Hearing of the House Small Business Committee - Impact of Pending Free Trade Agreements on U.S. Small Business Panel II

Interview

Hearing of the House Small Business Committee - Impact of Pending Free Trade Agreements on U.S. Small Business Panel II

REP. VELAZQUEZ: I will ask all the witnesses to take their seats, please.

The committee is called to order. And we're going to start with our second panel.

I want to thank you all for being here this morning. Our first witness is Mr. Stephen Ubl. He's the president and COO of AdvaMed. He oversees all internal and external operations for the organization which is the world's largest association representing manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products and medical information systems.

Mr. Ubl, you will have five minutes to either talk to us or summarize your testimony. And every statement will be submitted to the record without objection. So ordered, and you have five minutes.

MR. UBL: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Ranking Member Chabot for inviting me to testify this morning.

Is this on, by the way? Can you hear okay?

Okay, move a little bit closer.

I am Steve Ubl, president and COO of AdvaMed. And we thank the committee for holding this important hearing today on pending free trade agreements between the United States and some of our trading partners.

As you mentioned, AdvaMed represents over 1,600 of the world's leading medical technology innovators and manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products and health information systems. Importantly, over 70 percent of our members are small companies with sales under 30 million (dollars) in revenue. AdvaMed members are devoted to the development of new technologies that allow patients to lead longer, healthier and more productive lives.

Our members manufacture 90 percent of the 94 billion (dollar) U.S. health care technology market and nearly half the $224 billion market globally. In 2006, U.S. exports in medical devices and diagnostics totaled over $29.4 billion.

Medical technology industry is fueled by intensive competition within the innovative energy of our small companies, firms that drive very rapid innovation cycles amongst our products -- in many cases, leading to new product iterations every 18 months. Our industry succeeds most in a fair, transparent, global market where products can be adopted on their merits without excessive regulatory hurdles or inappropriate reimbursement policies.

We strongly support the efforts to expand market access for U.S. products abroad through FTAs, the World Trade Organization as well as oversight of market access barriers in countries with which we have strong trading relationships. We believe U.S. leadership in international trade is crucial to the health of our industry and the future success of the U.S. economy. There is really no credible alternative to engaging fully in the global marketplace.

Congressional approval of sound FTAs is an important cornerstone in advancing a strong U.S. trade agenda. The Korea-U.S. FTA is an excellent example of such an agreement. In 2006, U.S. medical technology exports to Korea exceeded 673 million (dollars), an increase of 8 percent over 2005. Korea currently imposes tariffs in the range of 6.5 percent to 13 percent on U.S. medical technology compared to almost no tariffs on U.S. imports from Korea. The elimination of tariffs on all medical technology under the FTA will save the U.S. industry about $25 million per year.

The FTA also offers important benefits specifically addressed to medical technology. In fact, it's the first FTA to have a specific medical technology chapter, including recognition of innovation, commitments to fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory rules on reimbursement and regulatory decisions. We urge Congress to pass the legislation to implement this FTA.

The Latin American FTAs would also provide benefits to AdvaMed members, including tariff elimination, thereby leveling the playing field with countries that enjoy duty-free access to our market and provisions addressing a range of non-tariff barriers.

They also hope that the administration and Congress will work together on a bipartisan approach to U.S. trade policy. Many other countries are concluding FTAs with our trading partners. As an American and as a representative of the medical technology industry, I do not want to see us left behind.

Thank you, again, for holding this hearing and for seeking our input on the pending FTAs. We look forward to working with you and the rest of the committee on these important issues.

Thank you very much.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Ubl.

Our next witness is Mr. Doug Wolf. Mr. Wolf is a board member of the National Pork Producers Council and a pork producer from Lancaster, Wisconsin. He owns and operates Wolf L&G Farms, a farrow- to-finish operation marketing 20,000 hogs per year.

Welcome, sir.

MR. WOLF: Thank you very much, Madame Chairman and members of the committee.

I am Doug Wolf, board member of the National Pork Producer Council and a pork producer from Lancaster, Wisconsin. I do own and operate Wolf L&G Farms, a farrow-to-finish operation marketing 20,000 hogs per year.

The National Pork Producers Council is a national association representing 44 affiliated state organizations and the nation's 67,000 pork producers who annually generate approximately 15 billion (dollars) in farm gate sales, support an estimated 550,000 domestic jobs, generates more than 97.4 billion (dollars) in total U.S. economic activity and contributes $34.5 billion to U.S. gross national product.

