out large U.S. digital platform companies. As you know, the 
previous administration started section 301 investigations against the 
DSTs introduced by a number of countries but then suspended the 
introduction or implementation of specific remedies to allow time for 
negotiations. If confirmed, I will review the status of those actions 
and will work with my colleagues at the Treasury Department to resolve 
the digital taxation disputes, and I will use the trade tools available 
to support the Department of Commerce's effort to conclude an Enhanced 
Privacy Shield Framework.

    Question. The European Union is in the process of implementing 
legislation that will impose new EU antibiotic use restrictions on 
producers of animal products that export to the EU, a move that could 
cause serious disruptions. EU regulators are refusing to take into 
account relevant data from countries outside the EU or to consider use 
restrictions already in place in the U.S. and elsewhere, as required 
under WTO rules.

    How do you intend to deal with this type of EU regulatory 
protectionism?

    Answer. I understand the importance of this issue. If confirmed, I 
commit to holding our trading partners to their WTO commitments with 
respect to sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the application of 
standards and other obligations that impact our agricultural exporters.

    Question. President Biden has said he would like to renegotiate 
aspects of the CPTPP if the U.S. were to sign the agreement. If 
confirmed, what aspects of the agreement would you change?

    Answer. Much has changed in the world since the original TPP was 
signed in 2016. If confirmed, I will review the CPTPP to evaluate its 
consistency with the Build Back Better agenda. I commit to consulting 
closely with Congress on trade agreement negotiations.

    Question. In the past year, both presidential candidates supported 
an outright repeal of CDA 230, the Department of Justice proposed 
significant reforms, and over a dozen bills were introduced in Congress 
reflecting bipartisan concerns about 230 as it currently stands. Prior 
to USMCA, CDA 230 was not in any U.S. trade agreements. Advocates of 
including 230 have been clear that they favor putting it in trade 
agreements to ``protect it domestically''--i.e., to prevent 
congressional reforms.

    Given that context, would you agree that section 230 does not 
belong in future trade agreements?

    Answer. There are a wide variety of views on this issue, and I 
commit to consulting with the relevant stakeholders, including 
Congress, on this and other provisions of our trade agreements.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
        cost of trade wars/growing u.s. trade and market access
    Question. From our ports, to our farmers, to aerospace workers--
U.S. exports mean U.S. jobs. About one in four jobs in Washington State 
is tied to trade. Ninety-six percent of the world's customers live 
outside of the United States.

    Prior to the COVID pandemic, half of the world's population had 
reached the middle class--almost 4 billion people. U.S. exporters need 
to be able to reach those markets to continue to grow the U.S. economy 
and U.S. jobs.

    The Trump bilateral, tariff-first approach to China has severely 
damaged our businesses' and farmers' ability to compete on the global 
marketplace.

    Moody's Analytics estimates that the Trump administration's trade 
war with China caused nearly 300,000 Americans to lose their jobs. U.S. 
companies have lost at least $1.7 trillion in the price of their stocks 
as a result of the Trump tariffs on Chinese goods. JPMorgan estimates 
that the trade war cost the average American household between $600 and 
$1,000 per year.

    While this trade war was being waged by Trump administration, China 
dropped its tariffs on the rest of the world by 25 percent, putting 
U.S. companies and farmers at an even greater competitive disadvantage. 
U.S. companies lost shelf space and market share.

    In 2017, prior to the tariffs, the value of Washington apples 
shipped to the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong was $49 
million. Today it is $16 million. Pacific Northwest cherry exports to 
China and Hong Kong have dropped 69 percent since retaliatory tariffs 
were implemented. Sweet cherry shipments to China and Hong Kong in 2017 
were valued at $141 million. Last year, 2020 sales were $70 million.

    Now, after the end of the Trump administration, U.S. tariffs of up 
to 25 percent remain on roughly $335 billion of Chinese imports and 
retaliatory Chinese tariffs of up to 30 percent remain on approximately 
$90 billion of U.S. goods, which is more than half of all U.S.-China 
trade flows. China has not implemented structural changes to stop 
forced tech transfer or to provide long-term market access.

    We need to work with U.S. allies like Europe and Japan to meet the 
real challenges we face from China. We also need to expand U.S. access 
in other fast growing markets in Asia like Vietnam, which was Asia's 
top performing economy in 2020, growing by nearly 3 percent in the 
midst of the COVID pandemic. Vietnam's economy is projected to grow 
another 7 percent this year.

    The Trump administration focused on the threat and use of punitive 
tariffs on U.S. trading partners as well as against competitors.

    Will the Biden administration continue this practice of imposing 
unilateral punitive tariffs? If not, how will the Biden administration 
work with our allies on China?

    Answer. China is both a major market for U.S. exporters and a major 
trading partner whose practices have harmed U.S. workers, farmers, 
ranchers, manufacturers, and innovators. The Biden-Harris 
administration is engaged in a comprehensive review of existing U.S. 
policies to determine what action we must take to meet the China 
challenge. We will be stronger in meeting that challenge if we work 
with our allies. If confirmed, I will utilize a wide range of tools to 
ensure that we develop a strategic and coherent plan to address the 
challenges and opportunities before us.

    Question. What specific and concrete actions does the Biden 
administration want to see before it lifts the remaining Trump tariffs 
on China?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is engaged in a 
comprehensive review of existing U.S. policies to determine what action 
we must take to meet the China challenge. I understand that the 
administration will pursue a whole-of-government strategy based on that 
review that addresses China's unfair trade practices, invests in U.S. 
manufacturing and innovation, prioritizes supply chain resilience, and 
increases American competitiveness.

    Question. If confirmed, which countries will be priorities for 
trade negotiations? What will you do to grow market access for U.S. 
exporters in other fast growing markets in the Asia?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize trade negotiations with 
partners that are willing to sign trade agreements that benefit all 
Americans. In addition, I will work to ensure that Americans are not 
unfairly disadvantaged by trade barriers, actionable subsidies, lax 
enforcement of labor rights, poor environmental regulations, failure to 
enforce intellectual property rights, or other unfair trade practices.
                     apples/market access in india
    Question. India is a very important market for Washington State 
apples.

    The value of the market for Washington apples was $120 million 
prior to India imposing tariffs of up to 70 percent because of the 
Trump administration's unilateral steel tariffs in 2018. Today the 
market for Washington applies is $4.9 million.

    India will now be requiring certification that export shipments are 
free of genetically engineered crops. Apples are included under this 
requirement, and no genetically engineered apples are exported from the 
United States.

    Furthermore, there are no genetically engineered red delicious--the 
variety that accounts for most of all the apple exports to India.

    Additionally, India will close its market for U.S. apples on March 
1st if no agreement is reached with the United States.

    The Trump administration terminated India's preferential trade 
status under the Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSP) program 
in 2019 over concerns about market access for U.S. goods and services. 
However, India is still moving to restrict market access.

    What will you do to ensure India keeps its market open to U.S. 
apples and reduces its tariffs?

    Answer. I understand the detrimental effects that India's tariffs 
have had on Washington apple exports. If confirmed, I look forward to 
working closely with your office to support the Washington apple 
industry.

    Question. When would the Biden administration consider restoring 
India's GSP status and will access for apples and other U.S. exports be 
a factor?

    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to 
update and reauthorize the GSP program. If Congress passes an extension 
of the GSP program, I will review our trading partners' eligibility for 
the program based on their compliance with the program's criteria. I 
commit to working with Congress on GSP eligibility reviews.
             wheat/growing exports in china/southeast asia
    Question. When China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 
2001, it agreed to a tariff rate quota. China committed to allow 
imports of up to 9.64 million metric tons of wheat from all sources 
each year at a 1 percent tariff. However, it never lived up to its 
commitment and the Obama administration brought a case to the WTO that 
it won.

    Last year, China finally took important steps toward meeting their 
WTO commitments to import wheat. Beijing also made commitments to 
purchase U.S. wheat and other agricultural products as part of the 
Phase One deal with the Trump administration. As a result, China has 
bought 878,500 metric tons of Pacific Northwest soft white wheat this 
year.

    Other foreign markets in South East Asia like Vietnam and Indonesia 
also have great potential. Markets in Central and South America like 
Chile and Guatemala are also important opportunities.

    Soft white wheat sales are up 10-30 percent in each of these 
regions. Our competitors in Canada and Australia aggressively pursue 
foreign sales in these markets.

    How will the Biden administration make sure U.S. wheat exports to 
China continue to grow?

    Answer. America's wheat farmers depend on stable access to the 
Chinese market. If confirmed, I will work with you to ensure that 
China's market is open and remain open to U.S. wheat and other 
agricultural products.

    Question. Will the Biden administration pursue negotiations to open 
markets in Southeast Asia that have great potential for wheat and other 
U.S. exports? What will you do to make sure that our wheat growers do 
not lose market share to their aggressive foreign competitors?

    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working to identify new 
markets for U.S. agricultural products such as wheat.
                      boeing-airbus dispute/europe
    Question. Aerospace has been a leading U.S. export for many years. 
The future of aerospace matters to U.S. jobs. There are more than 
100,000 aerospace jobs in Washington State and before the pandemic 
there were even more.

    In 2006, the United States brought a case at the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) because Europe provided $22 billion in illegal 
subsidies for the development of Airbus commercial aircraft (A350 and 
A380).

    The Europeans countered with a case against the United States. The 
WTO ruled for the United States in 2012 and 2016 and for the EU in 
2019. As a result of the WTO cases, the United States imposed WTO-
approved tariffs of up to 25 percent on a range of products including 
European aircraft, wine and spirits, and dairy. The European Union 
still imposed tariffs of up to 25 percent on U.S. aircraft and a range 
of agricultural products including Pacific salmon, wine, wheat, and 
berries.

    The EU has kept sanctions in place even though in March 2020 
Washington State repealed the tax provision that the WTO found to be 
out of compliance. Last year, the Trump administration failed to reach 
an agreement with the Europeans on commercial aircraft subsidies that 
would finally end the dispute and the tariffs.

    As it seeks to rebuild the transatlantic alliance, the Biden 
administration has a real opportunity to resolve this dispute, finally 
end harmful Airbus subsidies, and establish a level playing field for 
America's aerospace industry.

    Will you prioritize reaching an agreement on commercial aircraft 
subsidies to end European and U.S. tariffs and finally end the Boeing 
Airbus dispute?

    Answer. The Boeing/Airbus WTO litigation has been ongoing for more 
than 15 years. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to resolve this 
long-running dispute in a way that ensures Boeing and its workers can 
compete on a level playing field.

    Question. Do you anticipate reaching separate agreements with the 
United Kingdom and the European Union?

    Answer. The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 
2020. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the United Kingdom 
on a range of trade issues, including the disputes regarding Boeing and 
Airbus.

    Question. Will you commit to resolving the Boeing-Airbus dispute 
and tariffs prior to finalizing any U.S.-EU trade agreement or U.S.-
United Kingdom trade agreement?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to resolve this 
long-running dispute in a way that ensures Boeing and its workers can 
compete on a level playing field. I commit to working with Members of 
Congress on trade priorities with the European Union and the United 
Kingdom.
                          digital trade/europe
    Question. Digital trade and the free flow of data across borders is 
critical to all U.S. exporters and importers, as well as the 5,000+ 
tech companies in Washington and our State's more than $2.8 billion 
digital export economy.

    Some European officials are pushing for ``European digital 
sovereignty'' and to enact new laws and regulations on tech that could 
advantage European companies at the expense of U.S. companies. It may 
amount to drifting towards protectionism.

    Instead, the U.S. and Europe should increase constructive dialogue 
and cooperation on digital trade and tech policies, setting global 
standards, and confronting China on intellectual property theft.

    The U.S. and EU also need to finalize a new Privacy Shield 
agreement to allow for the continued cross broader flow of data 
consistent with EU legal data protection and privacy requirements.

    If confirmed, will you closely monitor new European laws and 
regulations on tech that amount to non-tariff trade barriers and defend 
U.S. companies against any targeted and discriminatory measures?

    Answer. I recognize the vital importance of the digital economy and 
digital trade to the State of Washington, and to the broader U.S. 
economy. If confirmed, I commit to work closely with Congress to 
respond to the introduction of laws and regulations that would unfairly 
discriminate against U.S. companies.

    Question. Will you prioritize strong digital trade rules in any 
U.S.-EU trade agreement and work to keep growing the free flow of data 
across borders that is so important to the 21st-century economy?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues at the 
Department of Commerce to find a path forward that allows for the 
continued cross-border flow of data.

    Question. What steps will you take to cooperate with Europe on 
addressing intellectual property and market access challenges in China?

    Answer. While there are differences between the U.S. and the EU on 
some important issues, the U.S. and the EU share broad concerns about 
China's unfair practices, including policies that in practice condition 
market access on technology transfer. It is a priority of the Biden 
administration to work with our allies, including our European allies, 
to address the many challenges posed by China.

    Question. Will you reengage on the WTO negotiations on e-commerce, 
and will you make it a priority?

    Answer. The WTO negotiating function has failed to keep pace with 
changes in the global economy. WTO rules need to be updated to reflect 
developments that have unfolded over the past quarter-century, 
particularly in the digital economy. If confirmed, I commit to work 
with like-minded partners to ensure that any new rules reflect the 
values of the Build Back Better agenda.
                          environmental goods
    Question. Climate Change is a global challenge that no nation can 
solve on their own. For this reason, I appreciate President Biden 
rejoining the Paris Agreement so the U.S. can resume its role as a 
leader in reducing the world's dangerous levels of carbon pollution.

    Being part of the global solution on climate will also help ensure 
the U.S. has access to a rapidly growing trillion-dollar annual market 
that could create thousands of high-wage trade and manufacturing jobs 
in Washington State.

    But that market opportunity is currently constrained by a variety 
of tariffs that make environmental goods and services more expensive 
and less accessible then they should be, especially in the developing 
world where most future carbon pollution will come from.

    That's why I think it's imperative that we work to make it easier 
for all countries to adopt lower carbon technologies. Examples include 
goods and services that address air pollution control, renewable 
energy, water and waste management, environmental monitoring, and 
carbon capture and storage technologies.

    Ideally with America being the ones manufacturing and selling those 
technologies to the rest of the world.

    In 2001, the Doha Ministerial Declaration directed WTO members to 
negotiate the elimination of tariffs on environmental goods. In 2014 
the U.S. and its global trading partners began negotiations on an 
Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) under the WTO with the goal of 
eliminating tariffs on environmental products and services. That was a 
big deal, because the 46 WTO members negotiating that agreement account 
for 90 percent of environmental goods traded worldwide. Unfortunately, 
discussions stalled in 2016 and were not pursued by the last 
administration.

    Ms. Tai, do you support the goals of the Environmental Goods 
Agreement?

    Answer. Combating climate change and developing green enterprises 
and jobs are key priorities for the Biden-Harris administration. In 
July 2014, the United States and 13 additional members of the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) officially launched negotiations on the 
proposed Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) to eliminate tariffs on 
green technologies. If confirmed, I will pursue a trade agenda that 
supports the Biden administration's comprehensive vision of reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and achieving net-zero global emissions by 
2050, or before, by fostering U.S. innovation and production of 
climate-related technology and promoting resilient renewable energy 
supply chains.

    Question. As U.S. Trade Representative, will you seek to restart 
negotiations on this vital pact that could make the products we need to 
combat climate change cheaper and more accessible worldwide?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek stakeholder input on the EGA and 
evaluate the agreement for its consistency with the Build Back Better 
agenda and its potential contribution to the Biden-Harris 
administration's goal of achieving net-zero global emissions by 2050.

    Question. Will you commit to looking into existing tariff levels 
with other WTO members to determine which countries have tariffs on 
environmental goods that differ or exceed corresponding US tariffs? And 
will you share that analysis with the members of this committee?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with you to 
identify barriers to reciprocal market access for U.S. producers of 
environmental goods.
                         fresh potatoes/mexico
    Question. Mexico has again delayed granting full access for U.S. 
fresh potatoes. It has refused to provide market access despite more 
than 20 years of U.S. advocacy and its obligations under the WTO, 
NAFTA, and the USMCA. As a result, Mexico continues to significantly 
damage the Washington State potato industry and the jobs it supports.

    What specific steps will you take to finally gain durable market 
access for U.S. fresh potatoes to Mexico?

    Answer. I understand the historical issues concerning full access 
to the Mexican market for U.S. fresh potatoes. If confirmed, I will 
work to address unfair trade practices that hurt our producers.
                  section 301 tariff exclusion process
    Question. Last December, many U.S. importers across a variety of 
non-health care industries have had their 301 China tariff exclusions 
expire and are now facing tariffs of up to 25 percent.

    These are U.S. businesses that were previously approved for 
exclusions by USTR and are in significant need of tariff relief as we 
continue to fight the COVID pandemic.

    For example, tariff relief expired at the end of last year on 
seafood products originally caught by Seattle-based fishing companies 
that undergo secondary processing in China before returning to the U.S. 
We are now paying tariffs of 25 percent on these U.S. caught seafood 
products.

    In another case, a small business called Rad Power Bikes in 
Ballard, WA, which imports electric-powered bikes, recently lost their 
tariff exclusion and now faces an additional $20 million in estimated 
costs due to tariffs in 2021 unless they get their exclusion back.

    Will you commit to conducting an internal review of USTR's current 
301 tariff exclusion process?

    As the Biden administration develops its strategy on China, will 
the administration consider extending previously-approved 301 tariff 
exclusions that expired in December 2020?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to assessing the section 301 tariffs 
and exclusion process as part of President Biden's comprehensive 
approach to confronting the China challenge.

    Question. My office has also heard from Washington-based companies 
that were denied 301 tariff exclusions under the Trump administration 
with little to no explanation as to why.

    For example, a paper mill called the North Pacific Paper Company in 
Longview, WA--which has over 400 high-skilled manufacturing jobs--had 
their tariff exclusion request denied by the previous administration 
without a clear explanation, even though another company was granted an 
exclusion for the exact same product.

    Can you commit to reviewing the previous administration's arbitrary 
decisions to grant or reject 301 tariff exclusions?

    Moving forward, will the administration consider reopening the 301 
tariff exclusion process and grant new exclusions?

    Will you ensure that any new rules for the tariff exclusion process 
are clear and consistent, and prioritize granting exclusions that will 
benefit U.S. companies in need of tariff relief?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to assessing the section 301 tariffs 
and exclusion process as part of President Biden's whole-of-government 
approach to confronting the China challenge. I also commit to ensuring 
that any tariff exclusion process--and any similar, USTR-led process--
is transparent, fair, and objective.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. John Cornyn
    Question. Since June 2018, certain American spirits exports to the 
EU and UK have faced a 25-percent tariff in response to the U.S. 
imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum, and in connection with the 
WTO dispute concerning Boeing. Absent a resolution to the steel 
tariffs, the EU's tariff on American Whiskey will automatically double 
to 50 percent in June. The U.S. has imposed a 25 percent tariff on 
certain EU and UK wines and spirits imports since October 2019 in 
connection with the WTO Airbus dispute. The negative impact of these 
tariffs are being felt across the U.S. from farmers, to suppliers, 
retailers, and the hospitality sector.

    Will you commit to taking these views into account?

    What is the administration's plan to negotiate resolutions to the 
various trade disputes with the EU and UK to ensure that these tariffs 
are quickly removed?

    Answer. The purpose of WTO dispute resolution process is to ensure 
that other countries play by the rules so that our businesses, workers, 
farmers and ranchers can compete on a level playing field. Tariffs may 
be a tool to achieve these ends, but they are not the goal. The Boeing/
Airbus WTO litigation has been ongoing for more than 15 years. If 
confirmed, I will make it a priority to resolve this long-
running dispute in a way that ensures Boeing and its workers can 
compete on a level playing field and that takes into account all 
affected stakeholders.

    Question. The USMCA is a critical agreement that promotes stability 
across our borders, delivers important wins for businesses, workers, 
and communities, and demonstrates to the American public the importance 
and value of trade. Yet even with the July 1st implementation of the 
USMCA, manufacturers continue to face new and proposed trade barriers 
in Mexico and Canada, as well as broader challenges for companies with 
operations in Mexico, such as concerns about a lack of independence and 
autonomy of Mexican regulators, pharmaceutical procurement processes 
that lack transparency, and preferential treatment for Mexican state-
run entities such as in the energy industry at the expense of U.S. 
companies.

    How will you make sure that the USMCA is implemented and enforced 
in a manner that will support the recovery and renewal of our 
economies?

    How will you use binding enforcement of commercial provisions to 
make sure that Mexico and Canada follow through on their commitments?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review Mexico's and Canada's 
compliance with their obligations in the USMCA and the necessary 
actions to obtain that compliance. I commit to fully enforcing the 
USMCA.

    Question. Free trade agreements have been very good for our farmers 
and food manufacturers that make safe, high-quality products here in 
the U.S. That's true for my State's beef and dairy sectors, as well as 
other agricultural industries in Texas. To stay competitive though, we 
need to be pursuing agreements to expand exports of those products 
further and engage on trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership (TPP). These agreements are especially with key agriculture 
importing countries in Asia.

    When will the administration begin work on such agreements and will 
Southeast Asia be a priority region for pursuing them?

    Answer. Much has changed in the world since the original TPP was 
signed in 2016. If confirmed, I will review the CPTPP to evaluate its 
consistency with the Build Back Better agenda. I commit to consulting 
closely with Congress on trade agreement negotiations.

    Question. As a co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, I'm concerned 
about India's recent wave of digital protectionist policies. Just in 
the past year, the Indian Government has moved to restrict foreign 
investment in e-commerce while increasing requirements for localization 
of data and threatening to mandate the sharing of American companies' 
data with Indian authorities and competitors.

    There is also a USTR section 301 report criticizing India's 
discriminatory digital tax, which targets U.S. companies. India's 
direction appears eerily similar to China's playbook, where the 
government has opened the market just enough to take what it wants from 
U.S. companies and then closes the door behind them in order to protect 
and grow its own national champions. Any consideration to restore 
India's GSP benefits should include a commitment to address these 
growing barriers to digital trade, which I worry may inspire copycat 
actions throughout the world.

    If confirmed, will you commit to making digital trade and services 
commitments a priority for any bilateral economic engagement or deal 
with India, including by leveraging the section 301 report to address 
discrimination against U.S. companies in India?

    Answer. The previous administration initiated section 301 
investigations against the digital service taxes (DSTs) introduced by a 
number of countries, including India, but has not introduced specific 
remedies. I also have taken note of the proposed changes to India's 
digital levy that would expand the scope of that tax. If confirmed, I 
will work with my colleagues at the Treasury Department to address the 
digital services taxes in the context of the multilateral effort to 
limit tax competition and address base erosion and profit shifting 
through the OECD/G20 process.

    Question. It is no secret that China continues to protect its 
domestic market from international investment and U.S. companies at-
large. The United States leads the world in the technology services 
industry, including many of the most secure and innovative companies in 
cloud computing. Unfortunately, due to multiple discriminatory barriers 
in China--from licensing to joint venture requirements--U.S. cloud 
providers cannot sell their services directly to other American 
companies operating in China, or anyone else. This is all while Chinese 
cloud providers, with far less secure technologies, can and do sell 
their cloud services here in the United States without restrictions. 
These are the same Chinese cloud companies that undercut our American 
cloud providers around the world due to Beijing's generous subsidies 
and their sanctuary, domestic market.

