Ron Kirk's Answers to Senators' Written Questions
Ron Kirk's answers to the written questions of Senators on the Finance Committee are available here. It is a 129 page document, with lots of questions and mostly brief answers. Below the jump, I pulled out the ones that I found most noteworthy (in some instances the question is more noteworthy than the answer).
Questions from Senator Grassley:
Question 1:
Last Thursday, I wrote to President Obama asking him to clarify his intentions with
respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
On the campaign trail he called for renegotiation of this trade agreement. Yet the
President’s recently released Trade Policy Agenda states that the Administration will seek
to “improve” the North American Free Trade Agreement “without having an adverse
effect on trade.”
I don’t see how this trade agreement can be reopened without having an adverse effect on
trade, and I’m concerned that Mexico in particular will seek to rebalance tariff concessions
to the detriment of U.S. agricultural exporters in Iowa and across the United States.
If the President does seek to reopen the agreement, will you commit that you will not agree
to any increases in, or reinstatements of, tariffs on U.S. agricultural products under this
trade agreement if you are confirmed?
Answer: We have received your letter and will provide you with a written response. But I
can say three things now:
(1) We fully understand how important the Mexican and Canadian markets are to our
producers, and in particular to our agricultural interests.
(2) The President already has spoken to President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper about
the opportunity to “improve” the NAFTA, and make it more relevant to the situation that
the three countries face over sixteen years after the original agreement was signed.
That’s in the interest of all three partners.
(3) We will work closely with the Committee as we move forward in this collaborative effort
to make our trade work for the benefit of the millions of people within the NAFTA
region.
As I said to you during my hearing, I don't see the levying of additional tariffs as being in
the category of strengthening that agreement.
Question 11:
Congressional Democrats and their supporters repeatedly criticized the previous
Administration for its alleged failure to enforce our trade agreements.
One former Clinton Administration official testified before this Committee that the
previous Administration should have been filing at least 17 new cases each year at the
World Trade Organization.
Do you think the number of new cases filed is a valid measure of an Administration’s
enforcement efforts?
Answer: No. Cases filed are not determinative of success. I think winning access to
markets for our producers is a measure of our efforts and I think filing cases can help us
do that, but so can other tools.
If this Administration does not file a substantial number of new cases this year, should we
conclude that it is failing to enforce our trade agreements?
Answer: No, the number of new cases filed is not a valid measure of an
Administration’s efforts to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements. While WTO
dispute settlement is a very important tool for resolving trade problems, it is not the only
one. The other important tools in the USTR arsenal include bilateral consultations
(including technical discussions); monitoring mechanisms (including those within trade
agreements); and U.S. trade legislation (such as Special 301).
Question 12:
(i) The World Trade Organization has issued a number of decisions against the Commerce
Department’s practice of “zeroing” in antidumping investigations.
Congress is going to have to figure out what, if anything, to do about those decisions.
In the meantime, if confirmed, will you consider whether the United States should file
challenges to other countries’ zeroing practices, such as those of Canada or India?
Answer: We will continue to work with Congress and members of the public in
defending at the WTO our laws against unfair trade. As I explained in my testimony,
enforcement will be a top priority of this Administration
(ii) Some suggest that we should respond to the World Trade Organization’s decisions on
zeroing by switching to a prospective duty assessment system.
What is your reaction to that idea?
Answer: The current statutory framework provides for a retrospective system. Along
with my colleagues at the Department of Commerce and Customs and Border Protection,
I would be happy to work with the Congress to consider the appropriate approach to these
issues.
Questions from Senator Stabenow
Question 23:
It seems that, for many years now, any time anyone calls for the vigorous enforcement of
our trade laws, they are accused of being “protectionist.”
Would you agree that we need to jettison that term once and for all, so that everyone
understands that enforcement of our trade laws, and of our rights under international
agreements, is not “protectionist”?
Answer: I agree that enforcement of our trade laws and our rights under international
agreements is not protectionism. The availability and appropriate use of trade remedies
to address unfair trade practices play a critical role in maintaining support for free trade.
Questions from Senator Hatch:
Question 9:
As you are aware, last year the previous administration engaged several of my Democratic
colleagues to negotiate a compromise which was dubbed the “May 10th Agreement.” It is
no secret that I was opposed to that compromise because of the changes that it called for in
the Labor, Environmental, and Intellectual Property chapters of already negotiated trade
agreements. When I raised my objections to officials in the previous administration, I was
given assurances that these concessions would lead to the passage of the – then four –
outstanding trade agreements. Well, as we all now know – these concessions only lead to
the passage of one of the four agreements – that of Peru.
I now am hearing troubling talk that the Obama Administration is looking to reopen the
May 10th deal in an attempt to win additional labor and environmental concessions. I have
even heard some Democrats refer to the May 10th deal as a “floor” from which to begin
negotiations and not a “ceiling” as it was portrayed to me. Mayor Kirk, can you please
give me your personal assurance this afternoon that you will not seek to reopen the May
10th Agreement?
Answer: The May 10th Agreement established a strong foundation for bipartisan
progress on trade. We will not seek to build on that foundation without bipartisan
support. But trade policy has evolved over the last twenty years and we expect it to
continue evolving and will work with Congress to ensure a diversity of views is heard on
the subject.
Questions from Senator Crapo:
Question 8:
The United States has previously proposed in the Doha Round that the WTO be modified
to authorize a provision like the Continuing Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (CDSOA),
which provides that duties collected in unfair trade cases will be paid over to the companies
hurt by unfair trade. As you know, a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel and the WTO
Appellate Body previously found that this provision was violative of the WTO. Will the
United States continue and intensify its effort to modify the WTO in the Doha negotiations
to authorize a provision like the CDSOA?
Answer: The appropriate venue for considering the operation of the rules negotiations
remains the Doha Development Agenda. Those negotiations are under review and I will
include this issue in the overall review.