Madam Chairwoman, I strongly believe that the future of the U.S. pork industry and the future livelihood of my family operation depend in large part on further trade agreements, including the pending agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Past trade agreements have fueled export growth in the U.S. pork industry. Total U.S. exports of pork and pork products have increased by more than 433 percent in volume terms, 401 percent in value terms, since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994 and the Uruguay round agreement in 1995. Without the NAFTA, there's no way that U.S. exports of pork products to Mexico could have reached such heights. In 2006, Mexico was the number-one volume market and the number-two value market of U.S. pork exports.

Thanks to a bilateral agreement with Japan on pork that became part of the Uruguay round, U.S. exports to Japan have soared. In 2006, U.S. pork exports to Japan reached over $1 billion. Japan remains the top-value foreign market for U.S. pork.

U.S. pork exports to Korea have increased over 2,000 percent as a result of concessions made by Korea in the WTO Uruguay round in 1995. More recently, U.S. pork exports of pork have expanded because of bilateral deals with Russia, Taiwan, China and the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement.

As U.S. pork exports grow, so do U.S. jobs. In 2006, the United States exported 15 percent of its domestic pork production. International trade contributed approximately 82,500 U.S. jobs to the pork industry alone. The majority of these jobs are located in rural America. In my home state of Wisconsin, about 14,200 jobs are involved in various aspects of the pork industry. Using 15 percent share, Wisconsin receives 2,130 jobs and $90 million in personal income from exporting pork products to foreign markets.

Wolf L&G Farms is a small, family-owned, independent hog operation in southwest Wisconsin. I run the business with my 30-year- old son, Shannon. Between 1998 and 2002, we faced tough financial times. It wasn't until 2002 that we started to recover and became financially stable and actually expanded our production. In September 2007, we replaced an old sow facility and increased our capacity from 800 to 1,400. Due to this expansion, we'll be able to increase the number of hogs marketed significantly from 20,000 to 30,000 annually.

We have also erected new feed processing, increased competitiveness with new, modern technology and purchased more energy- efficient equipment. Increased pork exports over the last five years have contributed significantly to the profitability of our operation. Wolf L&G Farms markets hogs to the Waterloo and Columbus Junction, Iowa Tyson pork processing plants. These plants export pork all over the world, including loins and tenderloins to Japan, bellies and butts to South Korea, hams to Mexico, picnic and trimmings to Russia and variety meats indirectly to China.

Wolf L&G Farms is very proud to supply the world with our homegrown Wisconsin pork and pork products. It's absolutely critical that U.S. pork exports continue to grow. Right now, though high tariffs, the average global tariff on pork is a staggering 77 percent, and technical barriers to trade are stifling that growth and affecting the industry.

The four free trade agreements currently pending in Congress can help change that. I am very excited about that. Each agreement aggressively cuts tariffs, and all tariffs are eventually phased out completely. Additionally, the governments of Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea have agreed to accept pork from all USDA approved facilities.

This ensures my product will not be stopped from entering these markets because of non-science-based restrictions.

The potential impact of the pending free trade agreement on Wolf L&G Farms is very substantial. According to Iowa State University economists, once fully implemented, the Peru agreement will add 83 cents per head to each hog. The Colombia trade agreement will add $1.63. Panama will add $.20, and Korea will add a phenomenal $10 per animal.

Assuming our current level of production, these agreements respectively would mean an addition $16,600, $32,600, $4,000 and $200,000 in additional income than otherwise would have been the case without these deals. That's more than a quarter of a million dollars it'll add to our farm receipts. Remarkably, these estimates are based on current levels of production, and we are expanding our production.

The added income from the pending FTAs will allow our small operation to grow, develop, and ensure a future in hog production for my son and his family. We eventually would like to invest resources into methane digestive technology, which helps supplement profits and generate new electricity. It also helps us support environmental concerns.

Given the proper resources, this could be a reality. Free trade agreements spur exports, which in turn drive our profits upward. I'd strongly urge you to support the pending free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Thank you very much.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Wolf.

Our next witness is Mr. Cass Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the president of the National Council of Textile Organizations. The National Council of Textile represents the entire domestic textile industry, including producers, manufacturers and suppliers of these products.

Welcome, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Chairwoman Velazquez, Congressman Chabot and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and outline the textile industry's perspective of the pending free trade agreements. My name is Cass Johnson. I am the president of the National Council of Textile Organizations.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for holding this hearing on trade. It's very important, as you have noted, to small and medium- size businesses. I believe this is the second hearing the committee has held this year, and I urge you to continue to hold these hearings. It's very important.