    Will you assure me that you will fight for American cloud service 
providers so that they can bring secure cloud computing to China on 
equal footing with their Chinese competitors, and remove the harmful 
tariffs that further disadvantage them?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will fight to ensure that America's cloud 
service providers are not disadvantaged in China.

    Question. As you know, USTR is required to collect information for 
and publish the Special 301 report, which focuses on identifying and 
improving the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights by our trading partners. Congress hoped that this report would 
be used as a jumping off point for effective negotiation and, where 
necessary, enforcement. Yet, identified trade irritants appear year 
after year in the Special 301 report. Some would like to see USTR 
respond more aggressively to this call to congressional action.

    Under your leadership, how will USTR improve the Special 301 
process to not only identify problems, but also to resolve them?

    How will USTR use its trade enforcement tools to ensure our trading 
partners protect U.S. intellectual property?

    Answer. The Special 301 process is among the critical tools in 
USTR's toolbox to monitor our trading partners' intellectual property 
practices. If confirmed, I will focus on leveraging Special 301 to 
resolve practices that harm America's innovators.

    Question. The Biden administration has stated its intention to make 
robust Buy America policies a key plank of its economic policy. The aim 
of such policies is to ensure that U.S. manufacturers and workers 
benefit from taxpayer-funded projects. This is generally a sound policy 
goal. Some are advocating that any infrastructure package contain ``Buy 
North American'' requirements instead of ``Buy American'' requirements.

    Is this the case and what are your thoughts on such a concept?

    Answer. I understand that President Biden's executive order on Made 
in America is intended to ensure that when the Federal Government 
spends taxpayer dollars, it spends them on goods made by American 
workers with American-made component parts. If confirmed, I will work 
closely with the President and other Federal agencies to ensure our 
trade policies support the objectives of this executive order, while 
recognizing the strategic and economic importance of our partnerships 
with Canada and Mexico.

    Question. The Biden administration has announced its intention to 
increase government procurement of domestically manufactured goods and 
services. At the same time, the United States is a party to the WTO 
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), which limits the United States' 
ability to apply robust Buy America requirements to government 
procurement. Some have proposed suspending U.S. obligations under the 
GPA on a temporary, emergency basis to shore up critical domestic 
supply chains and spur economic recovery in the wake of the COVID 
pandemic.

    What are your thoughts on such a concept?

    Answer. It is the policy of the Biden-Harris administration that 
the United States should seek to maximize the use of goods made in the 
United States for Federal procurement and financial assistance awards, 
consistent with applicable law. If confirmed, I will work to ensure 
that our trade policy supports this goal.

    Question. Should the U.S. renegotiate any of its U.S. GPA 
commitments to ensure that the administration can achieve its Buy 
America objectives?

    Answer. As a part of its review of the implementation and efficacy 
of laws, regulations, and policies related to Federal procurement, the 
United States should also examine procurements made under our trade 
agreement obligations to ensure that they serve the interests of the 
United States, its businesses and workers. If confirmed, I commit to 
undertake this review.

    Question. Both the Obama and Trump administrations recognized the 
existence of serious deficiencies in the WTO dispute settlement 
process. WTO members have used the dispute settlement process to 
achieve what they could not achieve in negotiations, including the 
severe weakening of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. In 
addition, the Appellate Body has repeatedly failed to address China's 
dangerous combination of government subsidies, state-owned enterprises 
and distortive non-market behavior. The United States needs to engage 
in serious and meaningful negotiations to resolve these issues prior to 
considering any reestablishment of the Appellate Body.

    What are your plans for addressing the serious deficiencies in the 
WTO's dispute settlement process?

    Do you agree that the Appellate Body should not be revived until 
these problems are fully addressed?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will reengage like-minded partners who 
similarly recognize the importance and necessity of reform of the WTO, 
including its dispute settlement process. This will be difficult work, 
but I remain hopeful that with proper U.S. leadership, we can achieve 
the necessary reform that resolves our long-standing, bipartisan 
concerns.

    Question. Domestically produced steel is among the cleanest in the 
world. How do you plan to ensure that the WTO cannot block or weaken 
the administration's efforts to promote and expand markets for 
domestically produced steel?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to examining any potential barriers 
to the expanding the exportation of domestically produced steel, 
including at the WTO, and working with Congress to address those 
barriers.

    Question. Some believe the Obama administration recognized that 
there is a massive global overcapacity issue affecting the steel 
industry, involving not just China, but many other countries as well. 
The Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity and the earlier OECD steel 
subsidy negotiations, have simply not reached consensus on the matter.

    What are your thoughts on the claims that there is an overcapacity 
affecting the domestic steel industry?

    Do you believe existing actions under section 232 are effective?

    Answer. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) that do not operate based on 
market principles disadvantage U.S. businesses and their workers and 
have contributed significantly to global market distortions, notably in 
the steel industry. If confirmed, I will work with our allies to 
collectively address market distortions caused by SOEs, subsidies and 
other unfair trade practices in the steel sector. In addition, I will 
pursue trade enforcement actions against trading partners that use SOEs 
and unfair trade practices to disadvantage U.S. businesses and their 
workers, and I will pursue disciplines in trade agreement negotiations 
aimed at addressing SOEs and such unfair practices.

    Question. The USTR implemented a tariff exclusion process for each 
list of products on the section 301 tariffs for products exported to 
China. For the products that were excluded from the tariffs the 
exclusion relief expired on December 31, 2020.

    The absence of the previously approved exclusions increases 
uncertainty for U.S. businesses during the pandemic. The Biden 
administration has suggested that they will review all trade policy in 
place.

    While the section 301 tariffs are under review, will you consider 
reinstating the process for product exclusions and those that had 
previously received such exclusions?

    Answer. China's track record of using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. In the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and consider the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers.

    Question. The natural gas and oil industry has experienced 
significant regulatory challenges in Mexico by Mexican regulators 
attempting to complicate and delay investor operations in Mexico to the 
advantage of PEMEX, Mexico's state-owned oil company.

    Given recent claims by the Mexican Government that Mexico's 
hydrocarbons resources are not covered under USMCA, can you state your 
position regarding how hydrocarbons should be treated with regard to 
USMCA?

    Can you detail how you would ensure that American and other foreign 
investors in Mexico are treated fairly and ensure the USCMA provisions 
on fair treatment will be enforced?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the reports of discriminatory 
action in the energy sector that you have highlighted, and I will 
consult with stakeholders and Congress on these issues. I commit to 
quickly engaging the Mexican Government if it violates the agreement 
and to using all dispute settlement tools to fully enforce USMCA 
whenever necessary.

    Question. Investor-state dispute settlements, or ISDS, are an 
integral part of USMCA and many other FTA's that the US has around the 
world.

    Can you please state how you and USTR would prioritize the 
enforcement of ISDS under USMCA and the inclusion of strong ISDS 
provisions in other FTA's the US may pursue?

    Answer. President Biden has stated that he does not believe 
corporations should get special tribunals in trade agreements that are 
not available to other organizations and that he opposes the ability of 
private corporations to attack labor, health, and environmental 
policies through the investor-state dispute settlement. If confirmed, I 
will pursue a trade agenda consistent with the Biden-Harris 
administration's Build Back Better agenda.

    Question. Can you please state your view on how the current tariffs 
on imported goods from Mexico and section 232 tariffs on steel and 
aluminum will be handled under your leadership at USTR?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully review tariffs on imported 
goods from Mexico. In addition, I will work closely with the Department 
of Commerce on any review and implementation of the section 232 tariffs 
on steel and aluminum.

    Question. Natural gas and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) exports have 
served as a strong enticement to help the U.S. achieve policy goals and 
partnerships with other countries. That advantage and U.S. exports 
should only be strengthened in coming years to maintain and grow U.S. 
leadership abroad.

    Can you please elaborate on how USTR under your leadership will 
support and encourage growing U.S. energy exports, particularly that of 
liquefied natural gas (LNG) around the world?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of Energy to 
promote market access for American energy exports.

    Question. The trade war with China continues, and the structural 
reform commitments the United States was expecting to see from China 
have not yet materialized. The imposition of punitive tariffs on 
imports from China has not yet addressed the areas of forced technology 
transfer and intellectual property theft. Meanwhile, we in Congress 
need to begin thinking about how to provide incentives for those 
willing to restore supply chains back home and with our allies.

    Do you foresee being actively engaged in bilateral talks with 
China?

    Answer. I am open to exploring a wide range of options to address 
our longstanding problems with China's unfair trade practices, 
including bilateral talks. However, I will not hesitate to act if those 
talks prove ineffective.

    Question. Two critical trade preference programs--the Generalized 
System of Preferences (GSP) and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB)--
lapsed at the end of 2020 imposing a tax increase on American workers, 
American consumers, and American businesses at a time when they can 
least afford it. Both the GSP and MTB programs have been supported for 
decades by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has caused great uncertainty for American companies and their U.S. 
workers. This is not the time to impose new costs on U.S. supply 
chains, particularly on American job creators who are still recovering 
from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Can you confirm the administration's support for retroactive 
renewal of GSP and MTB in short order?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with Congress on 
renewal of GSP and MTB.

    Question. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is authorized through 
July 1, 2021. TPA is a delegated, constitutional authority created in 
1974. I have previously supported TPA passage and continue to support 
it in principle. However, I have concerns over the integrity of the 
process recently used. Each FTA passed through TPA until 2020 received 
an opportunity for congressional input via a ``mock markup.''

    USMCA was the first agreement to ever skip this process. Senate 
Report 114-2, which accompanied the 2015 TPA bill, states that when 
considering the 1974 TPA act:

        This committee took the position that Congress should have an 
        active role in drafting the legislation to implement the 
        agreement. The result was that the committee considered a draft 
        of the implementing bill through a ``mock'' legislative 
        process, with committee consideration, amendments, and 
        conference committee. The President then submitted final 
        legislation to Congress based on the results of the ``mock'' 
        legislative process. Although not formally outlined in any 
        document, the executive and legislative branches thus agreed on 
        a process that allowed congressional involvement in crafting 
        legislation that would eventually be formally considered under 
        expedited procedures. The so-called ``mock-markup'' process 
        continues to this day.

    Unfortunately, the process no longer continues. This ``mock-
markup,'' while trivial to some, is a bedrock practice for allowing 
members of Congress and those serving on the Senate Finance Committee 
to indicate their intent upon receipt of the implementing bill. USTR 
still has the final say in what goes in or out of the implementing 
bill. When omissions were discovered as a result of the rushed USMCA 
process, a ``technical corrections'' package was proposed to correct 
them.

    One such omission was the NAFTA-era U.S. law restriction on 
products produced in Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) (19 U.S.C. 
3332(a)(2)(A)) for products, that otherwise meet the rules of origin 
under NAFTA and now USMCA, could not also receive the same reduced 
tariff benefits. Canada and Mexico do not have similar restrictions in 
place on their FTZ equivalents, creating disparity between the two. 
USTR, at the time, claimed its ``intent'' was to include the 
restriction following the release of a May 2020 article highlighting 
the issue.

    USTR expected Congress to take this at face value and not recognize 
the fact that many in Congress, myself included, believed the 
restriction deserved further debate in the public square. CBO projected 
that the reinstatement of the restriction would result in a $2 billion 
increase in tariffs without the provision in place.

    More importantly, members of the Senate Finance Committee did not 
have their opportunity to indicate their ``intent'' as to what should 
be included in the implementing bill. To my disdain, this NAFTA-era 
restriction on FTZs was included in a larger ``technical corrections'' 
package.

    What are your views on the re-authorization of TPA?

    Will you seek renewal of TPA given the ongoing negotiation of the 
UK and Kenya FTAs?

    What is your opinion on the mock markup process? Should this 
continue, and should it be a codified practice instead of a committee 
report issue?

    Do you commit to a full mock markup process on any future FTAs or 
other legislation considered under the TPA process?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress on trade 
negotiations and trade legislation advanced by the Senate Finance 
Committee. As U.S. Trade Representative, I will work to pursue trade 
policies that receive bipartisan support in Congress.

    Question. What is your view on the restriction mentioned?

    Do you believe this restriction was put in place to meet treaty 
obligations under NAFTA and USMCA?

    Can you discuss your views on the FTZ program in general and where 
you see it fitting into the larger conversation on critical supply 
chains and the high tariff environment?

    If confirmed as USTR, would you support and initiate a study that 
examines the restriction in the context of parity with FTZ counterparts 
in Canada and Mexico?

    Answer. The Biden administration is already undertaking a 
comprehensive review of supply chain risks, pursuant to the President's 
executive order issued on February 24th. If confirmed, I will study 
this issue as part of the review as well as its consistency with the 
broader Build Back Better agenda. I will also work to ensure that 
American workers and businesses aren't unfairly disadvantaged by our 
trading partners' policies.

    Question. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-
Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has entered into force without the United 
States. The agreement represents approximately half a billion people 
and 14 percent of the global economy. American companies were 
negatively impacted when the U.S. withdrew from the TPP agreement in 
2017. Joining the CPTPP would be a good opportunity for the U.S. to 
reclaim global leadership and write the rules of the road with regard 
to trade, intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.

    Do you support the U.S. joining the CPTPP and what needs to be 
updated with regards to the agreement to reflect the changed 
conversation around China since 2015?

    Answer. Much has changed in the world since the original TPP was 
signed in 2016. If confirmed, I will review the CPTPP to evaluate its 
consistency with the Build Back Better agenda. I commit to consulting 
closely with Congress on trade agreement negotiations.

    Question. The launch of USTR's section 301 investigations on 
Vietnam's currency valuation and timber are ongoing. Stakeholders 
across the United States in various sectors remain concerned that USTR 
will react take action against Vietnam including imposing punitive 
tariffs.

    How do you foresee engaging in bilateral talks with Vietnam to find 
a solution to this issue?

    Answer. President Biden has committed to opposing efforts by 
America's trading partners to artificially manipulate their currencies 
to gain a trade advantage and to combatting trade in goods made with 
illegally harvested timber. If confirmed, I will work with the Treasury 
Department, the Department of Commerce, Customs and Border Protection 
and other agencies to bring effective pressure to bear on countries 
that engage in such unfair practices. The goal of a section 301 
investigation is always to provide an incentive to encourage a 
negotiated solution that addresses the underlying unfair trade 
practices.

    Question. U.S. investment in the Africa already faces mounting 
uncertainty. Companies are poised to diversify out of China, and Africa 
is a logical place for many of them. The U.S.-Kenya FTA negotiation is 
critical for countering this influence. Many sectors, such as the 
apparel and footwear industry, draw upon this region and benefits in 
other U.S. laws to conduct business. Moreover, AGOA countries must 
still be able to partner with Kenya.

    Can you provide an update on the U.S.-Kenya trade agreement and 
work to include flexibilities that continue recent wins on U.S.-Africa 
trade?

    Answer. In 2020, the United States and Kenya officially launched 
and completed two rounds of negotiations to pursue a free trade 
agreement. Since announcing the negotiations, the United States 
completed two rounds of negotiations with Kenya. If confirmed, I will 
review the U.S.-Kenya bilateral relationship, and the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act (AGOA) program. The United States' economic 
relationship with the African continent will be a priority if I am 
USTR.

    Question. The creative community supports hundreds of thousands of 
Texas jobs and adds billions to our GDP. Will you ensure strong 
intellectual property protections for the American creative sector in 
future trade agreements?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to seeking provisions in trade 
agreements that benefit America's innovators, who play a critical role 
in enhancing our economic competitiveness and supporting the creation 
of high-quality jobs.

    Question. U.S. exporting industries like the U.S. chemical 
manufacturing sector can grow high-paying, high-skilled jobs when the 
U.S. Government opens new markets, keeps them open, and aligns 
regulations. One avenue to achieve these ends is international 
regulatory cooperation, which creates greater efficiencies and cost 
savings for governments and businesses while protecting human health, 
safety, and the environment. The USMCA includes state-of-the-art 
sectoral annexes (e.g., chapter 12.A on chemical substances) that could 
inform future U.S. regulatory cooperation activities with trading 
partners. While U.S. government regulatory agencies must prioritize 
achieving their domestic objectives, they also are essential to the 
conduct and success of these activities.

    Will you work with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget 
to provide more resources to U.S. regulators to engage in regulatory 
cooperation activities and negotiate regulatory cooperation provisions 
in U.S. free trade agreements?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress, the Office of 
Management and Budget, and other agencies to ensure that the United 
States fully and effectively implements and enforces the provisions of 
the USMCA to the benefit of U.S. industries and workers.

    Question. What is your opinion of Executive Order 13609 on 
International Regulatory Cooperation to be responsive to today's global 
trade and supply chain dynamics?

    Answer. Executive Order 13609, issued on May 1, 2012, stated that 
the U.S. regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety 
and the environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness and job creation. It also noted the role of 
international regulatory cooperation and challenges of regulatory 
divergence. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and through the 
interagency process to ensure we achieve the right balance in promoting 
the goals of regulation in the United States and evaluating the 
challenges of international regulatory divergence.

    Question. The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) provides important 
relief for U.S. chemical manufacturers who cannot get certain inputs or 
intermediate goods here in the United States. But the most recent MTB 
expired at the end of last year--in the middle of a pandemic and 
economic recession. Programs like the MTB are generally supported by my 
colleagues and quickly renewed by Congress.

    Do you support tariff relief measures like the MTB that help 
strengthen U.S. manufacturing and

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with Congress on 
all trade legislation, including the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.

    Question. Both you and the President have spoken about the 
importance of a worker-centric trade policy. The copyright industries 
employ 5.7 million workers. These jobs pay have a compensation premium 
of 43 percent over the average U.S. annual wage and rely on exports.

    If confirmed to become the U.S. Trade Representative, how will you 
ensure the role of copyright industries and the interests of the 5.7 
million workers employed in the copyright industries are promoted in 
U.S. trade policy?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to supporting America's copyright 
industries and the workers employed in such industries by ensuring that 
our trading partners open their markets to copyrighted exports produced 
by America's innovators and enforce the IP laws necessary to protect 
such work from piracy.

    Question. The U.S. has for nearly 2 decades shifted our critical 
supply chain production overseas to what President Biden's nominee for 
CIA director described as an ``authoritarian adversary,'' China. COVID-
19 has only accelerated this vulnerability. Yesterday, the President 
detailed his executive order to identify and support these supply 
chains. A large part of what is missing however is the resources to put 
behind them.

    I was happy to hear that the President intends to work with members 
of Congress during the budget and appropriations process to address 
this challenge. We do not have the ability to write checks by fiat as 
China does--Congress holds the power of the purse. To that end, I am 
interested in exploring the creation of a new bipartisan budget 
category that combines both targeted domestic and defense resources to 
counter China and re-shore critical supply chains. As an example, our 
current budget framework is unprepared to make these significant 
investments into areas like the semiconductor space through the CHIPS 
for America Act with nearly $36 billion or roughly 3 percent of our 
total discretionary budget. Investments like these should not take away 
from existing priorities but complement them.

    Can you explain your views on how you would address critical supply 
chains as whole, the semiconductor sector, and the CHIPS for America 
program specifically, if confirmed?

    Answer. Semiconductors are one of the priority sectors identified 
in the recent executive order on America's supply chains. If confirmed, 
I will work to effectively implement the recommendations that emerge 
from the supply chain review to strengthen the resilience of America's 
supply chains and support increased domestic semiconductor production.

    Question. Can you provide your view on how tariffs have served as a 
punitive measure in diverting supply chains away from China and steps 
you would take as USTR to support incentives to bring them home?

    Answer. I understand that the Biden-Harris administration is 
engaged in a comprehensive review of existing U.S. policies, including 
the use and impact of tariffs, to determine what action the United 
States must take to meet the China challenge.

    Question. What data will USTR use to determine section 301 
exclusions, and what steps will you take to ensure that the exclusion 
process is transparent?

    If an exclusion is granted, would USTR provide the exclusion for a 
year or more?

    Would you support granting exclusions that are effective from the 
start of 2021 as well as refunding the tariffs that companies have 
already paid?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure that the 
tariffs under section 301 are appropriately responsive to China's 
practices and consider the impact on U.S. businesses, workers and 
consumers. I will also ensure that any exclusion--or other similar 
process undertaken by USTR--is transparent, objective, and fair.

    Question. Complex supply chains take years to establish, and it is 
very difficult, if not impossible, to quickly shift procurement to 
other countries or facilities without compromising contracts, 
compliance, quality, food safety, and value for the consumer.

    How would you factor in disruptions to supply chains when 
implementing tariffs and/or granting exclusions to tariffs?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure that 
tariffs, including those imposed under section 301, are appropriately 
responsive to the unfair trade practices they are meant to address and 
consider the impact on U.S. businesses and their supply chains, as well 
as workers and consumers.

    Question. Our trade debate often focuses on manufactured goods, but 
America's massive ``business services'' sector is not only a 
cornerstone of the U.S. middle class--it's also a huge trade 
opportunity. Business services employ more than 20 million Americans, 
and these sectors pays wages that are 20-percent higher on average than 
those in manufacturing. Business services are also increasingly 
tradeable. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, new 
digital technologies mean that 63 percent of all U.S. services exports 
can now be delivered to customers abroad digitally. This helps explain 
why trade in services is growing 60-percent more rapidly than trade in 
goods.

    However, rising digital protectionism abroad could sap growth in 
middle-class jobs in the business services industries widely recognized 
as an American strength. As governments worldwide seek to put their own 
imprint on digital trade rules, some may close markets and disadvantage 
U.S. firms.

    Should U.S. trade policy prioritize an area such as this with 
growth potential?

    Answer. To participate in today's global economy, U.S. companies 
need to access networks, transfer data, and use secure data centers of 
their choice. The Biden-
Harris administration is committed to using a wide range of trade tools 
to help make sure that American workers and digital innovators are able 
to compete effectively abroad.

    Question. The growth in the digital economy--and the importance of 
data-driven innovation in an increasing number of industry sectors--
raises questions about whether trade rules need to be updated. 
Unfortunately, our partners in the European Union have used legitimate 
public policy debates--in taxation, competition policy, and data 
privacy--to write policies that discriminate against American companies 
in the name of advancing Europe's supposed ``technological 
sovereignty.''

    If confirmed as USTR, do you pledge to hold the European Union 
accountable when it enacts policies that discriminate against U.S. 
digital exporters?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will use the United States' wide range of 
trade tools to address discriminatory practices that hurt U.S. workers 
and firms, including practices that discriminate against U.S. digital 
and technology exports.

    Question. What is your opinion of addressing concerns over the 
proliferation of DSTs by using a negotiated outcome at the OECD?

    Answer. If confirmed, I support the Treasury Department's efforts 
to resolve the digital services taxes in the context of the 
multilateral effort to limit tax competition and address base erosion 
and profit shifting through the OECD/G20 process.

    Question. India is a crucial democratic partner in the Indo-Pacific 
and a potential alternative to China as a destination for U.S. exports. 
Unfortunately, in recent years, the Government of India seems to have 
embraced a strategy of digital protectionism. This includes a 
discriminatory digital tax, sweeping requirements to localize data, and 
proposals to expropriate proprietary information from U.S. companies.

    If confirmed as USTR, how do you intend to tackle India's growing 
digital protectionism while also growing U.S.-India commercial ties?

