“TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET”

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER MAY 27, 2015

Dear Friends,

Been very busy over the last two months on a number of different cases, but now I can now get back to the blog.

TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY (“TPA”) BILL PASSES THE SENATE AS FIGHT ON CAPITOL HILL CONTINUES

The major trade issue is Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) and the Trans Pacific Partnership.

On May 22, 2015, after another close cloture vote, the TPA bill passed the Senate by a majority vote of 62 to 37 votes. The Short Title of the TPA Bill is the “Trade Act of 2015” and the long title is the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015”.

The action next switches to the House of Representatives, which will take up Trade Promotion Authority in June. The fight in the House will be even more difficult than the Senate because reportedly there is more opposition to TPA, but there are no requirements for a super majority in the House.

To see the debate on the Senate Floor, see http://www.c-span.org/video/?326202-1/us-senate-debate-trade-promotion-authority.

On May 21^st in a close vote, 62-38 vote, with 60 votes required, the Senate agreed to cloture, to end debate, and to go to a final vote on the TPA bill. Two of the most important votes came from Democratic Senators Patti Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, who only agreed to vote to move the TPA bill forward after the Republicans agreed to a vote in June on the Ex-Im Bank, which is very important for the Boeing Company in Washington. Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, where Boeing is located, joined the Murray/Cantwell fight on the Senate Floor.

Attached is the revised TPA Bill with the Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”) bill joined with it. TPA AS AMENDED MAY 22ND This combined bill happened as a result of a compromise after the Senate Democrats blocked the TPA bill on May 12^th.

On May 22^nd, another amendment on Currency Manipulation from Senators Wyden and Hatch was passed as a compromise. The attached Amendment Hatch-Wyden HANDWRITTEN AMENDMENT 1411 states as follows:

Foreign Currency Manipulation—The principal negotiating objective of the United States with respect to unfair currency practices is seek to establish accountability through enforceable rules, transparency, reporting, monitoring, cooperative mechanisms, or other means to address exchange rate manipulation involving protracted large scale intervention in one direction in the exchange markets and a persistently undervalued foreign exchange rate to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade over other parties to a trade agreement consistent with existing obligations of the United States as a member of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

On May 22, 2015, Senator Hatch made a very strong argument against the Currency Amendment proposed by Senators Stabenow and Portman, which requires enforceable provisions, stating that the President will veto the TPA bill and if passed could lead to international sanctions against the United States by international tribunals. See Testimony of Senators Wyden and Hatch at http://www.c-span.org/video/?326202-1/us-senate-debate-trade-promotion-authority&live. See part of the speech below.

One of the key arguments for TPA was made by Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida on the Senate Floor on May 22^nd when he stated that a major reason for his vote was when the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the Department of Defense come to Congress and unanimously told the Armed Forces Committee that the TPA and TPP are one of the most important issues for National Security in that area of the World. As Senator Nelson stated, “I believe that this Bill will pass.”

On May 12th, after the Democrats in the Senate blocked the TPA bill from coming to the floor by a vote of 52 to 45, the TAA bill was put together with the TPA bill and started to move again. The Grand Bargain between the Democrats and Republicans is that TAA will be joined to the TPA bill. Republican Senator Hatch on the floor stated several times that although he was personally opposed to TAA, he realized that his Democratic colleagues needed TAA to vote for TPA.

Four bills have been crafted to move together. They are the TPA bill, Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”) for workers and companies, Customs and Trade Enforcement Bill, formerly The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (“TFTEA”), and the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (“TPEA”). The TFTEA Bill passed the Senate on May 11, 2015 and the TPTEA Bill passed on May 14, 2015, but both bills now go to the House where there survival is questionable.  Copies of those bills and Legislative History are attached.  TRADE PREFERENCES ACT TPA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SENATE FINANCE TPA AS AMENDED MAY 22ND TAA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TRADE AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT BILL Hatch-Wyden HANDWRITTEN AMENDMENT 1411 CUSTOMS AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT BILL Preferences.Bill.fin

The key problem is the Customs TFTEA bill because Senators Brown and Portman have put in the bill a specific provision that currency manipulation can be considered a countervailable subsidy. That is a major problem for Republicans and also President Obama because a currency manipulation bill could be used to retaliate against US Exports because of the Federal Reserve Policy. Remember Quantitative Easing? Currency manipulation has not been defined and this is why Treasury Secretary Lew has been so cautious in going after China and other countries. All trade law is based on reciprocity and what the United States can do to one country, the other country can do back. President Obama has stated that if enforcement provisions regarding currency manipulation are tied to the TPA bill, he will veto the bill.

Also see speech by Senator Hatch at minute 40 at this link http://www.c-span.org/video/?325918-9/senators-mcconnell-reid-wyden-hatch-cornyn-trade-promotion-authority to get a better idea of what is going on. Senator Hatch described currency manipulation as “a killer amendment” to the TPA. See also Senator Hatch speech on the floor below.

Negotiations continued. See Paul Ryan’s response that the entire world is watching, including China http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000379026

The key point is not the Democrats opposed to TPA, but the pro-trade Democrats. After the TPA bill was blocked in the Senate on May 12^th, Obama met with a group of pro-trade Democrats at the White House in an effort to secure their support. In addition to Senator Caper from Delaware, that group includes: Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and co-author of fast-track legislation.

That is an additional 9 votes, along with the two missing Republican votes. When the additional 11 votes are added, the TPA overcame the filibuster and passed the Senate. Now the TPA battle continues in the House.

This blog post will discuss brief various trade issues, including antidumping and customs, then discuss Trade Policy, including the TPA bill in detail, followed by sections on IP, Antitrust and Securities.

TRADE

STEEL TRADE CASES ARE COMING

A number of companies have contacted me with questions about potential Steel trade antidumping and countervailing duty cases against various countries with a primary target being China. In discussions with a number of companies, the major steel targeted products are likely to be imports of cold rolled steel and galvanized steel from China and other countries and possibly hot rolled steel from other countries because Chinese hot rolled steel is already covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders.

On March 26, 2015, the Congressional Steel Caucus held a major hearing on Capitol Hill on the State of the Steel Industry. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFUbn6lnNFM

The announcement for the hearing described it as follows:

Amidst the ongoing market turbulence in our domestic steel industry, the bi-partisan Congressional Steel Caucus will feature testimony from steel industry leaders, including several Pittsburgh-based experts. Earlier this month, U.S. Steel announced that its Keewatin, Minnesota facility would shut down operations as a result of the US market being flooded with low-cost imported foreign steel. Anticipated questions to be discussed include international trade practices, currency valuation; meeting steel market needs.

At the March 26^th hearing the large US steel companies urged Congress to take action against “illegal trade practices” threatening the domestic steel industry. At the Steel Caucus hearing, U.S. Steel President and CEO Mario Longhi and Nucor Corp. Chairman, CEO and President John Ferriola and others stated that the US government has been too easy in confronting foreign companies over unfair trade practices.

Mario Longhi of US Steel stated:

“This nation’s safety, security and prosperity depend upon indigenous capacity to respond to our essential national needs, in peacetime and in times of crisis. [However], not since the late 1990s have we witnessed the torrent of steel imports. The last time we were at these levels, nearly half of American steel companies disappeared … American steel companies are being irreparably harmed by illegal trade practices.”

Longhi called for revised injury standards in the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws arguing that the ITC is too focused on operating profit margins. At the meeting Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio pledged to help the steel companies through his “The Leveling the Playing Field Act”.

That pledge resulted in the proposed changes to the US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty laws in the Customs Enforcement Bill formally entitled ‘‘Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015’’Act, which passed the Senate. That Bill is the one that includes the Currency Manipulation provision.

One provision in that Bill would change the way the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) does its injury investigations. Specifically the Bill proposes to add an additional provision to the Material Injury provision used by the ITC in antidumping and countervailing duty cases to provide:

“(J) EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY.—The Commission shall not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved.’’

In talking with one friend at the ITC, he did not believe that the change would have that much impact on an ITC investigation, but the passage of the law will have an impact.