I'd like to state at the outset that our companies, almost all of which are small and medium-size businesses, need a trade policy that concentrates on retaining jobs in this country, that exacts penalties for those countries that break the rules.

The U.S. Economic and Security Review Commission estimates that Chinese bad play has cost the United States over one-and-a-half million manufacturing jobs during the last 10 years. Many of these were good-paying textile jobs. And yet our members are very concerned that China continues to get virtually a free pass by the Congress and by the government.

While our industry is supportive of free trade agreements, if we were to ask you today to do one thing for the U.S. manufacturing sector, it would be to pass a bill that holds China accountable for its currency manipulation and subsidy schemes. We hear that such bills are being prepared, and we look forward to those moving through Congress quickly.

Regarding the Peru and Colombia and Panama FTAs, NCTO members have examined these agreements carefully and have been strongly supportive in terms of textiles. These agreements contain the gold standard for textile agreements -- a pure yarn-forward rule of origin with none of the free riders that have been in past agreements. This means that only textile apparel companies in the free trade areas get the benefit, and that nonparticipants, particularly China, are technically shut out.

You may have noticed I said the word "technically." I used the word because while Customs regulations in these agreements are very strong, Customs itself has been back-pedaling furiously on commitments made to the textile industry when the CAFTA agreement was being debated.

These commitments are one of the primary reasons that our members voted to support the CAFTA agreement. But today, instead of a reinvigorated Customs effort that we were promised, textile Customs enforcement is now at a crisis point. The government has stopped sharing data on seizures and detentions with both the industry and the Congress. Special operations regarding textiles enforcement have been virtually halted, and textile enforcement staff has been leaving in droves.

The result is that the cheaters are now winning. U.S. textile mills are reporting a sharp upswing in shipments lost to illegal trade. This is because the rules in CAFTA are being broken by unscrupulous importers who know there is virtually no chance in this current Customs environment that they are going to get caught.

The industry has done its homework on this issue. We have traced the routes that illegal shipments take from China and elsewhere. We know which ports the boats dock at. We know which companies are falsely claiming U.S.-origin goods. And yet we watch as U.S. mills close, as a spinning mill closed two weeks ago down in North Carolina, and their workers become unemployed because Customs is no longer keeping its word and making textile enforcement a priority in free trade agreements.

This turnaround by U.S. Customs is all the more infuriating because Customs' own records show that fraud and cheating occurs more in textile trade than in any other manufactured good. In fact, nearly 50 percent of all Customs fraud involves textile products.

Our industry's patience is nearing an end. We have made many appeals to Customs to restore the program, but we have yet to see Customs respond in a meaningful way. So while we support the Peru and Colombia and Panama agreements, there is no reason for the industry to continue to support these or future agreements if Customs has decided it will not bother to enforce them. Rules are great, but they have to be enforced. If they're not being enforced, then we are in more danger having an agreement than in not having an agreement.

Finally, regarding the Korea FTA, we believe the textile portions need to be renegotiated. In the agreement, USTR reversed decades-old policy when it agreed to give Korea duty-free treatment immediately on the vast majority of its textile products.

In addition, Korea continues to manipulate its currency and the (Chabo ?) system continues to give its manufacturers additional unfair advantages. Finally, Korea has been a major transit point for textile fraud with China for over 30 years and has shown no willingness to date to enforce its borders.

This concludes my verbal remarks. I would like to thank the committee once again for holding this hearing and for turning its attention to the issue of trade and its impact on small and medium- size businesses.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Our next witness is Ms. June Ling. Ms. Ling is the associate executive director of codes and standards for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Founded in 1880, the organization promotes the art, science and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences.

Welcome.

MS. LING: Thank you, Madame Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member.

This morning I would like to cover standards, their impact on trade and small and medium-size enterprises. And I would also like to highlight the importance of language within trade agreements when addressing international standards and their implementation through regulatory adoption.

So what is a standard? What is a technical consensus standard? Basically it's a set of rules or guidelines developed under a disciplined process of well-defined characteristics. And when applied, standards achieve a common objective. That objective may be a baseline for public safety, from toys to home heating boilers to safe operation of nuclear power plants. It can achieve better utilization of new technological advances and can also cover interchangeability and interconnectivity of products and services. So standards are basically a set of rules or guidelines.