    Answer. India's fast-growing economy provides new opportunities for 
American exporters, including our farmers, manufacturers, and service 
providers. It is an ongoing challenge to balance the United States' 
interest in enhancing our trade relationship with India with the its 
interest in addressing Indian policies that discriminate against U.S. 
exports and digital service firms. If confirmed, I will consult closely 
to ensure our trade policy strikes the right balance.

    Question. We are currently engaged in several trade disputes with 
both allies and adversaries where tariffs have been used as the remedy 
of choice. These tariffs have each resulted in retaliatory tariffs 
against U.S. exporters including manufacturers and agriculture 
interests.

    While we agree that our trading partners must live up to their 
international trade commitments, we are concerned about the use of 
tariffs as the primary remedy to address perceived inequities. Tariffs 
are taxes that are paid by U.S. businesses, raise costs for consumers 
and manufacturers and have led to markets being lost for our 
agricultural exporters. The current tariffs have had a negative impact 
on companies large and small, especially impacting the economic 
recovery of many U.S. businesses.

    President Biden has talked about the need to reevaluate the trade 
war and the economic impact caused by the tariffs. Do you commit to 
conducting an economic review of the tariffs and the impact they have 
had on the U.S. economy?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to undertaking a review of the use 
of tariffs as a tool to address unfair trade practices to ensure that 
they are strategically employed to achieve their means and maximize the 
benefit, while minimizing the cost, to U.S. industries, workers, and 
consumers.

    Question. Your predecessor concluded several ``mini'' trade deals 
with trading partners like Japan and China that covered only certain 
disciplines and bypassed congressional approval. And even for other 
agreements, such as the update to KORUS and USMCA, consultations with 
Congress were severely lacking.

    What is your view on mini trade deals? Does the Biden 
administration plan to pursue them? Will you commit to consulting 
closely and often with Congress on such deals, as well as on any free 
trade agreement negotiations?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue trade policies consistent with 
the Build Back Better agenda. I will consult closely and often with 
Congress to negotiate and develop trade policies that advance the 
interests of all Americans, support American innovation, and enhance 
our competitiveness. As U.S. Trade Representative, I will work to 
pursue trade policies that receive bipartisan support in Congress.

    Question. Do you see ways USTR can be helpful in getting to an 
agreement with the EU on a new framework for transatlantic data flows, 
post-Schrems II? We know that Europe has proposed a new Trade and 
Technology Council. Is this the right forum to make progress on these 
issues?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will use the trade tools available to 
support the Department of Commerce's effort to conclude an Enhanced 
Privacy Shield Framework that addresses the concerns raised by the 
European Court of Justice and enables the transfer of data between the 
European Union and the United States.

    Question. The U.S. and India have had a burgeoning relationship 
over the past 20 years during which bilateral trade has expanded to 
over $120 billion per year. While we have had some fits and starts with 
trade discussions with India in recent years, I believe we have an 
opportunity expand bilateral trade with India, which will further 
enhance our strategic partnership with this growing power in Asia.

    Do you share my vision for improved economic and trade relations 
with India, and, if confirmed as U.S. Trade Representative, will you 
commit to pursuing negotiations that benefit the bilateral relationship 
early in your tenure?

    Answer. India is one of the United States' largest trading 
partners, and its fast-growing economy represents a tremendous 
opportunity for American exporters, including our farmers, 
manufacturers, and service providers. While we have faced occasional 
trade challenges over time, a strong partnership between the U.S. and 
India is important for both countries' strategic interests. If 
confirmed, I commit to engaging with India to find ways to enhance our 
trade relationship.

    Question. Many are experiencing unprecedented prices in the U.S. 
lumber market. This in turn is significantly affecting the cost to 
construct or remodel a home. Texas has both homebuilders and a vibrant 
forestry sector. The Softwood Lumber Agreement we have with our leading 
trading partner in wood products--Canada--expired more than 5 years 
ago.

    What is your position on this agreement and plans for it in the 
future?

    Answer. The Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade 
Commission have repeatedly found that Canadian subsidies and unfair 
trade practices harm the U.S. lumber industry. If confirmed, I commit 
to working with other agencies and departments to ensure that U.S. 
trade laws and remedies are employed to counter unfair trade practices 
and to pursuing agreements in the interest of the United States.

    Question. We know that China's years of IP theft have given them an 
advantage in competing with global technology companies.

    What types of export controls or restrictions should the U.S. place 
on China to ensure the U.S. does not lose its competitive edge in the 
technology sector?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to engaging actively with my 
counterparts in the Department of Commerce and other agencies with 
oversight of U.S. export controls and restrictions to confront the 
issue of China stealing American technology or obtaining it through 
other unfair or nefarious practices.

    Question. Last year, the Trade Subcommittee with Senator Casey held 
a hearing with a number of policy experts and actor and chairman of the 
International Campaign for Tibet, Richard Gere, on ``Censorship as a 
Trade Barrier.''

    We heard about how China uses censorship to bolster its domestic 
industries while restricting access for U.S. companies. It is clear 
China pushes the boundaries of the public morals and national security 
exemptions at the WTO with their censorship practices. WTO rules do not 
provide an exception for content that is politically unacceptable.

    For example, in the technology services industry, U.S. cloud 
providers cannot sell their services directly to other American 
companies operating in China, or anyone else. This is all while Chinese 
cloud providers, with far less secure technologies, can and do sell 
their cloud services here in the United States without restrictions. 
These are the same Chinese cloud companies that undercut our American 
cloud providers around the world due to Beijing's generous subsidies 
and their sanctuary, domestic market.

    Senator Grassley secured a fact-finding investigation with the 
International Trade Commission on the economic costs of censorship as a 
barrier to trade. It is my hope that the private sector will come 
forward in confidence to participate in this survey to confront China's 
offensive and defensive censorship. If companies refuse to participate, 
it is clear that China has already won the battle for self-censorship.

    Will you assure me that you will fight for American free enterprise 
by raising the issue of censorship and, in context, market access 
restrictions on American businesses such as cloud computing in your 
dealing with China, if confirmed?

    Will you encourage the private sector to participate in the ITC 
study on the cost of censorship as a trade barrier?

    Answer. To fully confront the China challenge, we must address the 
myriad of ways the Chinese Government seeks to disadvantage U.S. 
businesses and their workers including through censorship and market 
access restrictions in sectors like cloud computing. If confirmed as 
U.S. Trade Representative, I will work closely with you to develop 
trade policies that treat censorship as a trade barrier and support the 
work at the ITC to examine trade issues.

              Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
    Question. Lumber Prices have increased dramatically since last 
spring. These increases have exacerbated the existing housing 
affordability crisis, causing the price of an average new single-family 
home to increase by more than $24,000 since the middle of last April 
according to standard estimates of lumber used to build the average 
home from the National Association of Homebuilders. Meanwhile the 
Softwood Lumber Agreement we have with Canada, our leading trade 
partner in wood products, expired in 2015 and has not been renewed 
since.

    Will you make it a priority to reach a new lumber agreement with 
Canada in order to address this drag on the housing sector?

    Answer. The Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade 
Commission have repeatedly found that Canadian subsidies and unfair 
trade practices hurt the U.S. lumber industry. If confirmed, I commit 
to working with other agencies to ensure that U.S. trade laws and 
remedies are employed to counter unfair trade practices and to pursuing 
agreements in the best interest of the United States.

    Question. Even after the July 1st implementation of USMCA, U.S. 
companies and their workers continue to face new and proposed trade 
barriers in Mexico and Canada, as well as broader challenges for U.S. 
companies in Mexico. In particular, there are concerns about the 
independence of Mexican regulators and their preferential treatment 
towards Mexican state-run entities at the expense of U.S. Companies.

    How will you ensure that Mexico and Canada follow through on their 
commitments in USMCA?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review Mexico's and Canada's 
compliance with their obligations in the USMCA and act to address 
failures in compliance. I commit to fully enforcing the USMCA.

    Question. I am glad to hear that President Biden is planning a 
review of section 301 tariffs in order to develop a more cohesive China 
trade strategy. However, many small businesses in New Jersey are facing 
expiration of their section 301 tariff exclusions or have already had 
their exclusions expire. As you know, the previous administration did 
not establish a process for extending these exclusions.

    Will you consider granting an extension of section 301 tariff 
exclusions while the administration is conducting its review so that 
small businesses aren't unnecessarily harmed?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. In the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and take in to account the impact on 
U.S. businesses, workers and consumers.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
    Question. In business, technology, and innovation, the United 
States is unmatched. But in order to stay ahead of our competitors and 
continue to lead in global commerce, we must ensure that our 
communications infrastructure is secure. To reflect these modern 
realities, the U.S. must prioritize telecommunications and digital 
infrastructure in our trade policy. The Network Security Trade Act, 
which I introduced with Democrat members of the Senate Finance 
Committee, would make the security of our communications networks a 
negotiating objective in any future trade deal.

    If confirmed, would you support strengthening U.S. communications 
infrastructure as a key objective in trade negotiations?

    Answer. The security of the United States' communications 
infrastructure is vital to our national security. If confirmed, I will 
use all available trade tools to maintain the security of U.S. 
communications networks.

    Question. As a result of the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal, the 
U.S. has seen export gains to China across many agricultural sectors 
including soybeans, corn, beef, and pork.

    If confirmed, how would you ensure that China follows through on 
its Phase One commitments, particularly for U.S. agriculture? What 
steps would you take to build upon these successes and ensure that U.S. 
farm and ranch exports to China are not unfairly restricted by tariff 
and nontariff barriers?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is engaged in a review of 
the policies in place to respond to China's coercive and unfair trade 
practices, including with respect to agricultural products. I 
understand that a comprehensive strategy to confront the China 
challenge will be formulated based on that review. If confirmed, as 
part of that comprehensive review, I will assess China's compliance 
with the Phase One deal to ensure it is living up to its commitments.

    Question. Last year, Senator Stabenow and I led a letter to 
Secretary Perdue and Ambassador Lighthizer asking them to establish as 
a core U.S. policy objective in all trade-related or intellectual 
property discussions the goal of securing concrete market access 
assurances for specific common food names. More than 60 senators signed 
onto this bipartisan letter, which should give you a sense of how 
critical an issue this is for our folks in the meat, cheese, and wine 
industries.

    If confirmed, would you prioritize common food names in the trade 
agreements you negotiate?

    Answer. The United States secured historic protections for common 
food names in the USMCA. If confirmed, I commit to build on the success 
of this agreement and prioritize the use of common food names during 
future trade negotiations.

    Question. Expanding free and fair access for manufacturers and 
workers to global markets remains pivotal to U.S. competitiveness, wage 
growth, and economic dynamism. As you know, millions of American 
manufacturing jobs depend directly on U.S. exports to foreign markets. 
Those exports depend on reliable access to foreign markets, and in turn 
U.S. government efforts to eliminate unfair barriers that prevent 
exports and harm U.S. jobs.

    If confirmed, how would you work to support and expand U.S. exports 
to foreign markets, and what specific steps will you take to reduce 
trade barriers in those markets?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to expand global market 
opportunities for American manufacturers, service providers, farmers, 
ranchers, and fishers by working with allies and like-minded trading 
partners to promote policies that support U.S. exports. As U.S. Trade 
Representative, I will pursue trade cases against trading partners that 
discriminate against American businesses or deny our producers market 
access.

    Question. If confirmed, one of your responsibilities will be 
overseeing the public interest review process for section 337 orders 
issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ability to 
restrict infringing imports through section 337 is a cornerstone of 
U.S. intellectual property rights protection.

    Can you confirm that section 337 investigations will remain fair 
and thorough in the Biden administration and that strong enforcement of 
intellectual property rights will remain a top priority?

    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to oversee the review of ITC 
exclusion and cease-and-desist orders under section 337 in line with 
what was envisioned by Congress, as reflected in the legislative 
history, which includes considerations of the competitive conditions in 
the U.S. economy.

    Question. Last year, USTR issued its annual Special 301 report on 
the adequacy and effectiveness of trading partners' protection of 
intellectual property (IP) rights. USTR identified 33 countries that 
present the most significant concerns regarding IP rights. Those 
countries were placed on USTR's Priority Watch List or Watch List.

    If confirmed, how would you lead USTR to follow up on each of the 
action plans from last year's Special 301 report? As USTR undergoes the 
2021 Special 301 report process, how would you ensure that identified 
countries improve their policies to protect intellectual property 
rights?

    Answer. The Special 301 process is among the critical tools in 
USTR's toolbox to monitor and enforce our trading partners' 
intellectual property practices. If confirmed, I will focus on 
leveraging section 301 to promote the interests and address practices 
that harm American innovators.

    Question. As U.S. Trade Representative, you would have an important 
role in expanding our export markets for value-added agriculture 
products such as ethanol and biodiesel.

    As other nations seek to adopt higher blends of biofuels to lower 
their emissions, including Mexico and the United Kingdom working to 
increase their use of ethanol up to 10-percent ethanol blends, what 
steps will you take with your trade counterparts to ensure the U.S. has 
access to these markets to support our trading partners to increase 
biofuel blending?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with USDA and the Department of 
Energy to seek new markets for ethanol exports and clear barriers that 
are currently blocking the export of American ethanol.

    Question. Mexico is a critical trading partner for U.S. 
agriculture, and the USMCA biotech provisions are a major step forward 
in trade policy, recognizing the need to build in rules and process to 
enable greater coordination around current and future biotech 
innovations. COFEPRIS, Mexico's Food and Drug Administration, stopped 
approval of agricultural biotechnology products in 2018, and in 
December 2020, Mexico published a decree calling for the phase out of 
genetically modified corn by 2024 and stated its intent to revoke and 
abstain from future approval. Given the importance of Mexico as an 
export market, this will affect our producers' access to new 
technologies risking critical tools to take on these global challenges.

    If confirmed, would you support USTR collaborating with USDA to 
address this issue?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review Mexico's agricultural 
obligations under the USMCA and commit to consulting with USDA on this 
and other agricultural issues. I will not hesitate to use the tools 
agreed upon in the USMCA to enforce the agreement with respect to 
agricultural products.

    Question. The recently signed Regional Comprehensive Economic 
Partnership (RCEP) represents 15 countries and about 30 percent of 
global GDP.

    What steps will the Biden administration take to enhance democratic 
trade leadership in the Indo-Pacific? If confirmed, what steps would 
you take to expand market access of U.S. agriculture products in the 
Indo-Pacific? Would you support an effort to negotiate a high-standard 
digital trade agreement with countries in the region, such as Japan, 
Singapore, and Australia?

    Answer. The basic formulation of working closely with like-minded 
countries in the Asia-Pacific with shared strategic and economic 
interests is a sound one, but much has changed in the world over the 
past 6 years since the TPP was signed in 2016. If confirmed, I commit 
to working closely with like-minded countries in the Asia-Pacific 
region to deepen our trade relationship in ways that benefit Americans 
broadly, including our workers, manufacturers, service providers, 
farmers, ranchers, and innovators.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr
    Question. USTR has been negotiating a free trade agreement with the 
United Kingdom, which is one of America's greatest allies and one of 
North Carolina's top trading partners. The 2019 trade surplus with the 
United Kingdom was $21.9 billion, and a free trade agreement could help 
further grow American jobs and expand opportunities.

    If confirmed as United States Trade Representative, will you make 
continuing these negotiations and concluding a trade agreement with the 
UK a key priority for USTR?

    Answer. The United Kingdom is an important trading partner and ally 
of the United States. If confirmed, I plan to carefully review the 
status of the negotiations with the United Kingdom. In general, and in 
consultation with Congress, I will craft a trade policy consistent with 
the Build Back Better agenda that prioritizes the interest of America's 
workers and supports a strong recovery for our economy.

    Question. USTR leads an all-of-government approach to ensure that 
our trading partners respect the patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade 
secrets and other intellectual property rights of American innovators. 
The Commerce Department is a major partner in this effort, and Governor 
Raimondo noted in her responses her commitment to ``maintaining high 
standards for protection in any future trade agreements and defending 
U.S. intellectual property interests in international forums.''

    Can you outline for us key opportunities you see for USTR to 
promote and protect U.S. intellectual property rights abroad? What 
tools would you use to promote and preserve robust copyright and IP 
protection systems, as well as effective enforcement?

    Answer. Innovation plays a key role in ensuring high-quality jobs 
and growth for the American economy, and robust protection of 
intellectual property rights is critical for ensuring our continued 
economic vitality. If confirmed, I will work to deploy a wide range of 
tools at USTR's disposal to combat piracy and counterfeiting, both in 
physical and online markets. In addition, I will work with our allies 
to take collective action to more effectively address these concerns.

    Question. North Carolina has seen significant growth in the solar 
industry, with billions of dollars invested in the State. However, 
because of the section 201 tariffs on imported solar panels and cells, 
tens of thousands of workers have been laid off or not hired, and 
investment has been lost. Furthermore, the October 10, 2020 
Presidential Proclamation to Further Facilitate Positive Adjustment to 
Competition from Imports of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 
Cells increased tariffs and withdrew the exception for bifacial 
modules.

    If confirmed, will you commit to rescinding this presidential 
proclamation, and to working to undo harmful policies?

    Answer. After the U.S. International Trade Commission determined 
under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 that increased imports of 
solar cells and modules severely damaged the U.S. domestic industry, 
the last administration established a 4-year remedy, currently set to 
expire on February 6, 2022. The Biden administration has made the 
increased use of renewable energy, including solar, a core component of 
its policy to combat climate change. If confirmed, I will examine the 
safeguard action in light of those goals, the security of our renewable 
energy supply chain, and the impact on U.S. businesses and jobs.

    Question. USTR has levied tariffs on approximately $370 billion of 
U.S. imports from China resulting from the section 301 investigation. I 
have heard from numerous constituents who were granted exclusions that 
expired at the end of 2020.

    If confirmed, will you revisit the exclusion process, and if so, 
how soon? What actions will you take regarding previously granted 
exclusions which have expired?

    Answer. China's track record of using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology--to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers--is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation into China's unfair trade practices under section 301 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, and it found that China engages in unfair trade 
act policies and practices related to intellectual property, innovation 
and technology transfer. The United States imposed tariffs on products 
from China to address those findings. If confirmed, I will work with 
Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately responsive to 
China's practices and consider the impact on U.S. businesses, workers 
and consumers.

    Question. I have heard from many in my State who have raised issue 
with Mexico's upholding its USMCA commitments, in issues ranging from 
its barriers to agriculture technology to regulatory challenges which 
advantage PEMEX, Mexico's state-owned oil company, and more.

    What issues do you see with Mexico upholding its USMCA commitments 
and what actions will you take to address them?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review Mexico's compliance with its 
obligations in the USMCA and act to enforce those obligations where 
necessary. I commit to fully enforcing the USMCA.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) expires in a few months. 
Do you support the renewal of TPA this year?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress on trade 
negotiations and trade legislation advanced by the Senate Finance 
Committee. As U.S. Trade Representative, I will work to pursue trade 
policies that receive bipartisan support in Congress.

    Question. I co-founded and co-chair the UK Trade Caucus. The 
purpose of the Caucus is to build support in Congress for a trade 
agreement with the United Kingdom (UK). The UK is similar to the United 
States in terms of labor and environment protections and they share our 
desire to work more closely on trade.

    Do you expect to continue the UK trade talks? And do you see path 
forward on the UK talks, even if the President does not seek a renewal 
of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)?

    Answer. The United Kingdom is an important trading partner and ally 
of the United States. If confirmed, I plan to carefully review the 
status of the negotiations with the United Kingdom. In general, and in 
consultation with Congress, I will craft a trade policy consistent with 
the Build Back Better agenda that prioritizes the interest of America's 
workers and supports a strong recovery for our economy.

    Question. In Choruses From the Rock, T.S. Eliot wrote of creating 
``a system so perfect that no one will need to be good.'' That 
sentiment might also be applied to the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
which despite having clear, agreed-upon rules has found itself drifting 
from the obvious meaning of those rules. For systems, or organizations, 
to be sustainable they need active engagement and not just passive 
reliance on their underlying institutional architecture. One of the 
dilemmas facing the WTO reform agenda is the fact that the existing 
rules are quite clear, and yet the development of new rules may suffer 
from the same jurisprudential drift as the existing rules have.

    Aside from tacking on a clause that says ``and we mean it'' to a 
number of provisions in the WTO agreements, how do you believe new 
rules should be written to avoid the pitfalls that the United States 
has seen with respect to Appellate Body activism? And what mechanisms, 
if any, should be created to ensure that those who interpret such 
agreements remain faithful to the text of the agreement and neither 
expand or diminish obligations created by the agreement?

    Answer. Over the years, the Appellate Body has overstepped its 
authority and erred in interpreting WTO agreements in a number of 
cases, to the detriment of the United States and other WTO members. In 
addition, the Appellate Body has failed to follow existing rules 
created to ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely manner. 
Reforms are needed to ensure that the underlying causes of such 
problems do not resurface and that the Appellate Body does not diminish 
the rights and obligations of WTO members.

    Question. The previous two administration have, on a bipartisan 
basis, blocked appointments to the Appellate Body (AB) of the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) over concerns about AB activism. Restoring the 
AB without addressing the underlying issues that sparked U.S. concerns 
would likely not be a sustainable solution to the problem of AB 
overreach.

    How do you intend to approach issues related to the stalled AB? Do 
you believe that resuscitating the AB should come with reforms to guard 
against future overreach? What might some of those reforms be?

    Answer. Yes, it is absolutely critical that any solution to the 
existing impasse be one that seeks to address the underlying problems, 
including longstanding concerns of overreach and jurisprudential drift. 
If confirmed, I will seek to work with other countries that shareU.S. 
concerns about WTO dispute settlement to craft reforms to guard against 
such problems reemerging in the future.

    Question. Last summer I introduced a bipartisan resolution, which 
articulated some proposed reforms to the World Trade Organization 
(WTO). One of those solutions is to pursue more plurilateral agreements 
without Most Favored Nation (MFN) requirements. This would allow the 
United States to pursue trade opening opportunities with like-minded 
nations while preventing those not party to the agreement from 
benefiting.

    Do you agree about the value of non-MFN plurilaterals? If 
confirmed, do you intend to explore such arrangements with like-minded 
countries?

    Answer. Given the negotiating challenges that the WTO has 
encountered in recent years, I agree that non-MFN plurilaterals need to 
be explored as a possible path forward. If confirmed, I commit to 
exploring the possibility of such arrangements with like-minded 
countries. Developing countries are hesitant to accept them, however, 
and getting these arrangements accepted within the WTO will not be 
easy.

    Question. Monopsony is a market condition where there is a single 
dominant buyer. In many sectors, China is the largest single purchaser 
of a particular good. For example, according to the International Trade 
Administration, China was the top market for semiconductors with 29 
percent of the global market in 2015. Such semiconductor consumption is 
almost entirely import-based; imports constituted 91 percent of China's 
semiconductor demand, with 56.2 percent of demand coming just from U.S. 
imports.

    Do you believe that China possesses monopsony power in certain 
sectors? If so, are you concerned about the impact such monopsony power 
would have for American exporters? What do you believe should be done 
to address China's potential monopsony power?

    Answer. I share your concern that China may possess market power in 
certain sectors, and I am particularly concerned about those sectors 
where firms controlled by China's state are the dominant purchasers, 
including the semiconductor sector. If confirmed, I commit to consult 
closely with Congress on this important issue.

    Question. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 was a 
watershed moment for U.S. trade policy. That legislation strengthened 
trade tools, set a strategic direction for U.S. trade policy, and 
invested in American workers and industry.