With this much smoke in the air regarding Steel imports, that usually means fire will follow. I suspect we will see a number of trade cases against steel imports, probably at the end of June or early July.

When looking at Steel Trade problems one should understand that the US Steel Industry has had various amounts of trade protection from steel imports for close to 40 years. Presently there are outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders against the following steel imports from China: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar (“Rebar”), Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”), Hot Rolled Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel Plate, Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe, Circular Welded Austentic Stainless Pressure Pipe, Steel Threaded Rod, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe, Grain Oriented Electrical Steel, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel, and Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire.

Against China, it is easy to bring steel trade cases because Commerce does not use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping. But when actual prices and costs are used against market economy countries, such as Korea, it is a much bigger problem.

When I was at the ITC in the 1980s, I the Commission staff lawyer on the first Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) case filed against Korea in 1984. When Commerce uses actual prices and costs against countries like Korea in antidumping cases, the companies can run computer programs and make sure that they are not dumping. Since the Korean companies know they will be targeted, they are certainly running computer programs to eliminate all dumping.

With 40 years of protection from steel imports, the question should be asked is Bethlehem Steel alive today? Did the Steel Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Cases actually protect the steel industry and allow them to grow and expand or simply delay their decline?

As advocated several times in prior posts on this blog, the only way to save companies injured by imports, such as the steel companies, is a robust trade adjustment assistance program to help the companies adjust to import competition. Antidumping and countervailing duty cases do not work. They only delay the decline because a US industry cannot put up walls to unstoppable waves of imports. Instead the US industry has to adjust and learn how to compete effectively in the US market against imports, which are often fairly traded.

COMMERCE RAISES BARRIERS TO CHINESE IMPORTS BY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET SEPARATE RATES IN ANTIDUMPING CASES AGAINST CHINA

As stated in prior newsletters, as a result of an appeal in the Diamond Sawblades case, Commerce has raised the bar for Chinese companies to obtain their own antidumping rates by proving that they are independent of government control. The issue is especially significant for Chinese companies, which are owned in whole or in part, by the PRC State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC).

In the Diamond Sawblades redetermination, Commerce determined that it had “further scrutinized the record” and concluded that, because the 100 percent SASAC owned majority shareholder was the only shareholder with the right to nominate all board members, including board members active in the selection of respondent’s managers, the company was not independent from the Chinese government.

Even though there was no evidence that export prices had been affected, in an investigation involving carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from the PRC, Commerce stated that, in light of the Diamond Sawblades case, it has “concluded that where a government entity holds a majority ownership share, either directly or indirectly, in the respondent exporter, the majority ownership holding in and of itself means that the government exercises or has the potential to exercise control over the exporter’s operations generally. … Consistent with normal business practices, we would expect any majority shareholder, including a government, to have the ability to control and an interest in controlling, the operations of the company, including the selection of management and the profitability of the company.”

Meanwhile, until recently Chinese respondent companies were given 60 days from the date of Commerce initiation of an investigation or review to submit a separate rate application (“SRA”) to show that it is independent and separate from the Chinese government. Commerce has now reduced the time period to submit the SRA to 30 days and eliminated the option for early filing that previously provided NME companies with the opportunity to clarify an application Commerce deems insufficient.

COURT OF APPEALS RULES AGAINST CHINA IN GPX CASE

On March 16, 2015, in the attached GPX International Tire Corp. and Hebei Starbright Tire Co. vs. United States, GPX CAFC DECISION the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) turned away the second constitutional challenge to the 2012 amendment to the Countervailing Duty law affirming the U.S. Department of Commerce’s ability to apply countervailing duties on imports from nonmarket economies like China. The CAFC held that the Amendment did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause even though it applied the duties retroactively.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW IN CUSTOMS TRADE ENFORCEMENT BILL

Accompanying the Trade Promotion Authority Bill is the attached Customs Enforcement Bill, the ‘‘Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015,” and its legislative history which includes minor changes to the antidumping and countervailing law and significant changes to the US Customs law to stop evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty law. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TRADE AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT BILL CUSTOMS AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT BILL

Although the bill has passed the Senate, there is a substantial question whether the House of Representatives will agree. One House aide expressed confidence that the provision would eventually become law. But Congressional and business sources have pointed out the possibility that the customs bill was merely a tool that Senate Finance leaders used to funnel amendments away from Trade Promotion Authority and other bills, and that it will never become law.

This is in part because there are key differences between the House and Senate bills, meaning the Senate and House will go to conference to negotiate a comprimise bill. Among these differences in the Customs/Trade bills are the ways the two bills address the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties, and the inclusion in the Senate bill of changes to trade remedy law that make it easier for petitioners to secure the affirmative determination necessary for duties to be imposed. On April 29^th, Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told reporters that he hoped the customs bill would become law, but did not provide strong assurances.

But on May 20, 2015, Senator Ron Wyden stated on the floor of the Senate that Chairman Paul Ryan has already agreed that there will be a conference committee on the Customs Enforcement Bill so a bill will pass both the Senate and the House, but what is that final bill after conference committee is still an open issue.

One key provision in the Customs and Trade Enforcement bill, however, would make currency manipulation a countervailable subsidy. Chairman Hatch has already stated on the Senate Floor if that provision is in the TPA bill it would not pass the House and would be vetoed by President Obama. If it passes the Senate, that provision will be thrown out by the House at the Conference Committee so the situation regarding this Customs and Trade Enforcement Bill is still very fluid and not settled yet in the Congress.

AMERICAN LAWYER ARTICLE ABOUT US TRADE ACTIONS AGAINST CHINA

On March 12, 2015, the American Lawyer published the attached article on The U.S. Offensive in the China Trade War, which quotes me extensively.  BETTER COPY The U.S. Offensive in the China Trade War _ The American Lawyer

STAINLESS STEEL SINKS

On April 30, 2015, the Commerce Department published the attached preliminary determination in the Stainless Steel Sinks case with dumping margins ranging from 0.81 to 5.55 %. DOC STEEL SINKS PRELIM Specifically the rates ranged from 0.81% for Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. to 5.55% for Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co. with separate rates companies obtaining 2.14%.

The final determination will be in October. Attached is the Federal Register notice initiating the second antidumping and countervailing duty review investigations in the Stainless Steel Sinks case covering Chinese sinks imported during the antidumping review period April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 and 2014, the countervailing duty review period. MAY INITIATIONS COMMERCE REVIEWS

BOLTLESS STEEL SHELVING

On March 25, 2015, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-prc-boltless-steel-shelving-ad-prelim-032515 the Commerce Department announced an affirmative preliminary determination in the antidumping (AD) case on Boltless Steel Shelving Units from China. Commerce found preliminary antidumping rates ranging from 22.64 percent to 112.68 percent.

ITC GOES NEGATIVE NO INJURY IN 53 FOOT DRY CONTAINERS ANTIDUMPING CASE AGAINST CHINA

On May 19, 2015, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) determined that the establishment of a U.S. industry is not materially retarded by reason of imports of 53-foot domestic dry containers from China that Commerce determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value. As a result of the ITC negative determinations no antidumping or countervailing duty orders will be issued on imports of these products from China.

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE RULES FOR CHINA IN TAISHAN KAM KIU AND SINCE HARDWARE CASES

In the attached two determinations, Since Hardware v. United States and Taishan Kam Kiu v. United States, SINCE HARDWARE TAISHAN CITY KAM KIU the Court of International Trade remanded the Ironing Tables and Aluminum Extrusions antidumping and countervailing duty determinations back to Commerce.

SOLAR PRODUCTS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS

On February 18, 2015, the attached final antidumping and countervailing duty orders in the Solar Products cases from China and Taiwan were issued. SOLAR PRODUCTS TAIWAN AD ORDER AD CVD ORDERS SOLAR PRODUCTS CHINA

MAY ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On May 1, 2015, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of May. MAY REVIEWS The specific antidumping cases against China are: Aluminum Extrusions, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe, Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, Iron Construction Castings, Oil Country Tubular Goods, Pure Magnesium, and Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents. The specific countervailing duty cases are: Aluminum Extrusions, Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, and Wind Towers.