Standards have two significant results. One is they enable a transfer of technology to a broad base of users; and two, they create a level playing field for competition and thus entree into new markets. Both technology transfer and market access are especially important benefits to small businesses, as most would not have the means of achieving these results independently.

Today the United States enjoys a well-established and vigorous process for development of technical consensus standards by the private sector, in partnership with government. This partnership has become ever more important in ensuring U.S. competitiveness in the global market.

The USTR and Department of Commerce have actively worked in concert with the private sector, including the standards-developing community, to safeguard U.S. interests through ensuring international standards used by U.S. companies are not unfairly blocked.

Free trade agreements and texts regarding standards in free trade agreements are central to ensuring businesses are able to export goods. So why is text in trade agreements important? Well, under the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade agreement, signatory nations are obligated to provide, quote, "preferential treatment" to, quote, "relevant international standards."

As such, how international standards are defined within the context of the TBT agreement became a major item of debate. A significant milestone occurred during the second triennial review of the TBG (sic) agreement. At that time there was an effort by other nations to define international standards as limited to standards developed by organizations whose membership structures consisted only of national bodies.

Under this interpretation, the open membership of U.S.-domiciled international standards developing organizations, such as ASME, would not qualify; and the products made in the United States that were engineered to these international standards would effectively be restrained from trade.

But through strong and the able efforts of USTR, support by Commerce and the private sector, the U.S. prevented this threat through sustained efforts. And it led to a decision of the TBT committee not to specify or name organizations developing international standards, but rather to define the principles for international standards development that any standards developer could follow.

The principles of transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence and development are met by ASME and other U.S.-domiciled standards organizations. It's important that the U.S. remain vigilant, however. We need to ensure that any text within trade agreements which address international standards is inclusive of those standards realized by U.S. businesses and government. In addition, treatment of conforming assessment in the WTO-TBT agreement, and implementing text in free trade agreements, can add to the complexity of a fair and open market -- and fair and open access to market. Here too vigilance is needed.

Regarding export trade promotion, a few years ago ASME and three other organizations formed a consortium and we opened an office in Beijing using a Manufacturing Development Cooperative Program Grant provided by the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration. With Commerce ITA support and their engagement on a government-to-government basis, this consortium of four organizations successfully gained greater understanding and use of our standards in China, which in turn facilitated greater acceptance of products and technology produced to those standards.

So in conclusion, standards and related conforming assessment are an underpinning of U.S. competitiveness and trade promotion that can carry greater impact for small businesses, as small businesses do not have the resources for independent research nor participation in international standards activity. Effect export trade promotion would not be achievable without continued acceptance and use of international standards, many of which are developed and maintained by ASME.

Thank you.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Ling.

The chair recognizes the ranking member for the purpose of introducing our next witness.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellerhorst.

Let me just say that I love real people, and it's really refreshing when we are able to bring people from our own districts to come here and talk to us about your own stories, definitely.

Mr. -- well, something that really brought my attention is the statement that you made about the best tool that we have to deal with human rights and environmental violations is through economic engagement. So that's why I support for this government to do commercial trade with Cuba. Would you support that?

MR. ELLERHORST: I believe that there are -- outside of the free trade, there are political and governmental decisions that are made by our government for what it deems to be the best interest of our national security. At that point, I feel we need to defer to our representatives to make those decisions. I would like to see free trade open with Cuba, but under the proper circumstances.

REP. : Madame Chair --

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Sure. Well, we did it with Vietnam.

REP. CHABOT: Would the gentlelady yield?

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Yes, sure.

REP. CHABOT: I'd just like to comment. That was a pretty impressive answer I think, Mr. Ellerhorst. (Laughter.)

REP. VELAZQUEZ: (Laughs.) Definitely.

MR. ELLERHORST: I want to grow up to be --

REP. VELAZQUEZ: (Laughs.) He dodged that one, huh?

MR. ELLERHORST: I want to grow up to be just like you, Mr. -- (inaudible, laughter.)

REP. VELAZQUEZ: This question I would like to invite every one of the witnesses to answer it. Could you tell this committee what you see as the top provisions in the pending FTAs to aid small businesses in your industry access newly opened markets?

Mr. Ubl?

MR. UBL: Sure. I will --

REP. VELAZQUEZ: And let me -- and a second question: What provisions would you recommend for inclusion that would further facilitate cross-border commerce with consumers in these countries?

MR. UBL: I'll focus mostly on Korea because again, as we look at the pending FTAs as a matter of the economic development of those partners, our exports to Korea are far more material. They're about six times greater than Colombia and about 20 times greater than the other two FTAs.