    Do you agree that this is a ripe moment for another trade and 
competitiveness act? What types of challenges do you believe that such 
an initiative should confront?

    Answer. As I stated in my testimony, I agree that we must 
prioritize U.S. resilience and make the necessary investments in our 
people and our infrastructure to boost our competitiveness and build a 
more inclusive prosperity. In addition, we must ensure the rules that 
guide global commerce reflect our values, and we must enforce those 
rules vigorously. If confirmed, I commit to working with you and other 
members of the committee to enact legislation and pursue trade policies 
that enhance U.S. strategic interests and strengthen the 
competitiveness of American businesses and workers.

    Question. In February 2021, I led a letter to NEC Director Deese 
about the impacts that the current shortage of semiconductors will have 
for the domestic auto industry. It is vital that the administration 
take immediate steps to mitigate the impacts of the shortage, 
especially on auto manufacturing, and over the long term consider 
strategies to produce more semiconductors domestically.

    Will you commit to working with your counterparts at other agencies 
on these short- and long-term goals? Will you commit to working with 
your counterparts in foreign countries in order to urge the 
redistribution of some semiconductor production capacity to meet the 
needs of the domestic auto sector? What role do you believe trade 
policy can play to increase the production of semiconductors 
domestically?

    Answer. I understand that the Biden-Harris administration shares 
your concern, and that of Senator Young, about the impact of the 
current shortage of semiconductors on domestic automobile production 
and is pursuing all available possibilities to help address the 
difficulties the domestic auto industry faces. Semiconductors are one 
of the priority sectors identified in President Biden's executive order 
on America's supply chains. If confirmed, I will contribute to the 
supply chain review and work to effectively strengthen domestic 
semiconductor production.

    Question. The European Union (EU) and China recently concluded the 
Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). This move seems to 
jeopardize the potential for collaboration with the EU in order to 
challenge China's non-market techno-nationalism.

    In light of the CAI, what do you believe is possible for U.S.-EU 
collaboration on China? In what ways, do you believe the United States 
should collaborate with the EU in this regard? And in what ways do you 
believe the United States should not (or perhaps cannot) collaborate 
with the EU?

    Answer. It is a priority of the Biden-Harris administration to work 
with allies to address the many challenges posed by China, including 
the difficulties created by Chinese non-market techno-nationalism. If 
confirmed, I will seek to work with the European Union and other allies 
to find new ways to challenge China's many unfair trade practices.

    Question. In December 2020, I led a letter with Senators Warner, 
Grassley, and Blumenthal to Ambassador Lighthizer urging the Trump 
administration to not include section 230-like liability protection in 
any trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

    What role do you believe section 230 plays in U.S. trade policy? 
Will you commit to refrain from including platform liability language 
in future trade agreements, especially as Congress actively considers 
changes to U.S. law in this regard?

    Answer. There are a wide variety of views on this issue, and I 
commit to ensuring that stakeholder views, including Congress, are 
considered on this and other provisions of our trade agreements.

    Question. I have long expressed concerns over the discriminatory 
nature of other country's digital services taxes. I was pleased to see 
the previous USTR initiate strong action against these taxes. 
Unfortunately, even with these actions many countries seem to not have 
been deterred.

    Will you continue to strongly oppose such taxes, and can you 
outline what take steps you would take to protect American companies 
who are disproportionately harmed? As a requirement for any 
multilateral solution at the OECD on digital taxation, will you insist 
that existing unilateral digital services taxes be lifted?

    Answer. The previous administration started section 301 
investigations against the digital service taxes (DSTs) introduced by a 
number of countries but then suspended the introduction or 
implementation of specific remedies to allow time for negotiations. If 
confirmed, I will work with my colleagues at the Department of the 
Treasury to address the digital services taxes in the context of the 
multilateral effort to limit tax competition and address base erosion 
and profit-shifting through the OECD/G20 process.

    Question. Last year, the Court of Justice of the European Union 
invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, which American 
companies have used to ensure compliance with the General Data 
Protection Regulation (GDPR). This has created uncertainty for the more 
than 5,000 U.S. companies, which used the Privacy Shield Framework to 
transfer data across the Atlantic.

    How do you intend to work with other agencies and the European 
Union to develop a sustainable solution to the problems posed by the 
invalidation of the Privacy Shield Framework?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will use the trade tools available to 
support the Department of Commerce's effort to conclude an Enhanced 
Privacy Shield Framework that addresses the concerns raised by the 
European Court of Justice and enables the safe transfer of data between 
the European Union and the United States.

    Question. Intellectual property rights and digital issues are an 
important component of the U.S. trade policy agenda. Do you support 
filling the position of Chief IP Negotiator?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to consult with this committee and 
Congress as to what was intended when it created this position, and 
more broadly, your views on how USTR can best accomplish our shared 
goals in ensuring that our trade agreements benefit American 
innovators.

    Question. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a technology 
of great promise and peril. It also requires vast amounts of data. I 
started the Senate AI Caucus last Congress to bolster the Senate's 
expertise as it relates to AI.

    What role do you believe AI plays in the United States' trade 
agenda? What direction do you see agreements going to accommodate 
potentially transformational AI-based change?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with Congress and relevant 
stakeholders to determine how U.S. trade policy should best reflect our 
priorities on artificial intelligence.

    Question. China has taken a keen interest in the international 
standards-setting process. For example, in 2018, China had 8 of the 39 
available leadership positions, the most of any country, at the 
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 5G-related bodies. The 
United States had only a single representative. At the International 
Standards Organization (ISO), last year China was in third place and 
the United States was tied for 16th place, with Finland, for the most 
participants.

    Do you agree that China's efforts to ``flood the zone'' on 
standards setting reduces American competitiveness and can create 
future barriers to American exports? Do you believe that the United 
States government should take a more active role when it comes to U.S. 
membership on international standards setting bodies? What ways do you 
believe USTR can be helpful to ensure standards setting bodies are not 
weaponized by foreign countries seeking to establish new trade 
barriers?

    Answer. I agree that standards and standard-setting bodies play an 
increasingly important role in the technological competition between 
countries, and that recent actions by China in these international 
bodies are alarming. I understand that the Biden-Harris administration 
is engaging in a comprehensive review of the additional actions needed 
to tackle the problems posed by the China challenge, including with 
respect to international standard-setting institutions. If confirmed, I 
commit to work closely with other agencies, and consult with Congress, 
on this important issue. I also commit to working with like-minded 
allies in these institutions to ensure that they are not unfairly 
utilized by China or others to advantage their technology firms.

    Question. Given the spate of unilateral digital protectionist 
measures, digital trade issues have emerged as source of concern for 
U.S. trade policy. Yet, digital trade offers incredible opportunities 
to move trade openness forward.

    Can you share your vision for digital trade? Do you see the digital 
trade provisions in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement as a template for 
future digital trade negotiations?

    Answer. I recognize the vital importance of the digital economy and 
digital trade to the U.S. economy. If confirmed, I commit to work 
closely with relevant stakeholders and Congress to negotiate digital 
trade provisions that secure broad support.

    Question. The Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity is a useful 
tool to address the global steel glut, but it requires sustained U.S. 
engagement to be effective at coordinating multilateral responses to 
China's overproduction.

    Will you commit to maintaining high-level U.S. engagement with the 
Global Forum?

    Answer. Overcapacity in the global steel sector has led to global 
market distortions that have hurt U.S. steel producers and their 
workers. If confirmed, I will work to address the unfair trade 
practices that lead to overcapacity, including through high-level 
engagement with our allies at the Global Forum.

    Question. Last year, the Department of Commerce self-initiated a 
section 232 investigation into imports of electrical steel, with a 
special focus on imports of GOES laminations and cores from Canada and 
Mexico. This was in response to circumvention of the section 232 
tariffs on electrical steel, which threatens 1,400 jobs at 
Cleveland-Cliffs' AK Steel facilities in Ohio and Pennsylvania. AK 
Steel is the last producer of grain oriented electrical steel (GOES) in 
the United States. Separate from that section 232 investigation, the 
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) worked with Canada and Mexico to 
address the circumvention but was unable to come to an agreement with 
Canada and it does not seem likely Mexico will live up to its 
commitments without further action from the U.S. government.

    What options does USTR have, either through USMCA or other avenues, 
to address the surge of imports of GOES laminations and cores from 
Canada and Mexico, in circumvention of the section 232 tariffs?

    Answer. Circumvention of trade enforcement measures undermines the 
effectiveness of the remedy and denies American workers and 
manufacturers the intended relief. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing 
the imports of GOES laminations and cores from Canada and Mexico and to 
consulting closely with Congress and stakeholders.

    Question. As China and many other countries around the world 
continue to provide subsidies and pursue other trade-distorting 
policies that fuel global steel overcapacity, it is vital that the 
United States take steps to avoid another steel crisis. The section 232 
tariffs have been effective at supporting domestic industry amidst 
global overcapacity.

    Do you believe that the section 232 tariffs should be continued? 
What additional steps do you propose to take to support domestic 
industry and reduce the global steel overcapacity? As part of these 
additional steps, do you favor strengthening our antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws?

    Answer. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) that do not operate based on 
market principles disadvantage U.S. businesses and their workers and 
have contributed significantly to global market distortions, notably in 
the steel industry. If confirmed, I will work with our allies to 
collectively address market distortions caused by SOEs, subsidies and 
other unfair trade practices in the steel sector. In addition, I will 
pursue trade enforcement actions against trading partners that use SOEs 
and unfair trade practices to disadvantage U.S. businesses and their 
workers, and I will pursue disciplines in trade agreement negotiations 
aimed at addressing SOEs and such unfair practices.

    Question. The Department of Commerce (DOC) is currently conducting 
an investigation in the national security threat posed by imported 
vanadium. I understand they will make their recommendations to the 
White House imminently.

    Do you expect to be involved in conversations about the case, and 
do you believe any unclassified parts of the report should be make 
publicly available?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of Commerce 
to take the necessary steps to address unfair trade practices that are 
undermining U.S. industries, particularly industries deemed critical to 
national security. However, as a nominee, I am not in a position to 
express a view on whether this work product should be made publicly 
available.

    Question. For roughly the past 2\1/2\ years, the European Union 
(EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) have levied a 25-percent tariff on 
American whiskey imports in response to the United States' section 232 
tariffs. These tariffs are set to double to 50 percent in June 2021. At 
the same time, the United States has imposed a 25-percent tariff on 
certain wine and spirit imports from the EU and UK in connection to the 
Boeing-Airbus dispute.

    How do you propose to solve the Boeing-Airbus dispute in order to 
ensure WTO compliance by the EU, while prioritizing the removal of 
tariffs on products such as American whiskey subject to 232 
retaliation?

    Answer. The purpose of WTO dispute resolution process is to ensure 
that other countries play by the rules so that our businesses, workers, 
farmers, and ranchers can compete on a level playing field. Tariffs may 
be a tool to achieve these ends, but they are not the goal. The focus 
must be on the resolution of the issue that has been found to impact 
our industry and workers. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to 
review the status of this long-term dispute and seek a resolution that 
finally addresses the unfair practices found through the WTO process 
that disadvantage U.S. industry and workers.

    Question. The United Kingdom (UK) is no longer a member of the 
European Union. Yet, the UK continues to face Airbus-related tariffs. 
Since the UK cannot advocate for policy change in Brussels on this 
issue, and as a gesture of goodwill in the interest of bringing our 
countries closer together, these tariffs on the UK should be removed.

    Do you believe that these tariffs should be removed from the UK?

    Answer. The Boeing/Airbus WTO litigation has been ongoing for more 
than 15 years. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to resolve this 
long-running dispute in a way that ensures Boeing and its workers can 
compete on a level playing field.

    Question. Wheels of Jarlsberg cheese are produced in Ireland by a 
Norwegian company. These wheels are subject to a 25-percent tariff as a 
result of the Boeing-Airbus dispute. The same company makes loaves of 
Jarlsberg cheese in Ohio. The tariff on the wheels threatens the entire 
company and therefore the U.S. production of loaves. The last six-month 
statutory review of these tariffs did not benefit from public input, 
therefore did not account for the impacts on Jarlsberg cheese.

    When do you plan to review the items that are subject to Boeing-
Airbus tariffs, and will you seek public input? How will you decide 
what stays on the tariff list and what is removed?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to make sure our trade 
enforcement actions consider the impact of tariffs on U.S. businesses 
and workers. When action taken under the section 301 process leads to 
the imposition of tariffs on certain imports, USTR requests public 
input through a notice and comment period. This statutorily required 
practice will continue if I am confirmed as U.S. Trade Representative.

    Question. The U.S.-China Phase One agreement requires China to 
strengthen a number of regulations related to the protection of 
intellectual property rights. While this is a good step forward, China 
also degrades intellectual property protection through informal 
coercion.

    How will you ensure that China complies with the intellectual 
property requirements in the U.S.-China Phase One agreement?

    Answer. The Phase One agreement provides for regular meetings 
between officials designated by both sides, including a regular working 
group on intellectual property issues. Where obligations go unmet, 
there is a mechanism for consultations and redress. If confirmed, I 
will closely monitor China's compliance with the intellectual property 
obligations in the agreement. I will not hesitate to make use of the 
agreement's mechanisms when China falls short of its commitments.

    Question. Many businesses who received exclusions to the section 
301 tariffs on imports from China expressed concern when their 
exclusions lapsed at the end of 2020. Do you intend to renew any of 
these expired exclusions?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure the 
section 301 tariffs on imports from China are appropriately responsive 
to China's unfair trade practices and consider the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers.

    Question. I understand you intend to review the section 301 tariffs 
on China.

    When considering the purpose and effectiveness of the section 301 
tariffs, do you draw a distinction between List 1 and 2 for their 
general focus on imports related to the Made in China 2025 plan, and 
List 3, which does not have the same focus? Or is there no distinction 
between the different rounds of tariffs as it relates to the broader 
approach to challenging China's acts, policies, and practices that 
degrade intellectual property rights? Do you intend to keep tariffs on 
goods if the underlying feedstock for the good can only be produced in 
China? Do you intend to draw a distinction between imports used to 
manufacture products in the United States and finished goods 
manufactured in China when it comes to assessing the potential for 
tariff relief?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and evaluate the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers.

    Question. Trade enforcement is absolutely vital to ensure a level 
playing field for American companies and workers. This includes the 
speedy and faithful implementation of commitments in new agreements, 
like the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

    In addition to enforcement of labor and environmental commitments 
in our trade agreements, how do you propose to enforce commitments 
related to market access, transparency, and innovation?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to using all enforcement tools under 
the USMCA to enforce the agreement's commitments. When Mexico or Canada 
is in violation of the agreement, I will use all available tools to 
obtain a prompt resolution, including seeking consultations with our 
trading partners and taking enforcement action when necessary.

    Question. Mexico's government has recently claimed that Mexico's 
hydrocarbon resources are not covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement (USMCA). Do you believe that hydrocarbons are covered by the 
agreement?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the USMCA and Mexico's energy 
policies, and I will consult with stakeholders and Congress on these 
issues. I commit to quickly engaging the Mexican government if it 
violates USMCA and to using all dispute settlement tools to fully 
enforce the USMCA when necessary.

    Question. Recently, Mexico decreed a ban on glyphosate and 
genetically modified corn by 2024. Do you believe this ban violates 
Mexico's commitments under USMCA, and will you commit to including this 
issue among your USMCA enforcement priorities?

    Answer. Mexico is a critical export market for American 
agriculture, with nearly $20 billion of U.S. agricultural products 
exported there each year. If confirmed, I will work to make sure these 
products continue to be exported to Mexico and use the tools agreed 
upon in the USMCA to do so.

    Question. The United States and Canada continue to have outstanding 
issues related to trade in softwood lumber. While Canadian 
subsidization has frequently been addressed by negotiated agreement, 
recently Canada has not appeared interested in negotiating a new 
softwood lumber agreement.

    Do you believe that the United States should hold Canada 
accountable for unfair trade practices in softwood lumber to the extent 
permitted by U.S. law? Do you believe that such accountability requires 
a new softwood lumber agreement?

    Answer. The Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade 
Commission have repeatedly found that the U.S. lumber industry is 
harmed by Canadian subsidies and unfair trade practices. If confirmed, 
I commit to working with other agencies to ensure that U.S. trade laws 
and remedies counter unfair trade practices and to pursue agreements in 
the interest of the United States.

    Question. The World Trade Organization's Government Procurement 
Agreement (GPA) opens up parts of the U.S. procurement market to other 
countries. Yet, the GPA is also a uniquely helpful model for bringing 
like-minded allies together on a plurilateral basis. In this way, the 
GPA can be both a limiting and empowering factor when it comes to 
restoring the resiliency of our supply chains.

    To what extent do you intend to pursue changes to U.S. GPA 
commitments as part of the administration's broader Buy American 
agenda?

    Answer. It is the policy of the Biden-Harris administration that 
the United States should seek to maximize the use of goods made in the 
United States for Federal procurement and financial assistance awards, 
consistent with applicable law. As a part of its review of the 
implementation and efficacy of laws, regulations, and policies related 
to Federal procurement, the United States should also examine 
procurements made under our trade agreement obligations to ensure that 
they serve the interests of the United States, its businesses and 
workers. If confirmed, I commit to undertaking this review.

    Question. In May 2020, President Trump signed an executive order 
directing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify essential 
medical countermeasures and require the U.S. Trade Representative 
(USTR) to withdraw coverage under U.S. trade agreements for these 
products. USTR has since notified the Government Procurement Agreement 
(GPA) Committee and our trade agreement partners of the intent to 
withdraw coverage for these medical countermeasures. This drew 
objections from some of our trading partners.

    Do you intend to pursue this withdrawal of coverage?

    Answer. As part of a review of whether our trade agreement 
obligations serve the interests of the United States, if confirmed, I 
will review the action taken to withdraw coverage of certain essential 
medical countermeasures from the Government Procurement Agreement and 
our trade agreements.

    Question. One way to reduce our dependence on China is to expand 
opportunities with other countries in the region. I continue to have 
concerns about the Trans-
Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the solution to that desired trade 
expansion.

    Will you commit to opposing efforts to rejoin TPP? As an 
alternative, will you commit to pursuing a Phase Two agreement with 
Japan?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will engage trading partners in the Asia-
Pacific region that share our strategic and economic interests to 
counter the unfair trade practices that distort trade and harm workers. 
If confirmed, I will review the CPTPP to evaluate its consistency with 
the Build Back Better agenda and whether it would advance the interests 
of all American workers. I commit to consulting closely with Congress 
on any trade agreement negotiations.

    Question. In March 2020, the USTR notified Congress of intent to 
negotiate a trade agreement with Kenya. Do you intend to continue to 
pursue these negotiations with Kenya?

    Answer. Since announcing the negotiations, the United States 
completed two rounds of negotiations with Kenya. If confirmed, I plan 
to review the state of the negotiations with and Kenya, and, in 
consultation with the Congress, chart a path forward that reflects the 
Biden-Harris administration's commitment to a trade policy that 
prioritizes the interest of America's working families. If confirmed, I 
will also study the progress of the African Continental Free Trade Area 
(AfCFTA) to determine how the United States may support African 
integration efforts.

    Question. As chair of the Senate Swiss Caucus, I believe a U.S.-
Switzerland trade agreement would open up new agricultural markets and 
help ``test drive'' what a broader agreement with the European Union 
(EU) might look like.

    Do you agree that a U.S.-Switzerland trade agreement should be a 
priority? What steps will you take to strengthen the U.S.-Switzerland 
trade relationship?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration's current priority is 
securing the investments in the United States needed to support a 
strong recovery. Such investments would strengthen the United States' 
hand in all future trade negotiations. If confirmed, I will evaluate 
potential trade agreements on their ability to advance the interests of 
all American workers.

    Question. While many companies have been squeezed as a result the 
pandemic-related economic downturn, the year ended without renewal of 
the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB). What role do you believe tariff 
relief plays in the economic recovery? Do you support renewing the MTB?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with Congress to 
renew the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.

    Question. In 2018, China began to indulge protectionist impulses 
with respect to imports of certain waste and scrap paper. Just the 
other month, China banned imports of recovered paper. As you know, the 
United States has raised with China the inconsistency of China's import 
restrictions on recyclable materials with World Trade Organization 
(WTO) rules. These new restrictions seem to likely to further 
constitute a violation of those rules.

    Will you commit to looking into these new import restrictions on 
recycled paper, and work with domestic industry who has been affected 
by these restrictions? Do you see an opportunity to include these 
import restrictions on paper within the scope of any future 
negotiations with China?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to engaging in a review of how trade 
policy can advance the development of the circular economy. As part of 
that process, I will engage in close consultations with domestic 
industry and Congress. Given the importance of China to these 
discussions at the global level, I would hope that China would be 
interested in active discussions with the U.S. on this matter.

    Question. Ohio is home to the largest domestic manufacturer of 
solar panels and washing machines. The section 201 safeguards on these 
products have helped level the playing field for domestic 
manufacturing.

    Do you agree with those who have called for rolling back these 
tariffs? Will you commit to taking steps to support these domestic 
industries against unfair foreign competition?

    Answer. The U.S. International Trade Commission determined that the 
U.S. domestic industry was seriously injured by increased imports of 
large residential washing machines. As a result, under section 201 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, the last administration put a remedy in place to 
counter those imports and the impact on domestic industry. If 
confirmed, I will ensure that U.S. trade laws are employed to ensure 
that American industries and jobs are protected from unfair trade 
practices and resulting market distortions.

    Question. Strong intellectual property requires are vital for the 
success of Made in America manufacturing. For example, in Lordstown, 
Ohio, General Motors and LG Energy Solutions (LGES) have a joint 
venture to produce batteries for electric vehicles. Recently, the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) found that intellectual property 
violations had occurred with respect to LG's battery technology. As 
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), you will be tasked with overseeing 
the public interest review of section 337 orders.

    Can you describe how you intend to protect U.S. intellectual 
property in ways that maximize the ability of companies to manufacture 
in the United States?

    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to oversee the review of ITC 
exclusion and cease-and-desist orders under section 337 in line with 
what was envisioned by Congress, as reflected in the legislative 
history, which includes considerations of the competitive conditions in 
the U.S. economy.

    Question. The International Trade Commission (ITC) currently has a 
Republican vacancy. A full ITC is vital to the effective enforcement of 
our trade remedy laws. Will you be supportive of efforts to quickly 
fill that seat?

    Answer. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) plays a key 
role in implementing U.S. trade laws, including proceedings concerning 
imports claimed to injure domestic industry and investigations under 
section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 337 of the Trade Act 
of 1930. It also provides high-quality non-partisan analysis of trade 
issues to Congress and the executive branch. I support a fully 
functioning ITC.

    Question. Invacare is an Ohio company that manufactures medical 
equipment for patients needing oxygen. Invacare is one of the many 
companies who have been impacted by the strain that COVID-19 has put on 
supply chains. Specifically, there are tremendous delays at major U.S. 
ports to offload shipping containers, which are filled with needed 
medical supplies and materials.

    Do you believe that the government should consider prioritizing the 
unloading and processing of shipping containers containing supplies 
used to manufacture U.S. medical equipment? If confirmed, will you work 
with other agencies and foreign counterparts to address the shipping 
container backlog, especially as it relates to medical supplies?