For those US import companies that imported Aluminum Extrusions, Circular Steel Line Pipe, Citric Acid, Iron Construction Castings, Oil Country Tubular Goods, and Pure Magnesium and the other products listed above from China during the antidumping period May 1, 2014-April 30, 2015 or during the countervailing duty review period of 2014 or if this is the First Review Investigation, for imports imported after the Commerce Department preliminary determinations in the initial investigation, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the antidumping and countervailing duty case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability. In the Shrimp from China antidumping case, for example, almost 100 Chinese exporters were denied a separate antidumping rate.

Attached is the May 26th Federal Register notice initiating antidumping and countervailing duty review investigations against steel sinks, activated carbon, magnesium metal and steel threaded rod for imports during the period April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015.  MAY INITIATIONS COMMERCE REVIEWS

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA

This is also why the Import Alliance for America is so important for US importers, US end user companies and also Chinese companies. The real targets of antidumping and countervailing duty laws are not Chinese companies. The real targets are US companies, which import products into the United States from China.

As mentioned in prior newsletters, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of US China Trade War and the antidumping and countervailing duty laws against China for the benefit of US companies.

On September 18, 2013, ten US Importers agreed to form the Import Alliance for America. The objective of the Coalition will be to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, on US importers and US downstream industries.

See the Import Alliance website at http://www.importallianceforamerica.com.

We will be targeting two major issues—working for market economy treatment for China in 2016 as provided in the US China WTO Agreement for the benefit of importers and working against retroactive liability for US importers. The United States is the only country that has retroactive liability for its importers in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

We are now in the process of trying to gather importers to meet with various Congressional trade staff as soon as possible to discuss these issues. If you are interested, please contact the Import Alliance through its website or myself directly.

TRADE POLITICS AND TRADE AGREEMENTS

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS—TPA, TPP, TTIP/TA AND BALI/DOHA ROUND

TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY (“TPA”) BATTLE IN THE SENATE

As stated above, with the passage of the TPA Bill at 9PM at night on May 22^nd, the TPA battle moves to the House of Representatives. This section of the newsletter will provide more background on the TPA bill and the pressure on both the Senate and the House as the bill moves through Congress.

During the Senate debate, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah spoke against the enforcement provisions of the proposed currency manipulation amendment to the TPA bill because it will “kill” TPA. Instead, the Senate TPA bill would make currency manipulation a major negotiating objective.

But Democrats want more. They want enforcement actions against currency manipulation. But Senator Hatch is concerned that such a provision could be used against the United States.

Other Senators are worried about possible changes to US immigration laws, environmental and labor issues. USTR has been told in no uncertain terms that touching immigration is a third rail for trade policy, and USTR has stated during Hearings on Capitol Hill that there is nothing that would “change laws and regulations with respect to immigration,”

Although TPA passed the Senate, the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives is far more uncertain. Paul Ryan, however, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and former Republican Vice Presidential candidate, has pledged to take the TPA bill across the Finish Line so his credibility is riding on the bill.  That means the TPA bill should pass in the House, probably in June.

To summarize the situation, as mentioned in past newsletters, in the trade world, the most important developments may be the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trans-Atlantic (TA)/ the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP negotiations and the WTO. The TPP is a free trade agreement being negotiated by officials from the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. These trade negotiations could have a major impact on China trade, as trade issues become a focal point in Congress and certain Senators and Congressmen become more and more protectionist.

This has been a problem because the protectionism is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. Democratic Senators and Congressmen are supported by labor unions. Although Democratic Congressmen have expressed interest in the TPP, to date, President Obama could not get one Democratic Congressman in the House of Representatives to openly co-sponsor Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) in Congress. Without bipartisan/Democratic support for these Trade Agreements, Republicans will not go out on a limb to support President Obama and risk being shot at by the Democrats as soft on trade.

As mentioned in prior blog posts, on January 29, 2014, the day after President Obama pushed the TPA in his State of the Union speech in Congress, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the TPA bill would not be introduced on the Senate Floor.

But then came the November 4^th Republican wave election changing Trade Politics dramatically in Washington DC. Elections have consequences and in 2015 Republicans have taken the Senate and increased their numbers in House. The TPA Bill has now passed the Senate. The Title of the Bill is the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, which is posted above. The short tile of the bill is the Trade Act of 2015. The bill has been revised on the Senate Floor to add Trade Adjustment Assistance and a currency amendment, which are set forth above.

There are changes in the bill as compared to original 2014 Bill to increase transparency, but the major objective of the two bills is the same. The TPA bill gives the Administration, USTR and the President, Trade Promotion Authority or Fast Track Authority so that if and when USTR negotiates a trade deal in the TPP or the Trans-Atlantic negotiations, the Agreement will get an up or down vote in the US Congress with no amendments.

Under the US Constitution, Congress, not the President has the power to regulate trade with foreign countries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations.” Thus to negotiate a trade agreement, the Congress gives the Executive Branch, the Administration/The President and United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), the Power to negotiate trade deals.

Because trade deals are negotiated with the foreign countries, the only way to make the system work is that under the TPA law when the Trade Agreement is negotiated, the Congress will agree to have an up or down vote on the entire Agreement and no amendments to the Agreement that has already been negotiated will be allowed.

One should understand that 90% of the negotiations of these Agreements are not conducted by political appointees of President Obama. Other than United States Trade Representative Michael Froman, who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans, most of the negotiators have been at the Office of USTR for years, if not decades, and are truly professional trade negotiators. So TPA does not truly cede power to President Obama. In fact, there will be substantial oversight of the trade negotiations by Congress.

Since my last blog post in mid-February, many groups, including 35 religious groups, labor unions, environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, complained that the Trade Negotiations are too secret and not subject to public scrutiny. At the same time, President Obama and the Administration have put on a full court press to pass the TPA.  As early as February 23, 2015, President Barack Obama used his national weekend address to repeat his call on Congress to give him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), arguing that “95 percent of the world’s potential customers” live outside the U.S.:

“Many of them live in the Asia-Pacific — the world’s fastest-growing region. And as we speak, China is trying to write the rules for trade in the 21st century. That would put our workers and our businesses at a massive disadvantage. We can’t let that happen. We should write those rules. That’s why Congress should act on something called ‘trade promotion authority.”

“This is bipartisan legislation that would protect American workers, and promote American businesses, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are fair. It would level the playing field for American workers. It would hold all countries to the same high labor and environmental standards to which we hold ourselves.”

On March 11, 2015, the AFL-CIO upped the cost to Democrats of supporting the TPA legislation and the TPP deal, stating that it would freeze all political action committee donations to federal candidates until further notice. While Paul Ryan and President Obama were talking up TPA, on March 18, 2015 AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka vowed to kill the “rotten”.   As Trumka stated:

“Every single thing in our trade deals should be openly discussed and subject to public oversight and the full legislative process. There should be no question about that. Fast track is wrong and undemocratic, it’s a rotten process, and the American labor movement intends to kill it.”

In response to the Congressional criticism on transparency, on March 19, 2015 the Obama Administration announced new measures to provide lawmakers and their staff members the opportunity to review the TPP negotiating text. USTR set forth several changes to the USTR’s policies, the most important being placing the TPP text in the Capitol for members to view at their leisure without an administration official in attendance. Congressional members are also allowed to review the text with a personal staff member with security clearance.

Complaints, however, about access to the details of trade negotiating texts grew louder because the massive TPP deal would encompass 40 percent of global commerce. On March 26, 2015, it was reported that the protracted standoff between Wyden and Hatch centered around this very issue, transparency and oversight, with Wyden pushing for language that would make it easier for Congress to essentially “turn off” fast track with a resolution of disapproval if the negotiating standards are not met.

On March 25^th, Wikileaks released a draft treaty of the TPP from the Investment Group, which led to a strong debate on Investor Arbitration Panels. This led to Senator Warren introducing an amendment to do away with investment panels, which was defeated on May 22^nd, prior to the vote on the TPA. Public Citizen argued that the Investor State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) system provides foreign investors with more rights than those given to domestic firms and that the mechanism stands as an affront to a government’s right to regulate in the public’s interest.