But the two things that that FTA focuses on I think are emblematic of the two barriers that our companies face most frequently and should be incorporated in FTAs going forward, and that's eliminating high border tariffs and including mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers. In our industry, non-tariff barriers can take many forms: It can be slow or corrupt customs processes; it can be nontransparent regulatory processes. The U.S. medical technology industry is the leading sector. There is no indigenous market in many of these countries that we deal with, so sometimes it's very easy to take discriminatory pricing decisions, reimbursement decisions or regulatory decisions, that are focused solely on our industry.

So in terms of what we can do to further commerce, I think a greater focus perhaps on the non-tariff barriers and including mechanisms for dispute resolutions, and committees, for example, that allow for a dialogue on non-tariff barriers.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Mr. Wolf?

MR. WOLF: I'm not certain I could give you the best answer at all, but I can give you the one that comes to mind with us today. Number one is reducing our tariffs. At 77 percent, we definitely need to get that down -- be fair.

And some of the other issues that we could use help with are in the sanitary -- FIDO sanitary concerns that our products are safe and that we do not go beyond scientific means to determine that, that everything that we do today is backed up scientifically and it makes it fit across all borders.

So that would be our help areas. Thank you.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Mr. Johnson?

MR. JOHNSON: Regarding textiles, I think the certainty that these free trade agreements that tariff rates will remain at zero and that we can build trade is probably the best portion of the agreement. The areas that the free trade agreements -- particularly Korea -- do not get into -- and I think trade policy in the United States needs to start getting into this -- is the fact that governments, through non- tariff barriers and through subsidies, wipe out the notion of free trade.

Free trade is a great thing, and we can compete and export all over the world when it really occurs. But when governments, such as China, target a sector, such as the textile industry -- we're now being targeted with their 11th five-year plan; 73 different subsidies offered to the Chinese textile industry -- we don't get any of them. And I think the government needs to go after those.

It's not enough -- it's not appropriate, necessarily, to protect U.S. industry, but it is appropriate for the U.S. to go after the bad players who are breaking the rules and get them to stop. And that's what we have not seen happen enough of in the past.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Before I go to the next two witnesses, Mr. Johnson, what type of domestic trade assistance programs do you think are necessary in order to help the textile industry?

MR. JOHNSON: Domestic assistance programs?

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Uh-huh. (In agreement.) Are there any federal programs that exist right now that you think it would be --

MR. JOHNSON: I think our industry is concerned about a number of things that many manufacturers are, and that's the cost of health care, the cost of -- the fact that we pay environmental -- we control our environmental product output and other countries do not and they can benefit from that and charge lower prices.

I -- on the export side, I think the government could do a better job in terms of supporting industry and getting out there -- in small and medium-size industry in particular -- and giving them the resources to do trade missions around the world. Our members have done export missions through the Department of Commerce, but they're actually very expensive -- very expensive to do, and there's only a limited number of people who can do them -- only a limited number of trips. So I think -- and they find them very helpful, but I think that's another area where small and medium-size businesses could get a big benefit.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Okay.

Ms. Ling?

MS. LING: I'd like to address standards and the need to assure the text of FTAs carefully address international standards and the use of international standards. Standards are not a sexy topic. They're not overt. They're not as overt as tariffs or tariff barriers. But the inappropriate restrictions on use of standards can very easily convert into a non-tariff barrier.

So within any free trade agreement, you know, the recommendation would be that the language be open and inclusive of all international standards and not just those that are developed by groups such as ISO or IEC or ITU.

ASME had a recent example where that did occur. It would have affected many small businesses -- ma-and-pop welding shops, fab shops, manufactures of compressors and home heating appliances and all -- in which there was an effort by the Europeans to block out ASME and other U.S.-domiciled standards. It took a concerted effort of private sector and government to diffuse that threat.

So the treatment of international standards, and also conforming assessment in trade agreements, is key and vital.

REP. VELASQUEZ: Mr. Ellerhorst?

MR. ELLERHORST: Yes. With regards to enforcement and everything, I think it is critical. Whether it's a political negotiation or economic one, they work when both parties have a common goal of reaching some sort of common ground, not when one is going to use what they negotiated as a weapon, because they know you intend to keep your word and they don't intend to keep theirs. So I think enforcement becomes critical.