    Answer. The unloading and processing of shipping containers is 
primarily the responsibility of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the disruptions it has 
created in the U.S. supply chain of critical supplies requires a whole-
of-government response. If confirmed, I commit to working with other 
agencies to address all aspects of the challenges we face to getting 
medical supplies where they are needed.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
                             taking action
    Question. As you know, Ohio is home to state-of-the-art 
manufacturing and produces of a wide range of products, from electrical 
steel to mattress components to textiles. Thousands of hardworking 
Ohioans rely on the Federal Government to stand up for them and fight 
back against unfair trade practices that disadvantage Ohio workers and 
the communities they live in.

    As the Department of Commerce conducts investigations into unfair 
trade practices and makes recommendations to the President regarding 
remedies to defend domestic industries or address potential threats to 
national security, will you commit to fully reviewing Commerce's 
recommendations, and--where appropriate--supporting transparency on 
these reports and acting on Commerce's recommendations?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with the 
Department of Commerce to combat unfair trade practices and enforce 
U.S. trade agreements and laws.
                         semiconductor shortage
    Question. There was a lot of discussion during the hearing on the 
ongoing semiconductor shortage and the urgent need to respond. 
Semiconductors are an essential component in the auto supply chain; 
they also play a critical role in other industries. For example, 
Whirlpool in Ohio uses semiconductors to build their washers, dryers, 
and dishwashers.

    Director Deese has already committed to working with Congress to 
strengthen the semiconductor manufacturing supply chain and 
institutionalize a supply chain review.

    If confirmed, how will you work as USTR to help in this response 
and engage our international partners to encourage proactive steps to 
address the ongoing shortage?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue a trade policy that supports 
domestic manufacturing, and I will work closely with other Federal 
agencies to invest in critical supply chains, including semiconductor 
manufacturing. In addition, I will leverage trusted trade relationships 
to achieve supply chain resilience with our allies when appropriate.
                       global access to medicines
    Question. In the same way that so many of our past trade deals have 
prioritized multinational corporations over American workers, these 
deals have also prioritized big pharma over patients. The COVID-19 
pandemic has magnified the importance of global access to medicines. 
Diseases do not recognize borders--the health of Americans is 
intrinsically tied to the health of those around the world, and our 
trade policy must reflect this reality.

    If confirmed, will you commit to engaging with stakeholders to 
prioritize public health and global access to medicines in U.S. trade 
policy?

    Answer. As reflected by the President's recent pledge to COVAX, the 
Biden-Harris administration is committed to working with international 
partners to end the devastating public health and economic effects of 
this pandemic. The United States is working with partners to identify 
practical ways to catalyze the needed capacity to end this pandemic and 
respond to the next one. If confirmed, I will consult with 
stakeholders, including those that prioritize public health and global 
access to medicines, to advance the goal of collectively increasing 
access to and facilitating equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
                        world trade organization
    Question. As was discussed during Thursday's hearing, many agree 
that it is past time for World Trade Organization (WTO) reform to 
ensure that both dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body are 
not used as a venue for foreign governments and competitors to subvert 
the will of Congress and perpetuate unfair trade practices.

    If confirmed, how will you approach WTO reform and how will you 
ensure that U.S. trade laws remain effective and are not weakened as a 
result of WTO dispute settlement proceedings?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to re-engage with like-minded 
partners who similarly recognize the importance and necessity of reform 
of the WTO. Since the founding of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade (GATT) in 1947, U.S. leadership has been critical at every 
juncture when the global trade system has required a major updating. 
This will be difficult work that may take some time, but I remain 
hopeful that with proper U.S. leadership, we can achieve the necessary 
reforms. This includes reforming WTO dispute settlement to prevent 
diminishing the rights and obligations of countries to use their trade 
remedy laws to counteract unfair trade practices.
                              buy america
    Question. I have worked for years to support Federal investment in 
and procurement of domestically manufactured goods and services. I was 
pleased to see President Biden's executive order on made in America, 
and I support the administration's work to increase government 
procurement of domestically manufactured goods and services.

    If confirmed, will you commit to supporting President Biden's Buy 
America objectives and, in your role as USTR, work to eliminate 
barriers to the Federal Government's ability to apply robust Buy 
America requirements across government procurement?

    Answer. President Biden's executive order on made in America is 
intended to ensure that when the Federal Government spends taxpayer 
dollars it is on goods made by American workers and with American-made 
components. President Biden has committed to make Buy American 
requirements real and close loopholes that allow companies to offshore 
production and jobs while still qualifying for domestic preferences. If 
confirmed, I will work closely with the President and other Federal 
agencies to ensure our trade policies support the objectives of this 
executive order.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Patrick J. Toomey
    Question. In your hearing, I asked whether you agreed that, from a 
legal perspective, the President cannot unilaterally withdraw from a 
congressionally passed trade deal without the consent of Congress. 
During your time as Chief Trade Counsel at the House Ways and Means 
Committee, President Trump frequently threatened to withdraw from 
congressionally passed trade deals, and Chairman Neal in 2017 stated 
that if the President ``even suggests that the United States should 
leave NAFTA, to undo that relationship, you would have to go back to 
Congress.''

    Free trade agreements are ``congressional-executive agreements'', 
which are different from treaties in that they are statutory. Both 
entering and withdrawing from trade agreements requires changes to 
statute, and only Congress is vested with legislative powers.

    Do you believe that a President can unilaterally withdraw from a 
congressionally passed trade deal without the consent of Congress?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with the Senate 
Finance Committee and Congress on trade negotiations and agreements.

    Question. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is authorized through 
July 1, 2021. TPA provides the guidelines through which the executive 
branch and Congress can work together to negotiate new trade 
agreements, and includes important transparency and oversight 
commitments.

    As USTR, will you support the renewal of TPA in 2021?

    Does the administration plan to continue negotiating comprehensive 
FTAs with the UK and Kenya? What timeline can we expect for these 
negotiations?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress on any 
trade legislation advanced by the Senate Finance Committee. As U.S. 
Trade Representative, I will work to pursue trade policies that receive 
bipartisan support in Congress.

    In 2020, the United States officially launched negotiations to 
establish free trade agreements with Kenya and the United Kingdom. 
Since announcing the negotiations, the United States completed two 
rounds of negotiations with Kenya and four rounds of negotiations with 
the United Kingdom. If confirmed, I plan to review the state of the 
negotiations with the United Kingdom and Kenya, and, in consultation 
with the Congress, chart a path forward that reflects the Biden-Harris 
administration's commitment to a trade policy that prioritizes the 
interest of America's working families.

    Question. The Trump administration declined to renew the exclusion 
process for section 301 tariffs, further hurting American businesses 
and consumers in the midst of a pandemic. Supply chains take years to 
establish, and many businesses are unable to quickly shift production 
to other countries or facilities without compromising their procurement 
process or product quality.

    If confirmed as USTR, can you commit to renewing the section 301 
exclusion process, or at minimum temporarily extending the exclusions 
until the administration makes a decision on how to best address 
China's unfair trade practices?

    The product exclusion process lacked consistency and placed 
significant burdens on those wishing to apply for exclusions. What data 
or measures will USTR use to determine when to approve or disapprove an 
exclusion request?

    What steps will you take to ensure that the exclusion process is 
transparent?

    How would you factor in disruptions to supply chains when granting 
exclusions to tariffs?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and assess the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers. Further, I will ensure that any 
tariff exclusion process is transparent, fair and objective.

    Question. The previous administration did temporarily extend the 
section 301 exclusions on COVID-related medical products. However, this 
short-term extension is slated to expire at the end of March. I 
introduced legislation last Congress to extend tariff-free treatment on 
these products through 2022, in order to make sure that Americans have 
access to the supplies they need to fight COVID.

    As USTR, will you extend section 301 exclusions on medical supplies 
needed for the COVID-19 response until the end of the pandemic?

    Will you consider granting exclusions for medical supplies that are 
COVID-related but never received an exclusion?

    Answer. The United States imposed tariffs on products from China as 
a result of an investigation conducted under section 301 of the Trade 
Act of 1974 that found China engages in unfair trade acts policies and 
practices related to intellectual property, innovation, and technology 
transfer. If confirmed, I will review the existing exclusions with 
respect to COVID-19 related medical products to ensure that the 
application of the 301 tariffs supports the U.S. response to the 
pandemic.

    Question. I have introduced a resolution in the Senate expressing 
the sense of the Senate that the United States should begin 
negotiations to enter into a comprehensive trade agreement with Taiwan. 
I believe that this is a clear opportunity for a mutually beneficial 
agreement, and would both expand U.S. access to foreign markets and 
strengthen our position in the Indo-Pacific region. If the United 
States wants to encourage a free and open Indo-Pacific and counter 
Chinese influence in the region, do you agree that accomplishing that 
task will include working with like- minded countries in the region, 
like Taiwan, to liberalize trade?

    Would you support beginning negotiations on a trade agreement with 
Taiwan?

    Would you support the U.S. joining a TPP-style multilateral 
agreement to further strengthen our position in the region?

    Answer. Taiwan is an important democratic partner of the United 
States, and we have had a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 
dating back to 1994. Much has changed in the world since the original 
TPP was signed in 2016. If confirmed, I will review the CPTPP to 
evaluate its consistency with the Build Back Better agenda. I commit to 
consulting closely with Congress on trade agreement negotiations.

    Question. Investor State Dispute Settlements or ISDS, is an 
integral part of many of our trade agreements. USMCA severely 
restricted the scope of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System 
with Mexico, a move I criticized as against U.S. interests.

    As USTR, can you commit to prioritizing the enforcement of ISDS 
under USMCA?

    Do you support the inclusion of strong ISDS provisions in 
forthcoming FTA's that the US may pursue?

    Do you believe that ISDS provisions encourage offshoring?

    Answer. President Biden has stated that he does not believe 
corporations should get special tribunals in trade agreements that are 
not available to other organizations and that he opposes the ability of 
private corporations to attack labor, health, and environmental 
policies through the investor-state dispute settlement system. If 
confirmed, I will pursue a trade agenda consistent with the Biden-
Harris administration's Build Back Better agenda.

    Question. USMCA contains an unprecedented provision that would 
cause the agreement to automatically expire, or ``sunset,'' after 16 
years, unless all party countries agree to affirmatively ``opt-in'' 
every 6 years. I have significant concerns about this provision, in 
particular its tendency to create uncertainty and diminish investment.

    Do you believe that our future trade agreements should 
automatically expire?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to advance trade policies that 
address the climate crisis, bolster sustainable renewable energy supply 
chains, end unfair trade practices, discourage regulatory arbitrage, 
and foster innovation and creativity. In addition, I am committed to 
ensuring these trade policies are crafted to accommodate future changes 
in the economy and to prevent the obligations from becoming outdated or 
obsolete.

    Question. USMCA, at the last minute, also removed provisions 
designed to secure strong intellectual property protections for U.S. 
companies.

    Do you support the inclusion of IP protection for biologics in 
upcoming trade agreements?

    More broadly, how do you plan to support U.S.-based IP-intensive 
industries through trade policy and ensure they are treated fairly by 
our trading partners?

    Answer. Innovators play a critical role in America's economy, 
including by ensuring that the U.S. maintains its leading edge in 
technology and producing high-
quality jobs for workers. USTR supports American innovators in overseas 
markets through its Special 301 review, bilateral engagements with 
trading partners, and its efforts in various multilateral institutions, 
including the WTO. I am aware that there are a variety of views on 
whether protection for biologics should be included. If confirmed, I 
commit to engaging with stakeholders and members of Congress on this 
issue.

    Question. USTR is not the agency responsible for conducting section 
232 investigations or writing up the investigation report. However, 
USTR is still frequently involved in the decision on whether to impose 
tariffs, based on the findings of the 232 investigation report. The 
previous administration failed to release several of their 232 
investigation reports, despite being statutorily mandated to do so. The 
previous administration additionally took a very broad interpretation 
of the term ``national security'' in the 232 statute, interpreting this 
guidance to explicitly include goods ``beyond those necessary to 
satisfy national defense requirements'' in its scope.

    As USTR, can you commit to in your advisory capacity encouraging 
the President to release these overdue 232 reports?

    Do you believe that the executive branch should be obligated to 
release its congressionally mandated 232 report prior to the imposition 
of tariffs?

    As the President Biden's top trade advisor, would you recommend 
that he adopt an expansive definition of ``national security'' under 
section 232, or do you feel that section 232 investigations should be 
limited to investigating goods with clear applications in military 
equipment, energy resources, and/or critical infrastructure?

    Do you think foreign automobiles are a threat to national security?

    Do you think carbon emissions are a threat to national security?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with the 
Department of Commerce on combating unfair trade practices and 
enforcing U.S. trade agreements and laws and ensuring that our trade 
laws and policies are employed to support the Build Back Better agenda 
and creating and retaining good high-paying jobs in the United States.

    Question. Many of my constituents have been directly impacted by 
the previous administration's section 232 tariffs on steel and 
aluminum. These policies have added complexity and greatly increased 
costs for American importers, and this approach must be carefully 
examined to determine the downstream economic costs.

    Will you as USTR recommend to President Biden that the United 
States remove our current section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum?

    In your hearing, when asked about section 232 steel tariffs, you 
noted the issues of Chinese overcapacity in the steel industry. 
However, there are other remedies--safeguards, anti-dumping, and 
countervailing duties --that are designed to address problems of 
dumping and overcapacity. Why are national security tariffs needed?

    Answer. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) that do not operate based on 
market principles, using subsidies and other unfair trade practices, 
have contributed significantly to global market distortions, notably in 
the steel and aluminum industries. If confirmed, I will work with our 
allies to collectively address market distortions caused by SOEs, 
subsidies, and other unfair trade practices in the steel and aluminum 
sectors. In addition, I will pursue trade enforcement actions against 
trading partners that use SOEs and other practices to disadvantage U.S. 
businesses and their workers, and I will pursue disciplines in trade 
agreement negotiations aimed at addressing SOEs and such unfair 
practices.

    Question. President Trump's trade war with China has now extended 
several years, yet China has still taken few steps to reform their 
unfair trade practices. Instead, these tariffs have primarily had the 
effect of causing retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exporters, including 
many of Pennsylvania's manufacturers and agriculture industries. While 
it is important to ensure that our trading partners live up to their 
international trade commitments, I am concerned about the use of 
tariffs as a primary remedy.

    President Biden has previously discussed the need to carefully 
evaluate the economic impact caused by the tariffs. Do you believe that 
tariffs are the best mechanism to address the issues of forced 
technology transfer and intellectual property theft?

    Will you recommend the elimination of any of the punitive section 
301 tariffs that harm American businesses and families, and encourage 
the pursuit of an alternative, effective, strategy?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and assess the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers. Further, I will ensure that any 
tariff exclusion process is transparent, fair, and objective.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Michael F. Bennet
    Question. Food and agricultural exporters in my State are facing 
significant challenges exporting their products from western ports 
because of container availability, excessive charges, and general 
shipping and transit delays.

    Will you work with others in the administration to address these 
current problems and ensure producers are able to reliably export their 
products without excessive charges or delays?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress and will 
work with other Federal agencies to address food and agricultural 
transportation issues.

    Question. The trade war with China created immense uncertainty 
throughout Colorado's economy. Not only were the tariffs devastating, 
but the process through which the Trump administration conducted the 
trade war exacerbated the unknown and made it hard for Colorado 
constituents to make important business decisions.

    If the USTR decides to seek future tariff actions, how will you 
conduct the tariff exclusion process with more transparency and 
clarity?

    Will you work with Congress on the tariff exclusion process and 
provide updates that we can share with our constituents?

    Will you consider temporarily extending all previously approved 
exclusions?

    You and Secretary Yellen have indicated the tariffs will undergo a 
review process. What is the timeline for this review process?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and assess the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers. Further, I will ensure that any 
tariff exclusion process is transparent, fair and objective.

    Question. As you know, in 2018, the Trump administration placed 
tariffs on imported solar cells and modules for 4 years under section 
201 authorities. A last-minute executive order in 2020 further 
disrupted our country's vibrant solar industry. We need to expand our 
country's clean energy supply chain, but there are far better tools 
that don't come at the expense of climate progress or domestic jobs.

    Given the Biden administration's emphasis on climate change, how 
will you approach the solar tariffs and ensure our trade policy 
supports renewable energy investment.

    Answer. After the U.S. International Trade Commission determined 
under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 that increased imports of 
solar cells and modules severely damaged the U.S. domestic industry, 
the last administration established a 4-year remedy, currently set to 
expire on February 6, 2022. The Biden administration has made the 
increased use of renewable energy, including solar, a core component of 
its policy to combat climate change. If confirmed, I will examine the 
safeguard action in light of those goals, the security of our renewable 
energy supply chain, and the impact on U.S. businesses and jobs.

    Question. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has 
provided the largest tech companies broad immunity for the content on 
their platforms and made it harder to hold them accountable. Until we 
implement much-needed reforms, section 230 as written is not a model we 
should export.

    Do you agree that the United States should not seek to export 
provisions similar to Section 230, as written today, in international 
trade agreements?

    Answer. I know that there are a wide variety of views on this 
issue, and I commit to ensuring that stakeholders, including Congress, 
are considered on this and other provisions of our trade agreements.

    Question. As you know, the Trade Promote Authority (TPA) allows the 
U.S. to pursue new trade agreements in a timely manner, helping our 
agriculture exporters compete internationally.

    Will you commit to working with Congress to pass new TPA 
legislation in a timely manner?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress on trade 
negotiations and trade legislation advanced by the Senate Finance 
Committee. I will work to pursue trade policies that receive bipartisan 
support in Congress.

    Question. Non-tariff trade barriers, such as common food names, can 
create uneven playing fields and make it harder for producers to 
reliably compete.

    What steps will you take to address non-tariff barriers and ensure 
producers have fair access to markets?

    Answer. U.S. farmers and ranchers deserve fair access to the global 
agricultural marketplace. If confirmed, I commit to aggressively 
fighting against unfair and discriminatory non-tariff barriers our 
farmers and ranchers face.

    Question. In negotiating trade agreements, how will you consider 
common food name use and other non- tariff trade barriers?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to prioritizing the use of common 
food names during future trade negotiations and seeking to remove other 
non-tariff barriers that are inconsistent with advancing U.S. 
agricultural interests.

    Question. Since 1996, Mexico has limited U.S. fresh potato imports 
to 26 kilometers from the U.S.-Mexico border. This week, the Mexican 
Supreme Court was supposed to release a final ruling on the trade 
restriction, but that decision was delayed. Will you work with me to 
ensure Colorado potato growers have fair access to the entire Mexico 
market?

    Answer. I appreciate the longstanding difficulties that U.S. fresh 
potato growers in Colorado have faced in gaining full access to the 
Mexican market. If confirmed, I look forward to working to solve unfair 
trade practices that harm our producers.

    Question. The Airbus/Boeing dispute tariffs are significantly 
affecting the Colorado small businesses. Restaurants in particular, 
which are already struggling due to the pandemic, are facing 
substantial costs on European food, wine, and spirits.

    If confirmed, what will be your first steps regarding the EU 
Airbus/Boeing dispute?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to review the 
status of these long-term disputes and seek a resolution that finally 
addresses the unfair practices found through the WTO process that 
disadvantage U.S. industry and workers.

    Question. Will you work with a wide range of interests to 
understand the tariffs' impacts on their industries, including 
restaurants?

    Answer. The purpose of the dispute resolution process is to ensure 
that other countries play by the rules so that our businesses, workers, 
farmers and ranchers can compete on a level playing field. Tariffs may 
be a tool to achieve these ends, but they are not the goal. The focus 
must be on the resolution of the issue that has been found to impact 
our industry and workers. If confirmed, I will ensure that our trade 
enforcement actions consider the impact of tariffs on U.S. businesses 
and workers.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Cassidy
                             duty drawback
    Question. Duty drawback allows for the refund of Customs duties, 
Federal taxes, and fees paid on imported goods that are used as inputs 
in the production of manufactured products that are later exported, or 
where the imported good is substituted for the same or a similar good 
manufactured in theU.S. that is later exported. The drawback program 
allows U.S. manufacturers and exporters to reduce the cost of inputs, 
and thus reduce manufacturing costs to remain competitive in pricing 
their exported goods. In today's environment, duty drawback continues 
to level the playing field for U.S. producers who export to compete in 
the global market. Congress expanded drawback in 2016 with the passage 
of the Trade Facilitation and Enforcement Act (TFTEA) by expanding 
substitution drawback for all U.S. manufacturers to 8-digit Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule numbers.

    If you are confirmed as U.S. Trade Representative, what policies 
will you and USTR put in place for the drawback program, and do you 
support the reforms made under TFTEA?

    Answer. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for the 
implementation and administration of the duty drawback rules and 
regulations, including the amendments enacted in the Trade Facilitation 
and Enforcement Act of 2015. If confirmed, I will work with the 
Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and other Federal agencies to 
ensure that the Biden-Harris administration's trade policies support 
the Build Back Better agenda and the recovery of the U.S. economy.

    Question. Will you work to ensure that USTR continues to work to 
include full duty drawback rights in free trade agreements?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and relevant 
stakeholders to ensure our trade agreements include provisions that 
support the economic investments we make to recover from the COVID-19 
pandemic and retain and create high-wage, secure jobs in the United 
States.
                chart industries and section 232 tariffs
    Question. Our tariff and trade policy has inconsistencies that must 
be fixed so that our domestic manufacturers and workers are not harmed. 
The system is broken when the Commerce Department grants a U.S. 
manufacturer an exclusion from the application of section 232 tariffs 
on raw materials because they are not available in the U.S., but then 
allows U.S. producers to include the same raw materials in the scope of 
antidumping order.

    For example, Chart Industries, Inc., a U.S.-headquartered company, 
has manufacturing and distribution operations in Louisiana, Wisconsin, 
and Texas. Chart employs several hundred U.S. workers while supporting 
U.S. fin stock aluminum producers in Pennsylvania, among many other 
vendors and suppliers in the U.S. transportation and packaging 
industries. Chart is the sole domestic manufacturer of brazed aluminum 
heat exchangers (BHAX) for processing liquefied natural gas (LNG). 
Because the clad sheet used by Chart is not made in the U.S., Commerce 
has now twice excluded imports of the clad sheet from the section 232 
tariffs. Yet, this same clad sheet is allowed to be included in a 
current antidumping case, which could result in the application of 
antidumping duties against Chart's clad sheet imports.

    If action is not taken to reconcile the trade laws, this 
inconsistency in the trade laws may negatively impact our U.S. 
manufacturers' production costs and competitiveness by unnecessarily 
increasing raw material inputs. My concern is the adverse long term 
impact that it may have not only on our U.S. mills, BAHX producers and 
their workers, but also any adverse effects on our LNG producers who 
are investing billions of dollars in the U.S. on LNG production and 
export terminals that require these specialty heat exchangers in order 
to get their product to market.

    Though I understand much of this falls within the jurisdiction of 
the Commerce Department, what thoughts do you have on how the USTR can 
work in collaboration with other agencies to address such 
inconsistencies?