On the other side, the National Association of Manufacturers praised the text and stated that the U.S. approach to investment talks has been a matter of public record for three years. As the NAM Vice President for International Economic Affairs Linda Dempsey stated:

“The investment provisions of our trade agreements, which are backed up by the neutral and well respected ISDS dispute settlement mechanism, are an important tool particularly for small and medium-size businesses that have been the most prevalent users of the ISDS dispute settlement mechanism.”

On March 26, 2016, Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, called for a “full-court press” on TPA, TPP, TTIP because expanding and deepening trade relationships provides stronger national security, stating:

“We also need Congress’ support for some of the most important investments we can make in our future prosperity—new trade agreements, including Trade Promotion Authority for the President. We must be allowed to clinch new and historic trade agreements spanning from Europe to Asia.

I offer this as a Secretary of Defense, convinced that a full-court press to strengthen our nation’s trade relationships will reinforce our nation’s security—while neglecting them could undercut it.

The arithmetic is straightforward.

We know that 95% of the world’s customers live beyond our borders, and the spending power of middle-class consumers in today’s emerging markets is expected to increase by 20 trillion dollars over the next decade. . . . And this trend will continue as Asia’s 570 million-strong middle class grows to about 2.7 billion consumers over the next 15 years. . . .

The bottom line is that, as global trade intensifies, we need to be both at the helm, and in the thick of it. Three years ago, trade accounted for about a third of global GDP. In a decade, it could approach half of global GDP. America’s economy, and our security that depends on it, cannot afford to be left behind. . . .

Shared growth generates magnetism: attracting new partners from around the region. While far from a guarantee, strong trade patterns also help build trust and raise the cost of conflict, while assuring our allies and partners of our long-term commitment to a shared and interdependent future…something that Secretary and General Marshall clearly understood.”

On March 26, 2015, former Republican and Democratic Commerce Secretaries, including Pete Peterson, Frederick Dent, Barbara Franklin, Mickey Kantor, William Daley, Norman Mineta, Donald Evans, Carlos Gutierrez, Gary Locke and John Bryson, urged Congress to pass the TPA Bill, but also argued that anti-currency manipulation should not be tied to trade deals.

On March 31, 2015, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on Tuesday mounted a strong defense of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, blasting the system’s critics as “doomsayers” attempting to thwart the U.S. trade agenda with hyperbolic arguments, stating:

“The way [the critics] tell it, ISDS panels are corporate shills that gut public-safety regulations and undermine U.S. sovereignty. The truth is, there are few better tools for holding other countries accountable to the agreements they make — especially when they harm American job creators.”

Calling ISDS “one of the more mundane procedures of trade law,” Ryan stated that there is some version of the mechanism on the books in more than 3,000 trade and investment agreements around the globe, 90 percent of which have never even seen an investor dispute arise. Ryan also stated an ISDS panel does not have the power to change a country’s laws and can only fault the application of a given law.

On April 6, 2015, Defense Secretary Carter warned that “time’s running out” for the TPP deal. Failing to pass the proposed trade deal would cause the U.S. to “take ourselves out of the game”:

You may not expect to hear this from a Secretary of Defense, but in terms of our rebalance in the broadest sense, passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier. It would deepen our alliances and partnerships abroad and underscore our lasting commitment to the Asia-Pacific. And it would help us promote a global order that reflects both our interests and our values.”

On April 6, 2015, a bipartisan coalition of 76 U.S. Congress members in a letter to Representative Michael Froman and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack urged the Obama administration to ensure that the final deal opens new doors for the dairy industry, particularly in Canada and Japan.

On April 16, 2015, Senators Hatch and Wyden introduced the final bipartisan TPA Bill, the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015”.

The 2015 TPA bill creates a new “transparency officer” in the USTR and establishes House and Senate advisory groups to oversee ongoing negotiations. Under the 2015 TPA bill, the Administration would also be required to make finalized trade deals available to the public for 60 days before Presidential signature and up to four months before a Congressional vote. If the deal does not meet Congressional objectives, a 60-vote majority in the Senate would strip the deal of fast-track protection and allow amendments.

But critics continued to attack the bill with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stating:

“We can’t afford another bad deal that lowers wages and outsources jobs,” That’s why Congress must reject Fast Track and maintain its constitutional authority and leverage to improve the TPP and other trade deals.”

On April 16^th, USTR Froman made clear that the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) did not contain any changes to the US immigration system, telling lawmakers that no such modifications would be made, even though other nations involved in the negotiations are making temporary entry deals.

Although critics attacked the new TPA bill, American Agriculture Associations praised the new bill with one magazine reporting:

“Pork, corn, dairy, wheat—you name it—the American agriculture industry is standing firmly behind a new bipartisan trade promotion authority bill introduced last week.”

The Agriculture Associations supporting the bill include the American Farm Bureau, The National Association of Wheat Growers, The National Chicken Council, The National Pork Producers Council, The American Feed Industry Association, The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, The National Milk Producers Federation and the U.S. Dairy Export Council, The Corn Refiners Association, the Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, and the USA Rice Federation.

On April 20, 2015, House Ways and Means released an e-mail stating:

TPA: Good for the Farm and Ranch

Support for TPA is strong among the American agriculture industry. Industry after industry has talked about how breaking down trade barriers is critical to selling more U.S. grown and raised food abroad. But the industry also supports TPA because of the important negotiating objectives that it lays out. These guidelines help ensure that the administration is making progress on issues important to American agriculture, like directing it to:

Obtain Enforceable SPS-Plus Rules: Directs the Administration to obtain robust and enforceable rules on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and require the use of science based standards.

End Improper Use of Geographical Indications: Seeks elimination of the improper use of GIs, including registration of generic terms, which undermine market access for U.S. products.

Maintain Domestic Protections: Ensures that countries may protect human, animal, or plant life or health, consistent with international obligations.

Address Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers: Instructs USTR to reduce or eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, as well as subsidies that decrease market opportunities for U.S. exports.

Preserve Family Farm Supports: Includes provisions seeking preservation of family farms and rural communities.

Facilitate Import Relief: Ensures that import relief mechanisms for perishable and cyclical products are accessible and timely.

Assess Compliance with Existing Obligations: Requires USTR to evaluate whether countries have made meaningful agriculture commitments in the WTO and whether they are living up to their commitments in the WTO and under other trade agreements.

Ensure Special Consultations on Import-Sensitive Products: Takes into account the effect of trade agreements and negotiations on import-sensitive products, and requires additional Congressional consultations on such products.

Make Tariff-Rate Quota (TRQ) Administration Transparent: Ensures transparency in the administration of TRQ programs.

On April 21, 2015, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senate Finance Chairman, called arguments by Democratic Senators that Republicans were trying to ram the Bill through the Committee “nonsense”:

“This is well-covered territory for this committee. So, while I understand and respect that there are sincerely held views on this topic, some of which are different than mine, any arguments that we’ve been less than forthcoming and transparent with this TPA legislation are, not to put too fine a point on it, nonsense.”

Hatch further stated that the Finance Committee convened nine total trade hearings during the last session of Congress and has already held three such hearings in the 2015 session. Hatch also stated that the new TPA bill closely mirrors the bipartisan TPA legislation introduced in 2014 stating:

“True enough, in our discussions, Sen. Wyden, Chairman Ryan and I made some improvements to that original bill. But, the fundamentals remain the same, and we’ve been very transparent as to what the changes have been.”

On April 21, 2015 the American Textile Industry endorsed the TPA. The National Council of Textile Organizations announced, “We are pleased to lend our support to this renewal of Trade Promotion Authority.” The Council specifically stated that the US government supports a balanced outcome, including the yarn-forward rule of origin, which requires that the yarn production and all operations forward occur in either the United States or the territory of our trading partner.