As far as what the government can actually continue to do is -- I'm in a relatively high technological environment -- some of the tax incentives for technological investment has been very, very helpful as far as us. People who copy can do what you do today, but they can't do what you can do tomorrow, because they don't know what you did yesterday. And so investment in what makes us different -- is our technological know-how and advancement -- I think is where we can stay out in front. If I focus all my time on protecting my IP, I'm not really focusing on my business. So anything that can enhance small business especially -- their creative talents and abilities to improve the technological advancements, I think, is where we will just stay ahead of the curve and I think that will be the safest for my industry that the government can help.

REP. VELASQUEZ: Thank you.

Mr. Ubl, in your statement you mentioned the need to maintain oversight of existing trade agreements, and which one or two in particular are a top concern for your industry?

MR. UBL: I would say right now we're very much focused on the bilateral relationship with Japan, as well as China. Japan continues to have probably the most expensive and slow regulatory approval process for new technologies anywhere in the world. And that's coupled with, in our view, discriminatory pricing practice where they compare our prices in Japan to those prices in other markets, which tend to ignore the real differences in the marketplace in Japan.

Similarly, in China we have proposed price control regulation that the Chinese government is contemplating -- particularly focused on medical technology. And there are, in some cases, agencies serving the same function. So we have duplicate inspection regimes that are conducted both by Customs and by regulatory agencies. So that redundant regulation is a very high non-tariff barrier for many of our small companies.

REP. VELASQUEZ: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Sure.

Mr. Gonzalez, I just would -- and to the witnesses, and Mr. Ellerhorst. There are programs under the Department of Commerce. And when people come here and say, "But we don't know about it." So it seems like they have to do a better job at doing the outreach, providing the information.

We have the Agriculture Marketing Service, under the Department of Agriculture; there is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Partnership. But the federal government -- there is a role for the federal government to play. We're not asked here for handouts for small businesses. But when they do well, the American economy does well, too. And then we create the jobs that are important and are necessary.

I would like to follow up on what Mr. Gonzalez was talking about, to ask each one of you: If you -- well, during the whole negotiation process of this trade agreement, do you feel that there was participation with small businesses? Do you feel that you have some input into those trade negotiation processes? Because, yes, I would like to --

MR. UBL: I would say we felt we did, but maybe not for the reason you might suspect, in that we felt we had very good collaboration with USTR and Commerce as a trade association as these negotiations proceeded. Inside the trade association we have a small business, or emerging growth company entity that's comprised of the CEOs of our small companies. So we used that as a feedback mechanism as we engaged with USTR and Commerce.

But I must say, with regard to USTR in particular, they spent hours with our companies as these negotiations were proceeding, and there was a specific chapter on medical technology in the Korea FTA dealing -- as I mentioned in my testimony, dealing with many of our critical concerns.

MR. WOLF: Yes, as far as the National Pork Producers Council, we did have representation on the trade agreements with Mr. Giodonall (sp).

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Let me just -- yes, Mr. Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: We did, but as part of the Textile Apparel Advisory Committee. Had a good consultation.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Ms. Ling.

MS. LING: There's also another advisory committee under USTR with Commerce, and that's the Advisory Committee on Standards. And we had input through that advisory body.

MR. ELLERHORST: I don't know if we had any direct, but we have international plastics associations, and things, and I'm sure.

REP. VELAZQUEZ: Sure.

Well, I think that basically, if Mr. Gonzalez has no more -- no further questions, I just wanted -- look, I think the timing of this hearing is very important since we're going to be dealing with Peru, probably next week. And then start (with ?) Colombia, Panama, Korea.

And there are some important issues that continue to be out there, but let me just say that, in the sense that -- this committee, we do not have jurisdiction over trade agreements but we do have influence over the decision-making process, especially since the jurisdiction of this committee was expanded. And since Democrats, the different chairman, we meet every Tuesday, and we discuss and we go over legislation. So we share -- I share many of the things that we hear in those hearings. So it is very important for you to come to us, and spend some time, and discuss the issues that are important to you.

We hope that, as this legislation moves forward, that we feel more comfortable, in the sense that we feel provisions -- that are needed to be included as part of the trade agreements representing small businesses -- that will be there; that the Department of Commerce also, and USTR, will provide the tools and the resources that are needed to make sure that, yes, laws are good, they look good on paper, in the books; but it's important, enforcement is important.

And Mr. Johnson, I hear you loud and clear.

So to all of you, thank you. And members have five legislative days to submit statement and other materials for the hearing record. This hearing now is adjourned. (Gavel sounds.) Thank you.

Source