    Answer. Robust interagency collaboration strengthens policy 
outcomes. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with the Department 
of Commerce and other agencies to combat unfair trade practices and 
enforce U.S. trade agreements and laws.
                             sugar--brazil
    Question. Brazil has long sought to link expanded access to the 
U.S. market for its sugar to the U.S. goal of securing preferential 
access to Brazil's market for ethanol. Certain actions were taken 
toward the end of the last administration that created the unfortunate 
perception that sugar access to theU.S. market was being traded for 
ethanol access to Brazil. Specifically, USTR and Brazil announced on 
September 11th a 90-day consultation initiative to ``conduct results-
oriented discussions on an arrangement to improve market access for 
ethanol and sugar in Brazil and the United States.'' At that time 
Brazil granted a 90-day pro-rated extension of its TRQ for U.S. 
ethanol, while USTR announced on September 22nd an additional FY2020 
raw cane sugar TRQ allocation of 80,000 metric tons raw value for 
Brazil (and 10,718 MTRV for Australia). Brazil's ethanol TRQ extension 
expired on December 14th, and all U.S. ethanol now entering Brazil 
faces a 20 percent applied Common External Tariff.

    Given Brazil's track record as a heavy subsidizer of its sugar and 
ethanol industries, would you agree that the legitimate pursuit of 
improved access for U.S. ethanol to Brazil should not come at the 
expense of U.S. sugar farmers?

    Answer. In my testimony, I emphasized that no U.S. stakeholder 
should be prioritized over another during trade negotiations. If 
confirmed, I commit to ensuring that no new agricultural market access 
comes at the expense of other agricultural stakeholders.
                sugar--wto quota allocation methodology
    Question. There have been indications over the past year or so that 
USTR and USDA are considering revising the methodology used by the 
United States to allocate our WTO sugar quota. This quota has 
traditionally been allocated in varying amounts to 40 countries based 
on a longstanding formula, with reallocations being carried out later 
in the fiscal year to account for nonperformance. While it is 
understood there may be some inefficiencies built into the current 
methodology, there are also elements to the arrangement that benefit 
the overall operation of existing sugar policy.

    Can you provide your assurance that USTR will engage in thorough 
consultations with both USDA program managers and industry stakeholders 
regarding potential changes to the existing allocation process before 
any such changes are instituted?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to consulting with USDA program 
managers and industry stakeholders before any changes to the current 
allocation process take place.
                                spirits
    Question. Since June 2018, certain American spirits exports to the 
EU and UK have faced a 25-percent tariff in response to the U.S. 
imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum, and in connection with the 
WTO dispute concerning Boeing. Absent a resolution to the steel 
tariffs, the EU's tariff on American Whiskey will automatically double 
to 50 percent in June. The U.S. has imposed a 25 percent tariff on 
certain EU and UK wines and spirits imports since October 2019 in 
connection with the WTO Airbus dispute. The negative impact of these 
tariffs are being felt across the U.S. from farmers, to suppliers, 
retailers, and the hospitality sector.

    What are your thoughts on how this situation can be improved?

    Answer. The purpose of the WTO dispute resolution process is to 
ensure that other countries play by the rules so that our businesses, 
workers, farmers, and ranchers can compete on a level playing field. 
Tariffs may be a tool to achieve these ends, but they are not the goal. 
The focus must be on resolving the issue that has harmed has our 
industry and workers. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to review 
the status of these long-term disputes and evaluate the use of tariffs, 
including their impact on unrelated industries, to ensure U.S. trade 
tools maximize the benefit and minimize the cost for U.S. industries, 
workers, and consumers.
                       mexico--petroleum exports
    Question. Mexico is the largest export market for U.S. petroleum 
products and is a growing market for natural gas exports. U.S. exports 
of refined products to Mexico have tripled over the past decade. An 
integrated North American energy market benefits U.S. fuel 
manufacturers, workers, and ultimately Mexican consumers. Following 
Mexico's 2014 constitutional reforms allowing private participation in 
the Mexican energy sector, U.S. companies invested billions of dollars 
to develop energy infrastructure in Mexico and in the United States to 
import fuel from our refineries to satisfy Mexican demand, resulting in 
infrastructure development and increased employment in both countries.

    Despite this progress, recent reports indicate that the Mexican 
government is providing preferential regulatory treatment for Petroleos 
Mexicanos (PEMEX) and delaying or canceling permits for U.S. energy 
companies. These anecdotal experiences seem to give the credence by 
President of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, to reestablish state 
control over energy markets. Additionally, members of the governing 
party, MORENA, have presented constitutional initiatives that would 
roll back the historic 2014 Energy Reform and seek to relinquish all 
contracts currently in force.

    All these actions by the President of Mexico go against the spirit 
of the historical agreement between our countries under the USMCA.

    While we respect Mexico's sovereign right to decide its energy 
policy, how will you hold the Mexican Government accountable in living 
up to the commitments of the USMCA?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the reports of discriminatory 
action in Mexico's energy sector that you highlighted, and I will 
consult with stakeholders and Congress on these issues. I commit to 
quickly engaging the Mexican government when there are USMCA violations 
and using all dispute settlement tools to fully enforce the USMCA when 
necessary.
                              counterfeits
    Question. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that we 
protect citizens against fake and counterfeit products that damage our 
economy and put consumer health and safety at risk. Businesses and 
consumers in recent years have seen an explosion of fake and 
counterfeit goods sold via online and e-commerce platforms, putting the 
health and safety, and the competitiveness of businesses and workers, 
at risk. I understand USTR puts together an annual Special 301 report 
on global IP issues, including counterfeiting works to develop action 
plans to address these and other issues with key trading partners.

    I also note that my office has introduced legislation to combat the 
spread of counterfeits--the SANTA Act and the INFORM Consumers Act, and 
we would be happy to discuss this legislation with you or your staff at 
any time.

    How can USTR act to combat the rising tide of online counterfeits?

    Is there any way our office can partner with you in working to 
combat the sale of dangerous, counterfeit products?

    Answer. USTR has a variety of tools at its disposal to combat the 
production and distribution of fake and counterfeit goods that threaten 
American workers, innovators, and consumers. Besides the Special 301 
report, USTR also undertakes an annual process to identify notorious 
markets for counterfeiting and piracy, which highlights online and 
physical markets. USTR also engages in regular consultations with our 
trading partners over their laws, regulations, enforcement, and other 
policies to enhance their efficacy in combating online counterfeiting. 
Strong support from Congress is vital on all of these fronts. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working with your office and this 
committee to find ways to bolster USTR's capabilities to undertake this 
important work.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark R. Warner
    Question. For several years now USTR's digital trade agenda has 
simply not reflected reality. A large number of our closest trading 
partners and security allies are increasingly turning to regulate 
digital services--whether in terms of promoting competition, preventing 
consumer harms, combatting disinformation, or making technology firms 
pay their fair share of taxes.

    It's imperative that we work on a digital trade strategy that can 
garner the support of our allies and close trading partners. And a key 
part of that is going to entail jettisoning some of the more laissez-
faire approaches the U.S. has tried to impose upon trading partners--
despite ample indications that the U.S. is the global outlier when it 
comes to privacy, digital taxation, intermediary liability, and 
competition policy.

    That's not only not realistic but it's not a good use of U.S. 
political capital, as we try to collaborate with these same trading 
partners and close security allies to address China's unfair trade 
practices and security risks.

    Will you commit to a comprehensive reevaluation of USTR's digital 
trade efforts over the last 4 years, including working to ensure that 
the U.S. digital trade agenda is better harmonized with key allies and 
trading partners like the UK, Australia, France, and Canada?

    Will you reverse USTR's efforts to bully Australia--a vital 
regional security ally--as it seeks to pursue digital competition 
efforts similar to those being proposed in the UK and U.S.?

    Answer. It is a priority of the Biden-Harris administration to work 
closely with America's allies to more effectively address the many 
challenges posed by China. If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues 
at the Treasury Department to address the digital services tax as part 
of the multilateral effort to address base erosion and profit shifting 
through the OECD/G20 process. I will also work with the Department of 
Commerce as it seeks to conclude an Enhanced Privacy Shield Framework 
that addresses the concerns raised by the European Court of Justice and 
enables the safe transfer of data between the European Union and the 
United States. I will consult closely with Congress on a broader 
digital trade agenda.

    Australia's ``News Media and Digital Platforms Bargaining Code'' 
Bill 2020 and initiatives in other countries are designed to address 
certain outcomes in the digital marketplace. I am aware that there are 
a wide variety of views on the novel approaches that Australia and 
others are taking with respect to competition in advertising in the 
digital age. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing USTR's position and 
engaging with stakeholders and Congress on this issue.

    Question. I have made no secret of my strong opposition to the 
inclusion of intermediary liability safe harbors modeled on section 230 
in new trade agreements.

    Until USMCA, this provision had not been included in a single free 
trade agreement in the over 23 years since section 230 was originally 
enacted. And I am not alone--as members of Congress become more aware 
of how devastating section 230 has been in the U.S. as it pertains to 
civil rights violations, harassment and abuse campaigns, and online 
fraud, the chorus of opponents of inclusion of this provision has only 
grown, as has support for reforming this badly outdated law.

    In December, I wrote to your predecessor with Senator Portman, 
Senator Grassley, and Senator Blumenthal urging USTR to refrain from 
including these provisions in the U.S.-UK trade agreement that was 
under negotiation.

    Will you commit to refraining from including this provision in any 
new executive agreements, free trade agreements, or the negotiating 
objectives of the U.S. in the e-commerce negotiations?

    Answer. There are a wide variety of views on this issue, and I 
commit to consulting with relevant stakeholders, including Congress, on 
this and other provisions of our trade agreements.

    Question. We have seen public reports that Russia and other 
nefarious state actors may be attempting to steal intellectual property 
from American companies and the U.S. Government as our country has 
labored to develop successful vaccines.

    Under your leadership, how will USTR combat against intellectual 
property theft and work to uphold respect for Rule of Law globally?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize the enforcement of 
intellectual property protections included in our trade agreements. As 
I said in my testimony, good governance, rule of law, and anti-
corruption are fundamental values that we must work to hold our trading 
partners to.

    Question. A key pattern we see repeatedly from China involves its 
massive subsidies provided to targeted industries, creating immense 
excess capacity, which get dumped in the U.S. and global markets. 
Current remedies have been insufficient to deal with this threat. How 
do you plan to address this? Are there new disciplines or tools that 
could be developed to effectively address this challenge?

    Answer. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) that do not operate based on 
market principles, subsidies and other unfair trade practices 
disadvantage U.S. businesses and their workers and have contributed 
significantly to global market distortions, in the steel industry and 
many other sectors. If confirmed, I will work with our allies to 
collectively address market distortions caused by SOEs and other unfair 
trade practices. In addition, I will pursue trade enforcement actions 
against trading partners that use SOEs and unfair trade practices to 
disadvantage U.S. businesses and their workers, and I will pursue 
disciplines on SOEs and such practices in trade agreement negotiations.

    Question. Deepening our relationship with India is a key part of 
any effort to counter China's growing influence--both regionally and 
internationally.

    However, it's clear that India needs to make a range of market 
access and liberalization reforms before we can move forward on any 
meaningful FTA negotiations.

    Yet recent protests by farmers in India--involving millions of 
farmers engaged in protests and organized boycotts--indicate that even 
modest reforms in areas like agriculture could be a major undertaking.

    What is your view on the prospect for Indian market reforms?

    What are realistic trade objectives for the U.S. to pursue with 
respect to India?

    Answer. India's fast-growing economy provides new opportunity for 
America's exporters, including our farmers, manufacturers, and service 
providers. It is an ongoing challenge to balance the United States' 
interest in enhancing our trade relationship with India the need to 
address Indian policies that discriminate against U.S. exports and 
digital service firms. If confirmed, I will consult closely with 
Congress to ensure our trade policy strikes the right balance.

    Question. As you know, I have been an outspoken critic of China and 
the national security threat posed by its industrial espionage and the 
links between Chinese industries and their military.

    That being said, I believe the haphazard and unilateral approach of 
the Trump administration, including the use of section 301 tariffs on 
goods imported into the U.S., has not been effective in addressing 
these issues. These actions have raised costs for U.S. consumers, and 
in too many cases undercut the ability of U.S. companies to compete 
with Chinese and other non-U.S. competitors.

    Many U.S.-headquartered companies have been taking steps to shift 
their manufacturing and supply chains out of China, but have been 
hampered by the global pandemic and resultant travel restrictions all 
across the globe, delaying the timelines for their transitions well 
into 2021. While USTR did grant many exclusions and extensions to these 
companies, all of the exclusions expired at the end of 2020 without 
USTR providing an opportunity to petition for extensions.

    Are you considering reinstating the tariff exclusions that had been 
granted in the past, or establishing a process that allows companies to 
reapply for exclusions for some period of time while the administration 
works on a more comprehensive policy to address trade with China?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to assessing the section 301 tariffs 
and exclusion process as part of President Biden's comprehensive 
approach to confronting the China challenge.

    Question. The solar industry employs thousands of workers in 
Virginia. We currently have 1.3 gigawatts of installed solar capacity, 
and many more expected to be installed in the coming years. I believe 
our trade policy should not artificially stymie this growth in the 
clean energy sector.

    Unfortunately, the previous administration imposed section 201 
tariffs on imported solar panels and cells. As a result, thousands of 
workers nationally have been laid off or not hired; $19 billion in 
private-sector investment has been lost, and U.S. solar module prices 
are among the highest in the world.

    In October 2020, the Trump administration issued a proclamation 
that would increase the tariffs for 2021. This will be highly 
disruptive for businesses that made investment decisions based on the 
original tariff schedule.

    What steps are you considering to alleviate uncertainty on solar 
companies and create a sustainable path forward for this industry?

    Answer. After the U.S. International Trade Commission determined 
under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 that increased imports of 
solar cells and modules severely damaged the U.S. domestic industry, 
the last administration established a 4-year remedy, currently set to 
expire on February 6, 2022. The Biden-Harris administration has made 
the increased use of renewable energy, including solar, a core 
component of its policy to combat climate change. If confirmed, I will 
examine the safeguard action in light of those goals, the security of 
our renewable energy supply chain, and the impact on U.S. businesses 
and jobs.

                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
    Question. As you know, the previous administration took many 
actions to hurt the clean energy industry. One notable move was 
imposing tariffs on solar panel imports. Before Trump left office he 
increased these tariffs through a presidential proclamation. In my 
view, this was unnecessary.

    As you help chart a path forward for the administration on solar 
trade issues, will you consider the important role imports play in 
helping to address climate change while we grow manufacturing here at 
home?

    Will you support revocation of this presidential proclamation and 
revisit the existing tariffs?

    Answer. After the U.S. International Trade Commission determined 
under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 that increased imports of 
solar cells and modules severely damaged the U.S. domestic industry, 
the last administration established a 4-year remedy, currently set to 
expire on February 6, 2022. The Biden-Harris administration has made 
the increased use of renewable energy, including solar, a core 
component of its policy to combat climate change. If confirmed, I will 
examine the safeguard action in light of those goals, the security of 
our renewable energy supply chain, and the impact on U.S. businesses 
and jobs.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines
    Question. It is clear China has not been transparent in how it is 
meeting intellectual property commitments in the Phase One agreement.

    Do you support the inclusion and enforcement of high standard 
intellectual property protections in future trade negotiations, whether 
with China or other trading partners?

    Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will pursue the inclusion and 
enforcement of high standard intellectual property protections in 
future trade negotiations in all instances where doing so will deliver 
meaningful outcomes that serve the interests of American innovators and 
workers.

    Question. As you know, the softwood lumber dispute with Canada is 
longstanding, and unfairly subsidized Canadian softwood lumber imports 
have had a significant impact on Montana jobs.

    What will be your priorities regarding the softwood lumber dispute 
with Canada?

    Will you commit to working with the Department of Commerce to 
ensure that U.S. trade laws are fully enforced to support U.S. jobs 
from subsidized Canadian imports?

    What assurances can you provide that the administration will not 
implement WTO Panel decisions in a way that would undermine the 
effectiveness of U.S. trade laws?

    Answer. The Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade 
Commission have repeatedly found that the U.S. lumber industry is 
harmed by Canadian subsidies and unfair trade practices. If confirmed, 
I commit to working with other agencies and departments to ensure that 
U.S. trade laws and remedies are employed to counter unfair trade 
practices, and to vigorously defending those laws when challenged. The 
United States has a process for implementing WTO determinations with 
respect to trade remedy laws set out under section 129 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act, and I will ensure that the Biden-Harris 
administration follows the process established by Congress.

    Question. If confirmed, will you work to address non-tariff 
barriers on crop protection tools, biotechnology, and ensuring sanitary 
and phytosanitary standards are based on sound science and risk-based 
regulatory systems?

    Answer. The United States is the global leader in cutting edge 
biotechnology, and U.S. farmers and ranchers deserve fair access to the 
global agricultural marketplace. If confirmed, I commit to aggressively 
fighting against non-tariff barriers that are not based on science and 
risk and limit our producers' access to foreign markets.

    Question. As you know, many agricultural commodities have been 
targeted by the European Union with retaliatory tariffs due to disputes 
over Boeing/Airbus and other issues. In particular, Hard Red Spring 
wheat has been harmed by WTO sanctioned punitive tariffs on U.S. grown 
non-durum wheat. Until the Airbus/Boeing dispute is resolved, or the 
tariffs are lifted in negotiations, U.S. wheat growers will be at a 
disadvantage in the marketplace relative to competitors in Canada and 
elsewhere.

    What steps can be taken to find a negotiated solution and put the 
respective tariffs on hold?

    Other agriculture commodities have been impacted as well. Will you 
commit to working to lift these retaliatory tariffs?

    Answer. The purpose of WTO dispute resolution process is to ensure 
that other countries play by the rules so that our businesses, workers, 
farmers and ranchers can compete on a level playing field. Tariffs may 
be a tool to achieve these ends, but they are not the goal. The Boeing/
Airbus WTO litigation has been ongoing for more than 15 years. If 
confirmed, I will make it a priority to resolve this long-
running dispute in a way that ensures Boeing and its workers can 
compete on a level playing field and that takes into account all 
affected stakeholders.

    Question. China made several commitments in the Phase One deal to 
open its market and reduce interventions related to financial services.

    Will you commit to holding China accountable to enforcing those 
commitments and prioritize ensuring that U.S. financial services 
companies are able to operate in China?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will hold China accountable for the full 
range of commitments that have been made to the United States, 
including those relating to U.S. financial companies.

    Question. President Biden recently spoke to Prime Minister Trudeau 
in their first official meeting. The Keystone XL Pipeline has long been 
supported by Canada and ensures safe and reliable importation of 
Canadian crude into the U.S. to be refined, consumed, and traded. 
Without the pipeline, this oil continues to come into the U.S. but 
instead is transported by rail or truck, which increases emissions and 
decreases the safety of its transportation. President Biden's decision 
to halt the pipeline has strained our trade relationship with Canada 
and its provinces. In fact, the Premier of Alberta called it a ``gut-
punch'' to U.S.-Canada's trade relationship.

    What will you do to mend this relationship, and how will you 
represent the U.S. in any trade disputes that may arise due to the 
cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

    Answer. The trade and economic relationship with Canada is of vital 
importance to the United States. On February 23, 2021, President Biden 
held his first bilateral meeting since taking office with Prime 
Minister Trudeau. Together, they announced the roadmap for a renewed 
U.S.-Canada partnership. If confirmed, I look forward to strengthening 
the U.S.-Canada economic relationship in areas where there is mutual 
agreement on shared priorities, such as climate change and livable wage 
job creation on both sides of the border.

    Question. The U.S. relies heavily on foreign countries to source 
raw materials for electric vehicle batteries, renewable energy, 
healthcare, and emerging technologies.

    Do you have any concerns with critical mineral supply chain 
vulnerabilities?

    Do you think the U.S. should expand and improve domestic supply 
chains in order to reduce any vulnerabilities?

    What will USTR do to ensure that U.S. manufacturing isn't cut off 
from the raw materials and critical minerals they require to produce 
electric vehicle batteries, renewable energy and more?

    Answer. The President's recent executive order on America's supply 
chains seeks to review the vulnerabilities in critical supply chains, 
including those associated with the need for critical minerals to power 
the green economy and other vital sectors. If confirmed, I will work to 
implement the policies identified by the executive order in this and 
other sectors. I commit to using a wide range of available trade policy 
tools to take effective action against any country that cuts the U.S. 
off from the supply of the critical raw materials our economy needs.

    Question. If confirmed, will you pursue further negotiations to 
expand upon the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement?

    Answer. Japan is one of America's most important trading partners 
and allies. If confirmed, I commit to undertaking a detailed assessment 
of the current state of the U.S.-Japan trade relationship in light of 
the recent U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement to determine the best path 
forward. Our strategic and economic relationship must remain strong in 
the face of growing regional challenges

    Question. If confirmed, what will be your priorities related to 
India, and will you pursue comprehensive trade negotiations to address 
significant trade barriers in the Indian market related to agriculture, 
digital trade, and other important issues?

    Answer. India is one of America's largest trading partners, and its 
fast-growing economy represents a tremendous opportunity for American 
farmers, manufacturers, and service providers. At the same time, the 
Indian government has erected a number of trade barriers that unfairly 
disadvantage American exporters. If confirmed, I commit to engaging 
with India to find ways to resolve these issues. Strengthening our 
trade and economic relationship serves the interest of both countries.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. For nearly 50 years, the United States has played a key 
role in combating unfair trade practices against our ally Israel. From 
the Arab League Boycott of Israel in the 70s, to the Boycott Divestment 
and Sanction (BDS) campaign today, these efforts seek to weaken, 
isolate, and delegitimize the Jewish state.

    If confirmed, are you committed to fighting efforts to boycott, 
divest, or sanction our ally Israel?

    As part of our trade negotiations, the U.S. has often required 
countries to commit not to engage in unfair trading practices against 
our ally Israel and U.S. firms that conduct business with Israel. If 
confirmed, will you ensure anti-boycott provisions are included, as 
appropriate, in any trade agreement you negotiate?

    Answer. President Biden has led efforts to oppose the 
delegitimization of Israel, whether in international organizations or 
by the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement in the United 
States. I commit to fully enforcing all U.S. anti-
boycott laws and will always prioritize protecting American companies 
and American workers.

    Question. President Biden has stated that the U.S. should be 
setting global trade policies rather than sitting on the sidelines; and 
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. President Biden has also 
said repeatedly during his campaign that he would not sign new trade 
agreements unless they increased investments in the U.S.

    With other countries still signing new agreements, there are 
concerns that trade rivals will use this time to restructure the global 
markets--especially if the U.S. shelves important trade initiatives. 
Currently, existing trade talks with India seem to be in limbo for the 
foreseeable future as the administration is solely focused on the 
domestic economy, though President Biden has expressed interest in 
cooperating with Prime Minister Modi on global challenges.

    Is the administration open to improving our trading relationship 
with India?

    What trade issues should the United States and India prioritize in 
any future talks?

    Do you believe there is potential for broader trade agreement 
negotiations?

    What aspects of bilateral trade relations would change or remain 
the same from the Trump administration?

    Answer. India is one of America's largest trading partners, and its 
fast-growing economy represents a tremendous opportunity for American 
farmers, manufacturers, and service providers. At the same time, the 
Indian government has erected a number of trade barriers that unfairly 
disadvantage American exporters. If confirmed, I commit to engaging 
with India to find ways to resolve these issues. Strengthening our 
trade and economic relationship serves the interest of both countries.