On April 22, 2015, the TPA bill cleared the Senate Finance Committee and proceeded to a fight on Senate floor. Senator Ron Wyden, ranking Democratic Member, showing a profile in courage, led the negotiations with Paul Ryan in the House, and stated after the passage of the TPA Bill in the Committee:

“The U.S. is going to aim higher in trade deals, our enforcement will be much tougher, and the process of negotiating and voting on agreements will be more transparent and more democratic. This legislation will safeguard American sovereignty and promote American values. Congress will be sending U.S. trade policy in a more progressive direction than it ever has before.”

On April 23, 2015, President Obama stated that TPP will correct the shortcomings of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) because TPP would put in place tough labor and environmental standards that NAFTA did not. TPP would also contain provisions fighting illegal wildlife trafficking and logging, and protecting oceans and against overfishing. Additionally, it would ensure an open Internet, protect consumers from fraud and deception, require anti-corruption and transparency measures and simplify export rules for small businesses. As President Obama stated,

“Trade has always been tough, and it’s always been tough especially in the Democratic Party. A lot of people are skeptical of trade deals, and a lot of times it’s for good reason. For decades now, technology made good jobs obsolete, global competition meant jobs were being shipped overseas, past trade deals didn’t always live up to the hype.

“[But] we’re not going to stop a global economy at our shores. That’s the wrong lesson to draw. We can’t go back to the past.”

Meanwhile, on April 23, 2015, the TPA bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee with Chairman Paul Ryan stating:

“We have a unique opportunity to write the rules of these trade deals to tear down those barriers and open markets for American products. TPA will increase our bargaining power so we get the most effective trade deals possible — so we tear down more trade barriers and create more opportunity right here in America.”

In the Ways and Means Committee, Democrats were unable to amend the TPA’s language on foreign currency manipulation to enact enforceable rules that would punish trading partners for manipulating their currency to gain a competitive advantage.

On April 27, 2015, the House Ways and Means Committee announced that the High Tech Industry Backs TPA:

“There’s no doubt about it: The tech industry is going big for the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act. . . .These are America’s moviemakers, software developers, and computer manufacturers—the people who drive American innovation. They understand that promoting American trade requires protecting American intellectual property. That’s the only way to keep our competitive edge in the 21st century. And that’s exactly what TPA will do.

TPA lays out almost 150 negotiating objectives for the administration to pursue in trade deals. Among them is to “ensure that governments refrain from implementing trade-related measures that impede digital trade in goods and services, restrict cross-border data flows, or require local storage or processing of data.” . . . .

Microsoft’s general counsel Brad Smith echoed this sentiment:

“Passage of renewed TPA, with its updated objectives for digital trade, is critical for America to be able to pursue its interests. And passage is important for Microsoft and our network of more than 400,000 partners, the majority of which are small businesses, to compete in the global economy.”

On April 27, 2015, House Ways and Means announced that more Conservative organizations are speaking out in favor of TPA, stating in part:

“Just last week, Americans for Tax Reform and 19 other conservative groups signed a letter in support of TPA. . . . The American Conservative Union, Citizens for Limited Taxation, Americans for Job Security, the National Taxpayers Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute—all voiced their support for expanding American trade.

The editors at Investor’s Business Daily echo this argument:

[TPP] also would reinforce the American presence on the Pacific Rim through economic strengthening, offsetting at least to some extent President Obama’s deep naval defense cuts.

But the main thing is, for every party involved, it would contribute to decades of prosperity and economic growth, as study after study on the impact of free trade agreements has found.”

On April 27, 2015, from a Ways and Means Press Release, Paul Ryan in a radio address, on the show Morning in America, made the case for TPA, stating:

“The reason we need trade agreements with other countries is twofold.

Ninety six percent of the world’s consumers live in other countries; they don’t live in our country. And if we want to have a mature economy where we have more jobs, higher-paying jobs, we have to make and grow more things in America and sell them overseas so we can keep full employment—you know, more people working. So we have to open [markets] to our products. That’s point number one.

“Point number two is all these other countries are going around getting trade agreements for their countries that are better, that give them more access to these foreign markets. And, as a result, Americans don’t get access to those markets, which means we face higher barriers and we can’t sell our products to other markets. China is a perfect example. They’re running around the world right now trying to get better trade agreements to meet China’s needs, to run by China’s rules. And so, right now what’s happening in this global economy is the rules of the global economy are being written, and the question for us is: ‘Who writes those rules?’ Is it China writing those rules, for China’s benefit? Or are we going to write the rules, for our benefit?”

On holding the administration accountable:

“Trade promotion authority is done in a way this time very differently than others because of our mistrust of the executive. So, we tell the executive—meaning, in this case, Obama—and the next president: Here’s what you need to put in a trade agreement, here’s how you go about getting it. You have to be transparent. Members of Congress have to see it. The public has to see these agreements before they’re signed to. And Congress reserves the power to veto it. Congress gets the final say. Congress has to approve it. And if the president doesn’t put together the kind of trade agreement, the process we spell out, then we can say: ‘You didn’t do it the right way.’ And we can revoke trade promotion authority and that trade agreement. So, we’re putting sort of a belts-and suspenders approach to making Congress, the legislative branch, in charge of this so that the executive cannot go beyond his reach.”

On leveling the playing field for American workers and job creators:

“[W]e think we have done this in the right way, and the president has to go out and get the right kind of an agreement. We want to open our dairy markets. We want to open our agriculture markets, our manufacturing. Here’s the deal . … We already give these countries—in this particular case I’m talking about Asia, non-China Asian countries—we already give them pretty good access to our country. Just walk into Wal-Mart or Farm & Fleet or wherever you go, and you’ll see a bunch of goods made in Asian countries. The problem is they don’t give us the same kind of access to their markets. So what we’re trying to get here is the same kind of access to their markets that they have to ours and to give us zero tariffs.”

In response to the TPA movement, however, on April 28^th, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka repeated labor’s stance against TPA, TPP and all free trade agreements:

“All across the country, workers are leading a fierce and broad social movement to defeat fast track. We are rebelling against corporate-written free trade agreements — and we are succeeding.”

The labor movement opposes fast-track. We expect those who seek to lead our nation forward to oppose fast-track. There is no middle ground … [and] in the 2016 campaign, there will be no place to hide for those who aspire to lead America.”

On April 30^th Paul Ryan issued another press release from the House Ways and Means Committee stating that the way to hold President Obama accountable is TPA:

The bottom line is, TPA will make the trade negotiations much more transparent and hold the president accountable. Here are the top eight ways TPA will empower Congress:

• Read the negotiating text

Right now, nothing requires the administration to allow a member of Congress to read the negotiating text of an agreement. But under TPA, every member will be able to read the text of the agreement all throughout the talks.

2. Receive up-to-date briefings

Sometimes, reading the text isn’t enough. A member of Congress wants to know where the talks are headed. TPA will require the U.S. trade representative’s (USTR) office to brief any member who asks on the status of the negotiations.

3. Attend negotiating rounds

If that’s not enough, how about actually attending the talks? Under TPA, any interested member will be able to become a “congressional adviser” to U.S. negotiators. All designated congressional advisers will be able to attend negotiating rounds.

4. Consult with negotiators

TPA will also create House and Senate Advisory Groups on Negotiations to oversee the talks and receive regular briefings, according to a fixed timetable. Any member will be able to submit his or her views to the group.

5. Provide public summaries

Right now, there’s little public information about how an agreement is shaping up. TPA will require USTR to post up-to-date summaries of each chapter of the agreement so people can see what’s up.

6. Create a new transparency officer

TPA will create a chief transparency officer at USTR that will consult with Congress and the public on transparency policies.

7. Make the text public

The ultimate judge is the American people, so they should be able to read the text themselves. For the first time ever, TPA will codify in law the public’s right to review the agreement before the President puts his signature on it. TPA will require the administration to publish the text of a completed trade agreement at least 60 days before agreeing to it. That’s even before Congress considers a vote.

8. Tell Congress how he will implement the agreement

Finally, at least 30 days before Congress considers the final bill, the president must tell Congress how he intends to enact the agreement if Congress passes the implementing bill.

