Members of the Senate Finance Committee pressed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on what intellectual property protections the U.S. will seek in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks as well as other trade-related issues in questions for the record (QFRs) following a March 9 committee hearing on the presidents trade agenda.
Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Michael Crapo (R-ID) asked how USTR was ensuring that IPR would be protected to the highest degree in the TPP talks.
Other committee members, including Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and John Thune (R-SD), questioned USTR about increasing the protection of IPR overall.
In response to questions about the TPP talks, USTR declined to specify which precise IPR protections they would seek. Its goal "is to achieve high standards of IP protection and enforcement in the Asia Pacific region that will stand alongside previous U.S. FTAs in the Asia-Pacific region," including the Korea FTA, it responded.
The IPR provisions in the Korea FTA exceeded those in the May 10, 2007 agreement between House Democrats and the Bush Administration meant to ensure access to affordable medicines.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) pressed USTR on whether the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) would be binding in a way that would prevent the United States from changing its laws. USTR repeatedly responded that the agreement is consistent with U.S. law and will not constrain Congress from changing laws.
"The ACTA was drafted to reflect both the general principles and specific provisions of U.S. law in the areas the agreement covers," USTR responded. "As a result, U.S. courts can continue to apply U.S. law and remain in conformity with the agreement. As noted above, ACTA does not constrain Congress authority to change U.S. law."
Sources said this is the first time the United States has put in writing that the ACTA is not binding on U.S. law and will not prevent the United States from changing its laws or from passing new ones.
This is significant because the European Union, an ACTA partner, has described the agreement as binding, stating that it will require some member states to change their laws. The EU has said the ACTA will not violate its common body of legal rights, but has admitted that some member states would have to make legal changes to conform to the deal.
One source said the admission by USTR that the agreement is non-binding on the United States could cause the European Parliament to pause when considering final approval of the ACTA, given that the EU has taken the position that ACTA is binding while the United States has not.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), along with Hatch and Carper, asked what USTR was doing to address a new Brazilian regulation that would reverse an opening of the countrys reinsurance market by banning the use of affiliated reinsurance.
USTR responded that it is engaged "broadly and at high level to express our concerns to the Brazilian government and insurance industry." This includes talks between officials from USTR, the State Department and the Treasury Department with their Brazilian counterparts, USTR wrote.
The United States is continuing to press Brazils regulatory authorities to work with affected companies to minimize disruptions to their operations, USTR added.
Baucus also pressed USTR on whether it has engaged with Turkey to figure out whether a new government regulation to inspect pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities exporting to Turkey will slow down marketing approval for U.S. pharmaceuticals.
USTR responded that is working with Turkey through the Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation and has made clear to Turkey that the new policy has "created a very significant barrier to bilateral trade." U.S. officials will continue to push this issue in future framework meetings, USTR said.