    Question. USMCA's entry-into-force date resulted in an unexpected 
tariff on imported used heavy-duty commercial trucks from Canada. Under 
NAFTA, new commercial trucks were exported to Canada. In order for 
Canadian motor carriers to afford new North American manufactured 
trucks, which mostly originate from the U.S., they need to sell their 
used trucks. Often those trucks are exported used back to the U.S. 
where we have a much larger used truck market. Unfortunately, under 
USMCA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now is applying a 
tariff to most used commercial vehicles, as well as used passenger 
cars, that are exported back into the U.S. This is in spite of the fact 
that USMCA's rules of origin were designed to apply to only newly 
manufactured vehicles. This oversight and CBP enforcement could hurt 
U.S. commercial truck manufacturing.

    As the United States Trade Representative, would you work with 
Canadian officials, and to the extent needed Mexican officials, to 
rectify this unanticipated duty in the trade agreement that was meant 
to strength U.S. and North American manufacturing, not hurt it?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to looking into this issue and 
consulting closely with you, CBP, and affected stakeholders.

    Question. Biotechnology and agricultural innovation is pivotal for 
our farmers who rely on the latest technology to increase yields and 
improve efficiency. Many of these efficiencies lead to conservation of 
resources and result in less use of pesticides and herbicides. I have 
been following the recent actions in Mexico that appear to unfairly 
target and punish the vast majority of those who use biotechnology as a 
part of their farm management. The President of Mexico issued a decree 
in December announcing intent to revoke existing biotechnology 
approvals, block future approvals, and phase out biotech corn in Mexico 
by 2024. These measures violate USMCA commitments made by Mexico, and 
if implemented will have detrimental effects on farmers and producers.

    If confirmed, will you confront Mexico about the dangerous tone of 
these actions?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will confront issues that prove harmful to 
U.S. agricultural exports and make sure our trading partners do not 
violate their obligations under our trade agreements.

    Question. What enforcement actions will you consider should the 
Mexican government subvert the approval of agricultural biotechnology?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will review Mexico's agricultural 
obligations under the USMCA. If barriers to trade are presented, I will 
use the tools agreed upon in the USMCA to enforce the agreement.

    Question. Since lithium-ion batteries were first commercialized in 
the 1990s, global market growth has increased exponentially due to the 
battery's inherent advantages. Moreover, current trends signal that 
lithium-ion batteries will continue to displace lead-acid batteries in 
various sectors--including heavy equipment--for years to come.

    Alarmingly, the U.S. lags behind China with respect to global 
lithium cell manufacturing capacity. With the advantage of cheap labor, 
large control of critical minerals, and more lithium reserves, China 
will continue to dominate the lithium-ion battery supply chain, 
providing more than 60 percent of the world's component manufacturing 
for batteries.

    With Asia's current capacity and Europe's initiative to capture 
more raw materials, are you concerned about the United States' slow 
reaction?

    Given the recent executive order to review U.S. supply chains--
including semiconductors, high-capacity batteries, and rare earth 
minerals--how do you plan to attract and preserve downstream 
investments, like battery manufacturing?

    Answer. I understand that the Biden-Harris administration shares 
your concerns about China's strong position in the production of 
advanced batteries. If confirmed, I will work to effectively implement 
the recommendations that emerge from the supply chain review mandated 
by President Biden's executive order on America's supply chains, which 
identified advanced battery manufacturing as a priority sector.

    Question. The EU's reciprocal 232 tariffs on American Whiskey and 
other U.S. agricultural products are set to double from 25 percent to 
50 percent in June 2021.

    If confirmed, will you commit to working with Congress and affected 
U.S. stakeholders to ensure American businesses avoid further harm as 
we seek to recover the COVID-19 pandemic?

    Answer. I recognize that absent a negotiated resolution, the EU's 
retaliation for the United States section 232 tariffs on steel and 
aluminum will increase substantially in June. I also recognize that the 
maintenance of a strong U.S. steel industry will require effective 
action to address global steel overcapacity. If confirmed, I commit to 
consulting closely with Congress as the Biden-Harris administration 
proceeds with its review of the use of section 232 steel and aluminum 
tariffs.

    Question. China's unfair trade actions have devastated American 
businesses and manufacturers. For reference, Indiana is the country's 
largest manufacturing State, and Hoosiers have felt the impact of 
China's illegal practices first-hand. As with previous administrations, 
President Biden will have to utilize his executive authority to impose 
or remove tariffs. I support holding China accountable in a way that 
does not hinder the growth of American businesses.

    Unfortunately, it is not practical for the U.S. to manufacture 
every product or every component. For some market sectors, the ability 
to import encourages competitive pressures, which ultimately supports 
local productivity. As we focus on economic recovery, protecting jobs 
andU.S. manufacturers must be reflected in trade policies and 
negations.

    If confirmed, how will you ensure trade tools--such as section 301 
duties--are applied in a manner that does not unfairly penalize U.S. 
manufacturers who depend on components from global sources?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and assess the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers. Further, I will ensure that any 
tariff exclusion process is transparent, fair and objective.

    Question. Under the Phase One agreement, total U.S. exports of 
agricultural and related products--including soybeans, corn, beef, and 
pork--increased roughly 30 percent or $6.5 billion over 2017 levels. 
While the Phase One Agreement only covered certain disciplines, it has 
clearly been beneficial to many of Indiana's agriculture interests.

    Given that the Phase One agreement bypassed congressional approval, 
how does the Biden administration plan on pursing future trade deals 
with China?

    If confirmed, how will you begin reviewing the Phase One agreement? 
Will you commit to advocating for U.S. agriculture with respect to 
U.S.-China trade negotiations? What elements do you foresee building 
upon for future U.S.-China negations?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is engaged in a review of 
the policies in place to respond to China's coercive and unfair trade 
practices, including with respect to trade in agricultural products. I 
understand that a comprehensive strategy to confront the China 
challenge will be formulated based on that review. U.S. farmers are 
harmed when our trading partners, particularly China, undertake non 
science-based regulatory processes to create barriers against our 
agricultural exports. If confirmed, I commit to working with member of 
Congress to identify priorities in advocating for U.S. agricultural 
interests with respect to China.

    Question. The previous administration launched several section 301 
investigations into Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) being considered or 
adopted by numerous countries--including France, India, Spain, Italy, 
and the UK. Before the end of President Trump's term, USTR concluded 
that most of these taxes are discriminatory against U.S. commerce. 
While USTR has threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs, it was 
recently announced that additional tariffs will be suspended due to 
ongoing investigations.

    Meanwhile, members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development have continued to negotiate on multilateral solutions 
on DSTs; however, they await full participation from the new Biden 
administration. If multilateral negotiations fail, how do you believe 
the U.S. should respond to unilateral implementation of DSTs by other 
nations on U.S.-based companies?

    Just recently, Secretary Yellen announced that the U.S. would be 
dropping its demand for a DST ``safe harbor'' that would have allowed 
some of the tax elements to be optional. Given that the U.S. is home to 
a majority of key global tech companies, how will you ensure future 
DSTs do not unfairly target U.S.-based businesses compared to foreign 
companies?

    Answer. While the details of digital services taxes differ across 
jurisdictions, many were designed in a way that unfairly singles out a 
few large U.S. digital platform companies. If confirmed, I will work 
with my colleagues at the Treasury Department to address digital 
services taxes in the context of the multilateral effort to limit tax 
competition and address base erosion and profit shifting through the 
OECD/G20 process.

    Question. The global semiconductor shortage is of concern for the 
automotive industry, as you are acutely aware. I have been engaged with 
my Senate colleagues to alert the administration to the gravity of this 
problem that affects companies in Indiana. In the short term, an 
increase in overall chip production would help alleviate this strain; 
another option is considering reallocation of chip production to the 
motor vehicle type. In the long term, the United States must increase 
domestic production and fairly allocate chip production to all sectors.

    How will the administration support the automotive industry in 
addressing the global semiconductor shortage?

    What strategies will be considered to re-shore domestic production, 
especially for semiconductors?

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is pursuing all available 
possibilities to help address the difficulties the automobile industry 
has faced in securing access to semiconductors vital to the production 
of American automobiles. Semiconductors are one of the priority sectors 
identified in the recent executive order on America's supply chains. If 
confirmed, I will work to effectively implement the recommendations 
that emerge from the review mandated by the executive order, and 
strengthen domestic semiconductor production.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Sasse
             tech competition between u.s./allies and china
    Question. Over 59 percent of global GDP is held by the United 
States and our formal treaty allies. When you add other democracies to 
the mix, our share of global GDP goes up to around 75 percent. Given 
growing concerns about the implications of continued economic 
interdependence with Xi Jinping's genocidal regime, it seems like the 
freedom-loving world is actually very well placed to craft creative and 
consequential economic solutions to our shared trade problems with 
China. You and I discussed growing calls for the creation of a tech 
alliance among the world's democracies or establishment of some sort of 
digital or critical technology trade agreement with countries that 
share our values.

    Can you please describe the strategic challenges for the United 
States posed by continued economic and technological interdependence 
with the CCP?

    How will you as the United States Trade Representative think 
creatively about crafting trade agreements in the tech and digital 
spaces with countries that share our values to jointly push back on 
China's techno-authoritarianism?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with like-minded allies to ensure 
that we forge stronger ties and more resilient linkages in our supply 
chains and trade patterns in order to not become dependent or 
susceptible to technology overseen by authoritarian regimes.

    Question. Will you commit to presenting this committee with a 
strategy for establishing critical technology and digital trade 
agreements with our like minded allies and partners?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to consulting with this committee on 
matters concerning trade and critical technologies, including how we 
can enhance our cooperation with like-minded allies.

    Question. Given the extensive conversations we are having with our 
allies and partners about the national security concerns surrounding 
Chinese inputs into the supply chains of telecommunications and general 
technological goods, how do you think USTR is positioned, staffed, and 
resourced to be able to navigate negotiating agreements that include 
goods that may carry national security concerns? What should 
coordination with the Intelligence Community and other national 
security agencies look like when negotiating agreements?

    Answer. As technology, supply chains, and national security 
concerns grow in importance and relevance for trade, USTR will need to 
navigate the trade-related challenges in these areas. If confirmed, I 
look forward to working with Congress to ensure USTR has sufficient 
resources to pursue these tasks.
                       trans-pacific partnership
    Question. In Asia, trade is diplomacy. That is why the U.S. 
withdrawal from the TPP and China's establishment of the RCEP is so 
consequential regardless of the substantive differences between the 
agreements. When the U.S. withdrew, the region moved on. Asian 
countries are increasingly looking to each other for economic and 
financial engagement and support. I have stated before that I believe 
the Trans-
Pacific Partnership would be a way to reduce China's influence in the 
Asia-Pacific region. Recent news reports state the United Kingdom 
submitted an application to join the now Comprehensive and Progressive 
Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This would be the first new country 
to join Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and 8 other nations.

    Should the U.S. join CPTPP? If not, how are you thinking about 
building a positive trade agenda in the Indo-Pacific and engaging with 
TPP11 countries (now CPTPP) in light of China's growing economic 
dominance in the region?

    Answer. The basic formulation of working closely with like-minded 
countries in the Asia-Pacific with shared strategic and economic 
interests is a sound one, but much has changed in the world since the 
TPP was signed in 2016. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with 
like-minded countries in the Asia-Pacific region to deepen our trade 
relationship in ways that benefit American broadly, including our 
workers, manufacturers, service providers, farmers, ranchers, and 
innovators.
                                 china
    Question. A lot has changed in the U.S.-China relationship since 
your previous executive branch service. You have seen the U.S. and 
China come together through the development of the Phase-One agreement. 
Yet, there remain areas that continue to require attention.

    As you reflect on the previous administration's action with regard 
to China, what are your plans to address the CCP's malign economic 
statecraft?

    Answer. The Biden administration is engaged in a comprehensive 
review of what is required to meet the China challenge, including 
pushing back against Chinese economic statecraft that runs counter to 
our economic interests and democratic values. If confirmed, I commit to 
work, ideally with our allies, to address important areas that are not 
yet covered by the Phase One agreement such as industrial subsidies and 
excess capacity.

    Question. The previous administration completed a comprehensive 301 
investigation on China. Did you read that investigative report? Did you 
have any disagreements with the findings or methodology in that report? 
In your opinion, were the imposition of tariffs the best policy 
response to China's serial theft of intellectual property and forced 
tech transfer? As an economic advisor to the President, what would you 
have proposed as a more effective response?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. I am aware that during the last administration, 
USTR's section 301 investigation into China found that China engages in 
unfair trade acts policies and practices related to intellectual 
property, innovation and technology transfer. To address those 
findings, the United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If 
confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are 
appropriately responsive to China's practices and to account for their 
impact on U.S. businesses, workers and consumers.

    Concerns over China's actions and practices related to technology 
transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are long-standing. 
Effectively addressing these difficult concerns, however, requires a 
coordinated whole-of-government strategy. If confirmed, I look forward 
to working with other agencies and with Congress to shape a more 
integrated strategy.

    Question. With China and 15 Asia-Pacific nations joining the 
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (FCEP), what are your 
thoughts on the United States joining a multilateral trade agreement 
framework?

    Answer. America is stronger when it works together with its allies, 
but cooperation can take many different forms. Whether a multilateral 
trade agreement framework is effective or not will depend on the 
precise details of that agreement.

    Question. China's non-market approach has placed American companies 
at a disadvantage. China has long made promises that are unfulfilled.

    Do you agree that a persistent approach to resolve the many 
concerns that have arisen in our trading relationship with China 
deserve the highest attention within USTR and other Federal agencies?

    Answer. Yes, absolutely. The Biden-Harris administration is engaged 
in a comprehensive review of existing U.S. policies to determine what 
action we must take to meet the China challenge. I understand that the 
administration will pursue a whole-of-government strategy based on that 
review that addresses China's unfair trade practices, invests in U.S. 
manufacturing and innovation, prioritizes supply chain resilience, and 
increases American competitiveness.

    If confirmed, I will make these concerns a top priority within USTR 
and engage in vigorous efforts to coordinate our response to the China 
challenge across the Federal Government.

    Question. The China Phase One agreement sought to bring structural 
reforms and changes to the state-led, market-distorting approach from 
China in areas of intellectual property, technology transfer, 
agriculture, financial services and currency exchange, with substantial 
purchase requirements of U.S. goods. Evidence seems to show China has 
been moving forward under this Phase One agreement in good faith. This 
Phase One agreement did not address all the concerns identified, and a 
phase two agreement is hopeful to bring further structural changes to 
China's regime.

    I would like to see USTR engage with China through a process 
focused on critical issues such as excess capacity, state-owned 
enterprises, state-sponsored cyber-
enabled theft of intellectual property, restrictions on cross-border 
data transfers, and regulatory transparency that were not fully 
addressed or accomplished in Phase One. In doing so, I also support 
USTR being aggressive in these negotiations to use all available tools 
to bring comprehensive and tangible reform.

    Can I have your commitment you will work with members of this 
committee on this process so that together we can identify the critical 
issues and a cohesive approach to tackling this issue with an outcome 
that is fair, reciprocal and balanced?

    Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will consult with this committee on 
these difficult and challenging issues.
                                 taiwan
    Question. Given your family ties to Taiwan, you know even better 
than I do how strong of a democratic partner the Taiwanese are. Taiwan 
has proven to be a strong U.S. economic partner and in 2019 was the 
U.S.'s 14th largest export market.

    Do you view a trade agreement with Taiwan to be an important 
national security approach in counteracting China?

    Answer. Taiwan is a valuable democratic partner of the United 
States, and the two sides have had a Trade and Investment Framework 
Agreement dating back to 1994. Deepening trade and economic ties can be 
a valuable means to address the strategic rivalry with China. However, 
whether a trade agreement actually does so will turn on the precise 
provisions of the agreement itself and the supply chain patterns in the 
Asia-Pacific region.

    Question. How will you approach an FTA with Taiwan now that Taiwan 
has granted greater access for U.S. pork and beef?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to engaging in a comprehensive 
review of our trade relationship with Taiwan to determine how to 
address remaining trade issues and the best path forward.

    Question. Where does an FTA with Taiwan fall on your priority list, 
and where do you see hurdles to an agreement?

    Answer. As noted above, I will engage in a comprehensive review, 
which will inform my priorities for near-term engagement with Taiwan.
                        overall trade priorities
    Question. The Biden administration has publicly said the first 
focuses will be on a domestic agenda. On day one of your role as 
Ambassador, how will you outline the United States position with our 
trading partners?

    Answer. Trade policy will be an essential component of the fight 
against COVID-19, the economic recovery, and the Build Back Better 
agenda. President Biden seeks a fair international trading system that 
promotes inclusive economic growth and reflects America's universal 
values. If confirmed, starting on Day One I will engage our trading 
partners in pursuit of a trade agenda that will restore U.S. global 
leadership on critical matters like combatting forced labor and 
exploitative labor conditions, corruption, and discrimination against 
women and minorities around the world.

    Question. With multiple issues before the office of the United 
States Trade Representative, have you thought about your first 100 days 
at USTR, and can you share your views on how you will prioritize these 
issues?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with our trading partners on 
ways to address the climate crisis, bolster sustainable renewable 
energy supply chains, and end unfair trade practices. In addition, in 
my first 100 days I will review existing trade policies and agreements 
and pursue enforcement actions when warranted.
                   beef exports and trade with japan
    Question. I would like to bring your attention to beef exports to 
Japan. Japan is the largest market for U.S. beef. From January to 
November 2020, the U.S. exported over 280,000 metric tons of beef to 
Japan, valued around $1.8 billion. The U.S. is approaching a safeguard 
threshold tariff trigger.

    I would like to see more attention by USTR negotiators to engage 
with Japan and monitor the tariff rate quota.

    Can I have your commitment that your team will worked with Japan to 
reevaluate the trigger and perhaps move forward with a formal free 
trade agreement?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to monitoring the tariff rate quota 
on U.S. beef. As U.S. Trade Representative, I will review the agreement 
with Japan reached by the previous administration. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with your office on the issue of additional exports 
of U.S. beef to Japan.
             united states-mexico-canada agreement (usmca)
    Question. I have heard from many different stakeholders from 
agriculture to biotechnology, pharmaceutical, technology, oil, and gas 
to name just a few regarding the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) 
trade agreement. These industries are experiencing significant 
regulatory challenges in Mexico with the implementation of the USMCA. I 
understand you are aware of many of these issues.

    To speak specifically to my home State of Nebraska, Mexico takes on 
average 54 percent of the U.S. export of white corn, of which 90 
percent is considered a genetically modified product. Nebraska is also 
a leading producer of food-grade yellow corn production. The Mexican 
President Lopez Obrador issued a decree banning glyphosate and GMO corn 
in Mexican diets by 2024. Furthermore, I am troubled that Mexican 
officials are adopting Europe's precautionary principle as the basis 
for rejecting import permits and delaying product approvals. 
Biotechnology and crop protection products are innovations important to 
American corn and crop producers that allow more sustainable and 
efficient use of natural resources to provide a high quality, safe and 
affordable diet to customers. The United States has had a long 
standing, mutually beneficial trade relationship with Mexico and this 
was recently reaffirmed with the ratification of USMCA.

    Can you share your approach to tackle these issues between the 
Mexican and U.S. Governments? Please elaborate on how, under your 
leadership at USTR, you will approach enforcement of the provisions 
within USMCA and the encourage energy, ethanol, agriculture, and other 
goods will be treated fairly.

    Answer. Mexico is a critical export market for Nebraska. Each year 
close to $1 billion worth of agricultural goods are exported from 
Nebraska to Mexico. If confirmed, I will work to defend American 
businesses' exports of these products and others to Mexico. I commit to 
quickly engage the Mexican government if it violates the agreement and 
to use all dispute settlement tools to fully enforce USMCA when 
necessary.

    Question. If we are to use the framework of USMCA in future 
agreements, can I have your commitment to work with members of this 
committee to review the language and strengthen necessary areas to 
ensure fair and equal trade relations? Will you further commit to 
regular engagement with my staff and other members of this committee on 
enforcement issues under USMCA?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with your staff and other members 
of the Senate Finance Committee as we look to strengthen and build upon 
the USMCA framework.
                           trade with europe
    Question. Following Brexit, the previous administration had been in 
the process of pursuing a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

    If confirmed, how will you approach trade issues with both the UK 
as well as the rest of Europe? Do you agree that a trade agreement 
needs to address all sectors?

    Answer. The United States completed four rounds of negotiations 
since officially launching negotiations to establish a free trade 
agreement with the United Kingdom. If confirmed, I plan to review the 
state of the negotiations and, in consultation with Congress, chart a 
path forward that reflects the Biden-Harris administration's commitment 
to a trade policy that prioritizes the interest of America's farmers 
and workers.

                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Elizabeth Warren
    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the worst public health 
crisis facing our Nation and the world in over a century. Now that safe 
and effective vaccines are available, it is vital that all people 
around the world have access to vaccines and any future treatments for 
COVID-19. Unfortunately, the Trump administration put the profits of 
pharmaceutical manufacturers ahead of global public health. Too many 
people in low- and middle-income countries may have to wait years to 
get vaccinated because of the high prices being charged for COVID-19 
vaccines, and an insufficient supply that is currently being bought up 
disproportionately by wealthy nations. No one should die because drug 
company profits are prioritized over the health and well-being of human 
beings.

    Countries that can manufacture pharmaceuticals should be given the 
opportunity to produce COVID-19 vaccines and treatments as quickly as 
possible in order to bolster global supplies and ensure equitable 
distribution. In October, South Africa and India proposed a temporary 
waiver of the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 
agreement, to increase the global supply of COVID vaccines and 
treatments and save lives throughout the world. That proposal is now 
supported by a large number of low- and middle-income countries. Under 
the Trump administration, the United States was one of the wealthy 
nations working to block this emergency waiver.

    Will you as United States Trade Representative reverse the Trump-
era decision that is putting lives at risk, and instead support the 
TRIPS waiver so that COVID-19 vaccines and medications can be made 
widely available in low and middle-income countries?

    Answer. Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic is the top priority of 
the Biden administration. I recognize the critical importance of 
ensuring widespread access to life-saving vaccines, diagnostics, 
therapeutics, treatments, and other key products worldwide in order to 
counter the pandemic and enable global economic recovery. If confirmed, 
I commit to examining the TRIPS waiver proposal thoroughly to determine 
its efficacy in enhancing our global health security and saving lives.

    Question. How will you approach considering whether to allow for 
extensions of previously granted China tariff exclusions, or providing 
an opportunity for impacted companies to reapply?

    Answer. China's track record on using unfair practices to acquire 
U.S. technology, to the detriment of U.S. innovators and workers, is 
well-established. Under the last administration, USTR conducted an 
investigation against unfair trade practices in China under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 and found that China engages in unfair trade 
acts policies and practices related to intellectual property, 
innovation and technology transfer. To address those findings, the 
United States imposed tariffs on products from China. If confirmed, I 
will work with Congress to ensure that those tariffs are appropriately 
responsive to China's practices and assess the impact on U.S. 
businesses, workers and consumers. Further, I will ensure that any 
tariff exclusion process is transparent, fair and objective.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso
                    intellectual property protection
    Question. Strong intellectual property protections in the United 
States are critical for the invention and manufacturing of innovative 
medicines and medical technologies. It is not a coincidence, therefore, 
that the United States leads the world both in terms of inventing and 
manufacturing these products and providing intellectual property 
protections that incentivize innovation.