All of these tools will shed greater light on the negotiations. We need them to get the most effective trade deals possible. We need them to hold the president accountable. And that’s why we need to establish TPA.

Meanwhile on May 5, 2015, Senator Harry Reed announced that he would convince his fellow Democrats to hold off on a TPA vote until the passage of highway infrastructure funding and surveillance legislation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, rejected the Reid motion and pushed on.

On May 6, 2015, a Press Release from the House Ways and Means Committee stated:

Opponents of free trade agreements are raising a stink about transparency in trade negotiations. But the truth is, if they really want to shed light on the negotiations, the best thing they can do is pass trade promotion authority (TPA). . . .

Most notably, TPA requires the president to make public the text of a trade agreement at least 60 days before he finalizes it. And at least 30 days before he submits an implementing bill to Congress, the president must send the final legal text of the agreement and a description of how he proposes to implement the agreement. So long before the agreement comes up for a vote, the American people will have plenty of time to read and debate it. . . .

So, question: How can we make trade negotiations more transparent?

Answer: Pass TPA.

On May 8^th, a bipartisan collection of former US defense secretaries, including Harold Brown, William S. Cohen, Robert M. Gates, Chuck Hagel, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Donald H. Rumsfeld along with well-known Generals, such as General David H. Petraeus and General Colin Powell, called for passage of TPA, stating:

We write to express our strongest possible support for the enactment of Trade Promotion Authority legislation, which is critical to the successful conclusion of two vital trade agreements: the . . . TPP . . . and the TTIP.

While the economic benefits of both these agreements would be substantial, as former Secretaries of Defense and military leaders we believe there is an equally compelling strategic rationale for TPP and TTIP.

First and foremost, the conclusion of these agreements would be a powerful symbol of continued U.S. leadership and engagement globally. They would reinforce relationships with important allies and partners in critical regions of the world. By binding us closer together with Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia, among others, TPP would strengthen existing and emerging security relationships in the Asia-Pacific, and reassure the region of America’s long-term staying power. In Europe, TTIP would reinvigorate the transatlantic partnership and send an equally strong signal about the commitment of the United States to our European allies.

The successful conclusion of TPP and TTIP would also draw in other nations and encourage them to undertake political and economic reforms. The result will be deeper regional economic integration, increased political cooperation, and ultimately greater stability in the two regions of the world that will have the greatest long-term impact on U.S. prosperity and security.

Indeed, TPP in particular will shape an economic dynamic over the next several decades that will link the United States with one of the world’s most vibrant and dynamic regions. If, however, we fail to move forward with TPP, Asian economies will almost certainly develop along a China-centric model. In fact, China is already pursuing an alternative regional free trade initiative. TPP, combined with T-TIP, would allow the United States and our closest allies to help shape the rules and standards for global trade.

The stakes are clear. There are tremendous strategic benefits to TPP and TTIP, and there would be harmful strategic consequences if we fail to secure these agreements. In both Asia-Pacific and the Atlantic, our allies and partners would question our commitments, doubt our resolve, and inevitably look to other partners. America’s prestige, influence, and leadership are on the line. With TPP originating in the Bush administration, these agreements are fundamentally bipartisan in nature and squarely in our national security interest. It is vitally important that we seize the new strategic opportunities these agreements offer our nation.

Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, on May 8, 2015, President Obama responded to the Democratic critics of the TPA bill at Nike’s headquarters in Oregon, home state for Senator Ron Wyden, stating:

“Vietnam would actually for the first time have to raise its labor standards. It would have to set a minimum wage. It would have to pass safe workplace laws to protect its workers. It would even have to protect workers’ freedom to form unions for the very first time. That would make a difference.”

On May 22, 2015, just prior to the passage of the TPA, on the Senate Floor Senator Orrin Hatch, in the attached speech, HATCH SPEECH ON CURRENCY MANIPULATION responded to the attempt to amend the TPA bill and add the Currency Amendment of Senators Portman and Stabenow.  Senator Hatch stated in part:

Mr. President, I want to take some time today to talk about proposals to include a currency manipulation negotiating objective in trade negotiations and the impact this issue is having on the debate over renewing Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA.

Currency manipulation has, for many, become the primary issue in the TPA debate. . . .However, I want to be as plain as I can be on this issue: While currency manipulation is an important issue, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to try to solve this problem solely through free trade agreements.

Nonetheless, I do not believe we should ignore currency manipulation, which is why, for the very first time, our TPA bill would elevate currency practices to a principal negotiation objective. This is important. It means that, if the administration fails to make progress in achieving this or any other objectives laid out in the bill, then the relevant trade agreement is subject to a procedural disapproval resolution . . . .

Of course, I understand that a number of my colleagues want to see more prescriptive language, which would limit the range of tools available and require that trade sanctions be used to keep monetary policies in line. . . .

But, first, I think we need to step back and take a look at the big picture. I think I can boil this very complicated issue down to a single point: The Portman-Stabenow Amendment will kill TPA.

I’m not just saying that, Mr. President. It is, at this point, a verifiable fact.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Lew outlining the Obama Administration’s opposition to this amendment. The letter addresses a number of issues, some which I’ll discuss later. But, most importantly, at the end of the letter, Secretary Lew stated very plainly that he would recommend that the President veto a TPA bill that included this amendment.

That’s pretty clear, Mr. President. It doesn’t leave much room for interpretation or speculation. No TPA bill that contains the language of the Portman-Stabenow Amendment stands a chance of becoming law. . . .

at this point, it is difficult – very difficult, in fact – for anyone in this chamber to claim that they support TPA and still vote in favor of the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. The two, as of yesterday, have officially become mutually exclusive. . . .

But, regardless of what you think of Secretary Lew’s letter, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment raises enough substantive policy concerns to warrant opposition on its own. Offhand, I can think of four separate consequences that we’d run into if the Senate were to adopt this amendment, and all of them would have a negative impact on U.S. economic interests.

First, the Portman-Stabenow negotiating objective would put the TPP, agreement at grave risk, meaning that our farmers, ranchers, and manufactures – not to mention the workers they employ – would not get access to these important foreign markets, resulting in fewer good, high-paying jobs for American workers.

We know this is the case, Mr. President. Virtually all of our major negotiating partners, most notably Japan, have already made clear that they will not agree to an enforceable provisions like the one required by the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. No country that I am aware of, including the United States, has ever shown the willingness to have their monetary policies subject to potential trade sanctions. Adopting this amendment will have, at best, an immediate chilling effect on the TPP negotiations, and, at worst, it will stop them in their tracks.

If you don’t believe me, then take a look at the letter we received from 26 leading food and agriculture organizations . . . urging Congress to reject the Portman-Stabenow amendment because it will, in their words, “most likely kill the TPP negotiations” Put simply, not only will this amendment kill TPA, it will very likely kill TPP as well.

Second, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment would put at risk the Federal Reserve’s independence in its ability to formulate and execute monetary policies designed to protect and stabilize the U.S. economy. While some in this chamber have made decrees that our domestic monetary policies do not constitute currency manipulation, we know that not all of our trading partners see it that way.

Requiring the inclusion of enforceable rules on currency manipulation and subsequent trade sanctions in our free trade agreements would provide other countries with a template for targeting U.S. monetary policies, subjecting our own agencies and policies to trade disputes and adjudication in international trade tribunals. We have already heard accusations in international commentaries by foreign finance ministers and central bankers that our own Fed has manipulated the value of the dollar to gain trade advantage.

If the Portman-Stabenow language is adopted into TPA and these rules become part of our trade agreements, how long do you think it will take for our trading partners to enter disputes and seek remedies against Federal Reserve quantitative easing policies? Not long, I’d imagine.

If the Portman-Stabenow objective becomes part of our trade agreements, we will undoubtedly see formal actions to impose sanctions on U.S. trade, under the guise that the Federal Reserve has manipulated our currency for trade advantage. We’ll also be hearing from other countries that Fed policy is causing instability in their financial markets and economies and, unless the Fed takes a different path, those countries could argue for relief or justify their own exchange-rate policies to gain some trade advantage for themselves.

While we may not agree with those allegations, the point is that, under the Portman-Stabenow formulation, judgments and verdicts on our policies will be taken out of our hands and, rather, can be rendered by international trade tribunals. . . .

Put simply, we cannot enforce rules against unfair exchange rate practices if we do not have information about them. Under the Portman-Stabenow Amendment, our trading partners are far more likely to engage in interventions in the shadows, hiding from detection out of fear that they could end up being subjected to trade sanctions.

Mr. President, for these reasons and others, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment is the wrong approach. Still, I do recognize that currency manipulation is a legitimate concern, and one that we need to address in a serious, thoughtful way.

Toward that end, Senator Wyden and I have filed an amendment that would expand on the currency negotiating objective that is already in the TPA bill to give our country more tools to address currency manipulation without the problems and risks that would come part and parcel with the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. . . .

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSITANCE PROGRAM—REAUTHORIZATION

As stated in my last blog posts, I have made the case for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Firms/Companies, which has been cut to $12.5 million nationwide. The TAA Bill, which is attached to the TPA bill, in the Senate brings the TAA for Firms program back to $16 million. In the House, however, TAA has been cut to $12.5 million. So the question is what happens in the Conference Committee?

To summarize the history, at the end of 2014, because of the efforts of Senator Sherrod Brown and Congressmen Adam Smith, Derek Kilmer and Sander Levin in the House, the TAA for Firms/Companies program was reauthorized in the Cromnibus Bill, which went through the Senate and the House and was signed into law by President Obama. Although Senator Brown advocated that the assistance for US companies in the TAA for Firms program be increased to $50 million, in fact, the program was cut from $16 million to $12.5M.

As the TPP, TTIP and other trade agreements come into force changing the US market by government action with the force of a government tsunami, TAA for firms/companies is the only program that will give companies the tools they need to adjust to increased trade/import competition from so many different countries.

RUSSIA—US SANCTIONS AS A RESULT OF UKRAINE CRISIS

On May 21, 2015, the Commerce Department announced changes to the export rules to allow unlicensed delivery of Internet technology to Crimea region of Ukraine, saying the change will allow the Crimean people to reclaim the narrative of daily life from their Russian occupants. Under the attached final rule, FINAL COMMERCE RULE, individuals and companies may deliver source code and technology for “instant messaging, chat and email, social networking” and other programs to the region without first retaining a license from the federal government, according to Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

Commerce stated:

“Facilitating such Internet-based communication with the people located in the Crimea region of Ukraine is in the United States’ national security and foreign policy interests because it helps the people of the Crimea region of Ukraine communicate with the outside world.”

On September 3, 2014, I spoke in Vancouver Canada on the US Sanctions against Russia, which are substantial, at an event sponsored by Deloitte Tax Law and the Canadian, Eurasian and Russian Business Association (“CERBA”). Attached to my blog are copies of the PowerPoint or the speech and a description of our Russian/Ukrainian/Latvian Trade Practice for US importers and exporters. In addition, the blog describes the various sanctions in effect against Russia.

Pursuant to the OFAC regulations, U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting transactions, dealings, or business with Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs). The blocked persons list can be found at http://sdnsearch.ofac.treas.gov/. See also: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/programs/pages/ukraine.aspx . The list includes the Russian company, United Shipbuilding, and a number of Russian Banks, including Bank Rossiya, SMP Bank, Bank of Moscow, Gazprombank OAO, Russian Agricultural Bank, VEB, and VTB Bank. The “Sectoral Sanctions Identification List” (the “SSI List”) that identifies specific Russian persons and entities covered by these sectoral sanctions can be found at www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/pages/ssi_list.aspx.

The sanctions will eventually increase more with the Congressional passage of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which is attached to my blog, which President Obama signed into law on December 19, 2014. Although the law provides for additional sanctions if warranted, at the time of the signing, the White House stated:

“At this time, the Administration does not intend to impose sanctions under this law, but the Act gives the Administration additional authorities that could be utilized, if circumstances warranted.”

The law provides additional military and economic assistance to Ukraine. According to the White House, instead of pursuing further sanctions under the law, the administration plans to continue collaborating with its allies to respond to developments in Ukraine and adjust its sanctions based on Russia’s actions. Apparently the Administration wants its sanctions to parallel those of the EU. As President Obama stated:

“We again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, cease support to separatists in eastern Ukraine, and implement the obligations it signed up to under the Minsk agreements.”

Russia, however responded in defiance with President Putin blasting the sanctions and a December 20^th Russian ministry statement spoke of possible retaliation.

One day after signing this bill into law, the President issued an Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine” (the “Crimea-related Executive Order”). President Obama described the new sanctions in a letter issued by the White House as blocking:

New investments by U.S. persons in the Crimea region of Ukraine

Importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States from the Crimea region of Ukraine

Exportation, re-exportation, sale, or supply of goods, services, or technology from the United States or by a U.S. person to the Crimea region of Ukraine

The facilitation of any such transactions.

The Crimea-related Executive Order also contains a complicated asset-blocking feature. Pursuant to this order, property and interests in property of any person may be blocked if determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, that the person is operating in Crimea or involved in other activity in Crimea.

The EU has also issued sanctions prohibiting imports of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, and providing financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and reinsurance related to the import of such goods. In addition, the EU is blocking all foreign investment in Crimea or Sevastopol.

Thus any US, Canadian or EU party involved in commercial dealings with parties in Crimea or Sevastopol must undertake substantial due diligence to make sure that no regulations in the US or EU are being violated.

CUSTOMS

There are significant changes to Customs law in the Customs and Trade Enforcement Bill, formerly The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (“TFTEA”), which passed the Senate on May 11, 2015. Some of those provisions include tough enforcement provisions for evasion of US antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The question, however, is whether these changes will ever become law because the Bill has to pass the House and then go to Conference Committee.

PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND TRADE—HOW CHINESE ACTIONS CAN DESTROY LARGE US IMPORT COMPANIES/RETAILERS

Quality problems with Chinese imported products can hit US import companies and retailers like a trade tsunami, potentially driving large US companies out of business. Nothing illustrates this problem better than the major issues facing Lumber Liquidators because of imports of low quality, high formaldehyde laminate flooring from China.

Lumber Liquidators Inc. has been hit with close to a hundred class action complaints for products liability, consumer actions and even securities cases because of its sale of formaldehyde-laden Chinese flooring. The Actions accuse Lumber Liquidators of defrauding US consumers by falsely stating that its Laminate Flooring meet state emissions standards for the toxic Formaldehyde chemical.

The Complaints allege that Lumber Liquidators routinely sells Chinese-made flooring that greatly exceeds California and other State Air Resource Board standards for safe formaldehyde emissions. Yet Lumber Liquidators advertises on its website and elsewhere that it ensures all of its suppliers comply with California’s “advanced environmental requirements,” even for products sold in other states.

These Actions have originated from a 60 Minutes program, a well-known nationwide news investigative program, which revealed that independent testing of dozens of boxes of Chinese flooring from Lumber Liquidators stores in four states, revealed that all but one of the samples surpassed the California Formaldehyde limit and some went more than 13 times beyond the mark. This 60 Minutes New Report led to the filing of dozens of lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators under Products Liability law and consumer protection/false advertising law. Reportedly the number of complaints is now over one hundred.

Meanwhile, in Sept. 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement service carried out a search warrant at Lumber Liquidator’s corporate offices in Richmond, Virginia.  Multiple media reports have reported that the raid was linked to wood suspected of having originated from the Siberian tiger’s habitat.

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission (“CSPC”) announced that it was investigating the formaldehyde content of Chinese laminate tile flooring imported by Lumber Liquidators Inc. following the 60 Minutes investigation. In a 2013 report, the CPSC said formaldehyde has been linked to cancer in humans and lab animals but added that some people are more susceptible to the chemical effects than others. In response to the announcement, Lumber Liquidators reported that it was cooperating with other agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control, Federal Trade Commission and others.