    How does USTR intend to pursue a trade agenda that protects 
American intellectual property abroad and ensures that our trading 
partners value the important contributions of America's innovative 
industries?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to using the trade tools at my 
disposal to ensure that American workers and innovators are able to 
reap the benefits of their innovation, including overseas. Strong, 
effective protection of intellectual property in markets worldwide 
benefits not only American exporters and innovators, but also workers 
in IP-intensive industries. As U.S. Trade Representative, I will 
continue to undertake rigorous enforcement efforts to ensure that our 
trading partners adhere to their existing IP obligations. I will work 
with other Federal agencies to prevent counterfeit and pirated goods 
from being sold in the U.S. and elsewhere.
                    supply chains--critical minerals
    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed much-needed light on 
vulnerabilities in our supply chains.

    By any measure, the U.S. has become too reliant on countries like 
China for medicine, medical supplies, and the materials needed to 
manufacture a wide variety of consumer and commercial products. The 
President recently issued an executive order on America's supply chains 
that is partly focused on critical minerals.

    Critical minerals are key manufacturing inputs for electronics, 
medical equipment, semi-conductors, electric vehicles, advanced weapons 
systems, and much more. Today, we are dangerously reliant on imports 
from China and other foreign countries where, in some cases, they are 
mined and produced with child and slave labor.

    How can USTR work with our allies to strengthen and secure critical 
mineral supply chain?

    Answer. I understand that the Biden-Harris administration is 
undertaking a comprehensive review of supply chain risks, pursuant to 
the President's executive order issued on February 24th. USTR is 
actively engaged with other Federal agencies to identify risks in the 
supply chain for critical minerals and other identified strategic 
materials, including rare earth elements. If confirmed, I commit to 
engaging allies to ensure that America's supply chains for critical 
minerals are resilient, secure, and diverse.

    Question. What are the benefits of safely producing these minerals 
at home where possible instead of relying on foreign imports?

    Answer. Resilient American supply chains are critical to 
strengthening and rebuilding America's domestic manufacturing sector 
and creating the well-paying jobs for our workers. They are also 
critical for bolstering our innovation capacity and maintaining 
America's competitive edge in other industries that depend on these 
minerals.
                               u.s. beef
    Question. In Wyoming, we produce some of the highest quality beef 
in the world. Our farmers and ranchers need certainty when it comes to 
trade. Wyoming wants fair, unfettered access to international markets 
for our beef, lamb, wool, and other agricultural products. Our 
livestock industry is a vital piece of our economy and critical to the 
well-being of our communities.

    What is USTR's strategy for gaining market share for U.S. beef?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to find new markets for U.S. 
beef. I look forward to working with your office on strategies to open 
up new markets for U.S. beef.
                                 sugar
    Question. The current world sugar market is highly dysfunctional, 
driven by production- and trade-distorting practices employed by nearly 
all sugar-producing countries.

    It is more important than ever that the United States maintain its 
current no-cost sugar policy which provides a stable and predictable 
economic environment for U.S. producers, an environment necessary for 
capital investments and long-run sustainability.

    How would you envision taking on a multilateral challenge like the 
reform of the global sugar market, and

    Answer. If confirmed, any reforms I pursue regarding the global 
sugar market will be consistent with maintaining the current no-cost 
U.S. sugar policy.

    Question. Do you think the World Trade Organization (WTO) is 
equipped now, or can be made equipped going forward, to effectively 
address the underlying issues among all members?

    Answer. WTO rules need to be updated to reflect longstanding 
agricultural issues that have not been rectified under the WTO's 
current construction. If confirmed, I will work with like-minded 
partners to ensure that any new rules are consistent with U.S. domestic 
sugar goals.
                       supply chains--food supply
    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic has starkly demonstrated--through 
trade restrictions, supply chain breakdowns, and other unpredictable 
actions by countries around the world--the importance of food security.

    Do you believe it is important that the United States pursue a 
trade policy that has, as a central pillar, the objective of ensuring a 
safe and secure domestically produced food supply for America's 
consumers and food manufacturers?

    Answer. U.S. trade policy must benefit domestic agricultural 
producers and provide consumers and food manufacturers with a safe and 
secure domestic food supply. If confirmed, I will make this a central 
pillar of any agricultural trade policy I pursue.
                            soes and uranium
    Question. U.S. businesses are often at a disadvantage vis-a-vis 
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that are not guided by market 
principles. Such SOEs benefit from environmental, health, and labor 
standards below that of publicly traded companies. The uranium miners 
in Wyoming know this only too well, as U.S. mining has come to a 
standstill at the hands of increased imports from places like Russia, 
Uzbekistan and other countries where the Chinese have significant 
mining investments. U.S. trade policy needs a clear strategy for 
addressing the SOE imbalance.

    Can you describe in detail how you would approach the challenges 
facing U.S. companies with respect to SOEs?

    Is USTR adequately equipped to address the SOE issue to ensure 
American workers and businesses have level playing field in the 
international marketplace?

    If not, can you explain where you think existing USTR authority 
falls short in this area?

    Answer. State-owned enterprises that do not operate based on market 
principles disadvantage U.S. businesses and their workers and have 
contributed significantly to global market distortions. If confirmed, I 
will work with our allies to collectively address market distortions 
caused by SOEs. In addition, I will pursue trade enforcement actions 
against SOEs that disadvantage U.S. businesses and their workers, and I 
will pursue disciplines on SOEs in trade agreement negotiations. USTR 
leads the U.S. government in the monitoring and enforcement of trade 
agreements. If confirmed, I will work closely with other relevant 
Federal agencies to address the global market distortions caused by 
state-owned enterprises.
                    trade promotion authority (tpa)
    Question. Trade Promotion Authority was first enacted in 1974 and 
has been renewed on four separate occasions. TPA is set to expire on 
July 1, 2021.

    Do you believe Congress should extend TPA?

    What changes, if any, should Congress consider during upcoming 
discussions over TPA renewal?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress on trade 
negotiations and trade legislation advanced by the Senate Finance 
Committee. As U.S. Trade Representative, I will work to pursue trade 
policies that receive bipartisan support in Congress.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Oregon
    This morning the Finance Committee wraps up nominations week by 
welcoming Katherine Tai, President Biden's nominee to serve as the 
United States Trade Representative.

    America's trade policy needs to be smarter and stronger; 4 more 
years of mean tweets and chaos from the White House won't cut it when 
our country is calling for more high-skill, high-wage jobs. 
Fortunately, chaos is not President Biden's style. A smarter, stronger 
trade policy requires a savvy leader at USTR who understands what 
working Americans are going through and knows how to develop a path for 
them to get ahead. That's precisely what Katherine Tai will bring to 
this job.

    Ms. Tai has a wealth of experience working on trade policy from 
just about every angle. She's got leadership experience fighting back 
against China's trade cheating. She was at the forefront of the effort 
to improve the new NAFTA when the previous administration handed the 
Congress a deal that wasn't good enough to protect American jobs. She's 
got a proven record of achieving wins for American workers and 
businesses; for the environment; and for ranchers, farmers, and 
innovators.

    Ms. Tai is also no stranger to us at the Finance Committee. We've 
worked closely with her during her time at the Ways and Means Committee 
and at USTR prior to that. There's going to be a lot more for us to 
work on together in the months and years ahead.

    In my view, that begins with developing a tougher new approach to 
China. To the extent that the previous administration ever had a 
strategy beyond the ex-
President's gut impulses, it didn't get the job done. The Chinese 
market is more closed off to American-made goods and services today 
than it was 4 years ago. There hasn't been any real change to the trade 
rip-offs that wiped out so many American jobs and stole so many 
innovative ideas over the decades. I'm confident that the Biden 
administration and Ms. Tai will do better.

    This committee is also going to put a special focus on ending the 
import of goods produced with forced labor. It's enough that forced 
labor is morally repugnant. It's also true that when American workers 
have to compete with slave labor, everybody loses. It's a race to 
absolute rock bottom for workers' rights.

    Next, the U.S. also needs a full blockade against other nations' 
discriminatory policies aimed at knifing industries with taxes where 
America leads, such as digital goods and services. Trade in stolen 
timber and other natural resources that damage the environment and edge 
out hardworking Americans in the forestry sector must be stopped.

    There's also a lot of work to be done when it comes to implementing 
the new NAFTA. Ms. Tai knows firsthand that the new NAFTA raised the 
bar for labor standards, environmental rules, and digital trade. But 
the agreement will only deliver for American workers and businesses if 
it's implemented and enforced the right way. I want to work closely 
with USTR on that process.

    Bottom line, getting trade done right is difficult. It's not about 
angry tweets and flimsy trade deals that produce more headlines than 
jobs.

    Trade done right is about strong enforcement that protects American 
workers and businesses and creating new opportunities to raise wages 
and increase exports. It raises the bar for labor and environmental 
standards and digital trade rules around the world so that the global 
economy competes on our terms.

    USTR leads the effort, but it also involves Customs and Border 
Protection, as well as the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, State, 
the Treasury, and others. It requires strong and steady relationships 
with our international economic allies. None of that came easily to the 
last administration. In my view, the chaos that came out of the White 
House over the last 4 years cost a lot of opportunities to help 
American workers get ahead. So I'm glad that President Biden is already 
taking a different tack, and he made a great choice for U.S. Trade 
Representative.

    I trust Ms. Tai's judgment, and I know the depth of her experience. 
She is the daughter of immigrants to the United States. As a child of 
immigrants myself, I know how much it means to give back to the country 
that welcomed in our families. And rounding out a week of historic 
firsts for nominees in this hearing room, she'd be the first woman of 
color to serve as USTR.

    Katherine Tai's got a lot of fans on both sides of the Finance 
Committee, and I'm happy to support her nomination.

                                 ______
                                 

                             Communications

                              ----------                              


                    Alliance to Counter Crime Online
                                                  February 24, 2021
To: U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. SD-219
Washington, DC 20510-6200

Fr: Gretchen Peters, Executive Director of the Alliance to Counter 
Crime Online

Esteemed Senators,

As the governing board of the Alliance to Counter Crime Online 
(ACCO),\1\ we urge you to press Katherine Tai, the nominee for U.S. 
Trade Representative, not to export an outdated U.S. technology law 
currently being debated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ http://counteringcrime.org/.

In the past year, legislators in both parties have introduced bills to 
reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), which 
provides a liability shield for technology companies for hosting user-
generated content, even when those platforms facilitate and amplify 
serious crime and extremism. Both presidential candidates went further, 
calling for an outright repeal of the 1996 law, in part due harms 
caused to children, and the spread of extremist content and illicit 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
drug sales.

Despite the broad, bipartisan concern about CDA 230, the U.S. Trade 
Representative under Ambassador Robert Lighthizer nonetheless included 
liability shield language modeled after CDA 230 in the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which Ms. Tai helped negotiate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/katherine-tai-ustr-
biden-463668.

Given the bipartisan support to reform CDA230, American trade 
negotiators should not include liability shield language modeled after 
CDA 230 in upcoming trade deals, including the one currently being 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
negotiated with the U.K.

The U.S. government adopted two decades of trade agreements since CDA 
230 was enacted, and never included this language prior to the USMCA. 
The language was added at a time when proposals to amend CDA 230 were 
gaining steam, and advocates for the tech industry were scrambling to 
protect it. By adding it to U.S. trade agreements, Silicon Valley 
sought to effectively enshrine it in international law. One pro-tech 
industry advocate even wrote that:

        Section 230 stands under threat in the United States . . . 
        which could escalate into demands that platforms also assume 
        greater responsibility for other types of content . . . baking 
        Section 230 into NAFTA may be the best opportunity we have to 
        protect it domestically.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/platform-safe-harbors-
touted-safe-nafta-talks.

This cynical ploy by Silicon Valley would cause USTR to restrict the 
will of Congress, and therefore the will of the American voters. It 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
would be highly inappropriate for USTR to make that possible.

Sincerely,

Gretchen Peters
ACCO Executive Director

On behalf of:

ACCO Governing Board Member, Dr. Amr al Azm
ACCO Governing Board Member, Dr. Shawn Graham
ACCO Governing Board Member, Dr. Damien Huffer
ACCO Governing Board Member, Kathleen Miles
ACCO Governing Board Member, Katie Paul
ACCO Member, Dr. Tim Mackey

                                 ______
                                 
                          Autos Drive America

                 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 620

                          Washington, DC 20004

                             March 2, 2021

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman                            Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

Autos Drive America strongly supports the nomination of Katherine Tai 
to be the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She brings a 
wealth of experience, a deep knowledge of international trade policy, 
and a proven track record of bipartisanship. Tai is a well-qualified 
nominee that, if confirmed, will be ready to navigate the currents of 
trade and support U.S. investment from day one.

Autos Drive America represents international automakers that have made 
America their home, investing a combined $92 billion into their U.S. 
operations to date and producing nearly half of all the cars and light 
trucks built by Americans each year. These companies directly employ 
137,000 Americans, and, in partnership with their dealership and 
supplier networks, support nearly 2.4 million additional American jobs 
and account for 56 percent of all new U.S. vehicle registrations 
annually. Autos Drive America's mission is to advance open trade and 
investment policies that expand employment opportunities for Americans, 
broaden consumer choice, and secure the industry's continued growth and 
success.

Tai understands that trade benefits not only companies but also the 
workers and team members that are the lifeblood of our industry. The 
value of trade cannot be measured by simple export and import data but 
is found in the opportunity such exchanges bring to our communities--
benefits that we appreciate and live out every day. Trade can be a 
critical tool in the United States' arsenal as our nation seeks to 
recover from the economic effects of this pandemic and a positive agent 
for growth as we seek to expand manufacturing jobs in America. If 
confirmed, Tai's experience and abilities are well-suited to the 
challenges before her: working with our international trading partners 
to rebuild key relationships and reset the United States' posture on 
trade policy.

We look forward to working together with Tai on finding ways to expand 
the industry's ability to produce vehicles competitively in the United 
States and to successfully export our American-made products to 
customers around the world.

Sincerely,

Jennifer M. Safavian
President and CEO

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Finance

                                 ______
                                 
                            Committee of 100

                      6 St. Johns Lane, 5th Floor

                           New York, NY 10013

                          Phone: 212-371-6565

                           Fax: 212-371-9009

                     https://www.committee100.org/

                                                  February 23, 2021

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6200

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and the members of the U.S. 
Senate Committee on Finance,

On behalf of Committee of 100, we would like to express our full 
support for the confirmation of Katherine Tai as U.S. Trade 
Representative.

Ms. Tai has the experience necessary to negotiate and deliver clear and 
resolute messages on behalf of the United States. Specifically, Ms. Tai 
previously served as the U.S. Trade Representative's lead negotiator 
with China on all matters related to WTO enforcement. That experience, 
coupled with her fluency in Mandarin and knowledge of the region, 
provides her a uniquely qualified foundation to address the challenging 
trade relationship with China, an important touchstone of the most 
important bilateral relationship for the United States.

It is also important that our trade representative reflect the 
diversity of our great nation. Ms. Tai's nomination asU.S. Trade 
Representative would be the first time a Chinese American has taken on 
this important role, and the first time for any woman of color. Her 
nomination would thus be an important signal to all Chinese Americans 
that the United States is committed to including all voices and 
recognizing the contributions of communities of color.

The Committee of 100 is a non-profit U.S. leadership organization of 
prominent Chinese Americans in business, government, academia, 
healthcare, and the arts. For the past 30 years, our dual mission has 
been to promote the full inclusion of Chinese Americans in American 
society and help enable more constructive relations between the U.S. 
and China. When Ms. Tai spoke at the Committee of 100-U.S. Association 
of Former Members of Congress event in March of 2019, it was clear that 
her knowledge and experience in U.S.-China relations would be a 
tremendous asset to all Americans.

For these and many additional reasons, we urge the prompt confirmation 
of Ms. Tai for the role of U.S. Trade Representative. We look forward 
to working with Ms. Tai and the Biden administration.

Sincerely,

Committee of 100

cc: Senate Committee on Finance
   Attn. Editorial and Document Section

                                 ______
                                 
             Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.

                      1250 H Street, NW, Suite 400

                          Washington, DC 20005

                             (202) 662-8500

                             [email protected]

                         https://www.isri.org/

              Questions for the Record to Katherine C. Tai

                           February 25, 2021

Question 1: In your testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, you 
mentioned your intent to review the recent progress and objectives 
concerning trade negotiations with the United Kingdom. Will your review 
include developing a position on the emerging trend of countries such 
as the U.K. who are reportedly pivoting away from importing recyclable 
materials? And will you commit to reviewing the potential effects of 
countries' restrictions on imports/exports of recyclable commodities on 
the U.S. recycling industry and the ability to achieve a true circular 
economy?

Question 2: The European Union is considering implementing import and 
export controls on scrap as a way to strengthen the internal market and 
keep these important manufacturing inputs for themselves. As the 
Administration considers a reset the transatlantic relationship, how 
will you work with the EU to ensure an equitable supply and demand 
ratio that creates opportunities for trade in recyclable materials?

Question 3: As you know, China instigated a global market alteration 
for recyclable commodities, leading to dramatic shifts of U.S. exports 
in recyclable metals, paper, plastics and other commodities. Although 
China's current policy allows for a small amount of ``mill-ready'' 
material to enter the market, nevertheless, the Chinese Government 
continues to promulgate rules and regulations without transparency, 
public engagement, time consideration nor evidence-based assessments. 
Furthermore, the previous Administration's ``trade war'' policy has 
meant tariffs in the United States and China that impair trade that 
would spur more recycling within the United States, particularly 
China's retaliatory tariffs on recyclable materials as well as U.S. 
Section 301 tariffs on critical parts for America's 330+ shredders that 
are largely made in China.  Will you commit to working with China to 
legislate and regulate recyclables trade fairly and transparently? And 
will the Administration remove tariffs on the shredder parts prior to 
the expiration of the tariff exclusion on April 18, 2021?

Kind regards,

David Eaton
Director, Government Relations
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI)

The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) is the voice 
of the recycling industry promoting safe, economically sustainable, and 
environmentally responsible recycling through networking, advocacy, and 
education.

                                 ______
                                 
                   U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition

                           740 6th Street, NW

                          Washington, DC 20001

                    https://usglobalvaluechain.com/

                            TWITTER: @USGVC

This statement is being filed on behalf of the U.S. Global Value Chain 
Coalition--a coalition of U.S. companies and associations--that is on a 
mission to educate policymakers and the public about the American jobs 
and the domestic economic growth generated through our global value 
chains.

Global value chains include those jobs traditionally associated with 
the creation of a product--such as those in a factory or on a farm--as 
well as those positions involved in the lifecycle of a product from 
conception to distribution--such as design, engineering, marketing, 
research and development, logistics, compliance, and sales. Simply put, 
global value chain accounts for all jobs that add value from beginning 
to end to the good or service sold in the global marketplace. These 
positions are essential to the creation or sale of a good or service. 
Moreover, these jobs are primarily here in the United States and are 
usually high-paying, accounting for much of the value that is paid at 
the register.

The U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition supports the nomination of 
Katherine Tai to be United States Trade Representative and urges her 
quick confirmation. Ms. Tai has a great track record supporting 
policies that remove barriers to trade and open new markets for 
American businesses and American workers. This nomination sends a clear 
message that the U.S. is ready to reassert American leadership in 
setting high-standard trade rules and to engage at the negotiating 
table on deals that benefit American business and workers.
Role of Global Value Chains in Pandemic Response
As the administration and Congress examine the role of supply chains in 
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, we urge both to consider and 
recognize the important role that global value chains have and continue 
to play in responding to the pandemic, as well as their important role 
in creating good- paying American jobs and helping American businesses 
remain competitive.

It is not easy for companies to shift their global value chains, 
especially when prompted by government policies rather than business 
considerations. While many companies have worked to diversify their 
value chains over the years, even more so as a result of the trade war 
with China, there are many others where it is just not feasible in a 
short period of time--if at all. There are many challenges to supply 
chain diversification, such as ensuring new vendors can meet capacity, 
quality, product safety, sustainability, and social responsibility 
requirements, the availability of a skilled work force, available 
infrastructure, and testing and auditing capabilities--just to name a 
few. In some instances, an input, intermediate part or other product 
may not be available from any other source. Further, the coronavirus 
pandemic has made shifting supply chains even more complicated with 
travel essentially shut down due to global stay at home orders and 
limits on corporate travel. This should certainly be factored in as the 
Administration reviews current policies.

Further, global supply chains have helped, not hurt, the U.S. response 
to the coronavirus outbreak. Just recently, a study done by the 
University of Michigan, Yale, and the University of Texas at Austin 
concluded that while ``the average contraction in gross domestic 
product tied to the COVID-19 shock is expected to be 31.5% with about a 
third of it attributed to kinks in global supply chains . . . the 
average GDP drop would have been 32.3%'' without global trade.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Brendan Murray, ``Trade Helped Cushion the World Economy's 
Pandemic Plunge,'' Bloomberg News (May 26, 2020), available at https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-05-26/supply-chains-latest-
trade-cushioned-the-world-economy-s-fall.

We certainly support an effort to identify challenges and opportunities 
to strengthen supply chain vulnerabilities against future pandemics or 
other disruptions. This evaluation must rely on market realities, 
business considerations, and other incentives to improve global value 
chains, including the development of infrastructure, logistics, and 
inputs in the U.S. and sufficient and appropriately trained future 
workforce.
China
Global value chains are dependent upon trade with China to create jobs 
and economic opportunities across the United States. For instance, 
American companies, and their American workers, design and market 
consumer products that are sold in China, in the United States, and 
around the world. Although these everyday items--articles such as U.S. 
branded clothes, shoes, and backpacks--might be physically produced in 
China, they support millions of American jobs in such disciplines as 
design, quality control, marketing, logistics and compliance.

Furthermore, chemicals imported from China make their way through a 
network of U.S. distributors and manufacturers, employing tens of 
thousands of Americans who manufacture, reformulate, market, and 
distribute into American industries, including agriculture, automotive, 
pharmaceuticals, textiles, plastics, paints and coatings, and more.

The punitive tariffs on U.S. imports from China have damaged these job-
creating U.S. global value chains. Tariffs are taxes that American 
companies, and consumers, pay. These tariffs have led to considerable 
increased costs and uncertainty for our members, who are also facing 
unprecedented uncertainty and financial burdens as a result of the 
economic recession brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

As we work to reopen the U.S. economy and get Americans back to work, 
we request Congress insist that once confirmed, Ms. Tai take several 
immediate steps as USTR: (1) retroactively reinstate product exclusions 
that expired in 2020; (2) reopen the Section 301 product exclusion 
process, with improvements to address concerns regarding fairness, 
transparency, and speed; and (3) lift all punitive China tariffs, which 
have harmed American businesses, workers, and consumers.
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) expired at the end of 2020. 
The GSP program allows American businesses to use duty-savings to 
compete internationally, lower costs for American families, hire more 
American workers, and invest in new products. For example, many 
American businesses utilized GSP to help make and distribute urgently 
needed personal protective equipment in response to the coronavirus 
outbreak. GSP is also an effective enforcement tool to open foreign 
markets, protect intellectual property, and improve workers' rights. 
With the coronavirus debilitating global value chains, renewing the GSP 
program is a critical component to reopening the country and improving 
the U.S. economy. We request Congress renew this critical trade 
preference program quickly to provide certainty and predictability to 
American businesses.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement.

Sincerely,

U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition

                                   