On April 29^th, Lumber Liquidators announced that in addition to the more than 100 class action cases filed against it, the US Justice Department (“DOJ”) will seek criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators for violating a conservation law in connection with imported wood flooring products. Specifically the DOJ stated that it is seeking criminal charges under the Lacey Act, a conservation law that prohibits import of products made from illegally logged woods.

With all the class action cases, earnings fell, which resulted in a Securities Class Action against Lumber Liquidators by stock investors alleging securities fraud, arguing that its record-high profits were based on creative “sourcing initiatives” when in fact they came from illegal wood harvesting and the sale of cheap formaldehyde laced floors. The company and its entire board of directors were named as defendants in the April 15 derivative complaint by Amalgamated Bank, the trustee for an index fund that has invested in Lumber Liquidators stock. See actual complaint below.

Specifically, the securities complaint alleged that Lumber Liquidators reported gross margins that were significantly higher than those of its major competitors, Home Depot and Lowe’s Companies Inc., because partnerships in China allowed it to cut out middlemen and work directly with suppliers. In reality, the company was buying engineered and laminate flooring manufactured in China that contained and emitted dangerously high and illegal levels of formaldehyde, as well as wood that had been illegally harvested from protected forests in the Russia, home to the critically endangered Siberian tiger and Far East leopard.

According to the suit, the directors breached their duties to shareholders by failing to prevent possible violations of environmental and consumer protection laws and by failing to disclose the illicit practices in public U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. As the Complaint states at paragraph 14:

“Moreover, as a result of defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties, the Company is now subject to several complex and expensive securities class action lawsuits alleging violations of the CARB Regulations; the Lacey Act; the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); the Magnuson -Moss Warranty Act; breach of express and implied warranties; violation of Consumer Protection/Deceptive Practices acts; unjust enrichment; and lawsuits alleging violations of California’s Proposition 65. On March 10, 2015, The New York Times reported that the Attorney General of New York, Eric T. Schneiderman, had opened an inquiry into whether the Company violated safety standards and that officials in California are also likely to investigate.”

According to paragraph 17 of the complaint,

“Although Lumber Liquidators has been severely injured, defendants [Board Members] have not fared nearly so badly. During the relevant time period, defendants collectively pocketed millions in salaries, fees, stock options, illicit insider trading profits and other payments that were not justified in light of the violations of state and federal law at Lumber Liquidators that occurred on their watch. . . .”

According to the shareholders, the scandals have exposed Lumber Liquidators to “millions of dollars in potential liability” from various investigators and allegedly wiped out more than $1.2 billion in shareholder equity. As further stated in paragraph 116 of the complaint:

“Moreover, these actions have irreparably damaged Lumber Liquidators’ ‘environmentally conscientious’ corporate image. For at least the foreseeable future, Lumber Liquidators will suffer from what is known as the ‘liar’s discount,’ a term applied to the stocks of companies that have been implicated in improper behavior and have misled the investing public, such that Lumber Liquidators’ ability to raise equity capital or debt on favorable terms in the future is now impaired.”

The Complaint also details the allegations against Lumber Liquidator’s Chinese suppliers at paragraphs 82-96, stating in part in paragraph 98:

Moreover, defendants were fully aware of the risks of importing wood from China-a country often associated with the export of wood products with excess formaldehyde levels and illegally sourced timber. For example, in February 2012, the leading Chinese hardwood flooring company, Anxin Weiguang Flooring, was forced to pull its wood flooring products from shelves pending an investigation by Shanghai’s Bureau of Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine because of claims that the flooring emitted excessive levels of formaldehyde. One study, entitled “Formaldehyde in China: Production, consumption, exposure levels, and health effects,” 35 Environment Int’l (Nov. 2009), found that over the last 20 years, China’s formaldehyde industry has experienced unprecedented growth, and now produces and consumes one-third of the world’s formaldehyde. More than 65% of the Chinese formaldehyde output is used to produce resins which are mainly found in wood products. These are also the major source of indoor air pollution in China. The study documented numerous instances of hazardous occupational exposure to formaldehyde in Chinese wood workers.

On May 7, 2015, Lumber Liquidators announced that it was suspending sales of laminate flooring from China that prosecutors and consumers have alleged contain toxic levels of the building chemical formaldehyde, and will conduct a review of its suppliers who had labeled the product as meeting California’s limits for the carcinogenic chemical. Lumber Liquidators also hired former Federal Bureau of Investigation director Louis Freeh’s consulting firm to advise it on compliance issues.

On May 21, 2015, Lumber Liquidators announced that its CEO Robert M. Lynch has resigned “unexpectedly”.

The Lumber Liquidators problems illustrate the importance of quality control of Chinese products and how actions in China can seriously damage, if not destroy, their US customers, well-known US companies and brands.

SOME OF THE LUMBER LIQUIDATOR COMPLAINTS

False Advertising and Consumer Protection

On March 6, 2015 Sara Latta filed a class action case against Lumber Liquidators for false advertising and consumer protection violations. LATTALL

On March 9, 2015, Jerry Green and Twala Scott filed a class action case against Lumber Liquidators for false advertising and consumer protection violations. GREEN LL

On March 12, 2015, Mary Kleinsasser filed the attached class action case against Lumber Liquidators for false advertising and consumer protection violations. KLEINASSERLL

On March 12, 2015, Adam White and Julia White a class action case against Lumber Liquidators for false advertising and consumer protection violations. WHITE LUMBER

On March 27, 2015, Thomas P. Phelan filed a class action case against Lumber Liquidators for false advertising and consumer protection violations. PHELAN LUMBER LIQUIDATORS

On March 27, 2015, James Silverthorn filed a class action case against Lumber Liquidators for false advertising and consumer protection violations. SILVERTHORN LUMBER

SECURITIES CASES AGAINST LUMBER LIQUIDATORS

On April 15, 2015, Amalgamated Bank filed the attached shareholder derivative complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment against Lumber Liquidators and its directors and officer. AMALGAMATED BANK LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CASE

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

CAFC MAKES DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AN ISSUE IN 337 CASES

Under section 337, owners of US patents, trademarks and copyrights can filed a case against infringing imports. After a year-long proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge and the ITC itself, if the Commission finds that these unfair imports have injured a US industry, it can issue an exclusion order and the infringing imports will be kept out at the border.

On May 11, 2015 in the attached decision, Lelo Inc, v, International Trade Commission, CAFC LELO DOMESTIC INDUSTRY, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) increased the domestic industry standard, reversing the ITC and determining that there was no domestic industry in a section 337 case, stating:

In Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-823, Initial Determination at 50 (Jan. 8, 2013) (“Initial Determination”), “the Administrative Law Judge determined initially that the domestic industry requirement had not been met because the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s arguments that its U.S. purchase of the four components constituted a “significant investment in plant and equipment,” or a “substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing,” under prongs (A) and (C), respectively, of the § 337 domestic industry requirement.”

Specifically, the ALJ concluded that Standard Innovation’s U.S. purchases were not relevant to a prong (A) analysis because Standard Innovation failed to establish what portion, if any, the purchase price actually contributed towards a domestic investment in plant or equipment. . . . The ALJ also decided that the components were off-the-shelf items and not relevant to prong (C) because there was no proof that the components were developed specifically for Standard Innovation’s devices, or what portion, if any, of the purchase price was allocable to research and development costs incurred in the development of the components.

Further, the ALJ determined that even if the purchases were relevant, they were neither “substantial” nor “significant” under prongs (A) or (C). . . . . The total purchase prices accounted for less than five percent of the total raw cost of the devices.

The CAFC went on to state:

The Commission, however, reversed the ALJ’s domestic industry determination, finding that “Standard Innovation has satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on its expenditures on components produced domestically that are critical to [its devices].” . . .The Commission rejected the ALJ’s economic prong analysis because Standard Innovation “established that the components were critical for [its devices], which the ALJ found to be protected by the patent. This is sufficient for us to consider the component expenses in our economic prong analysis.”

The CAFC found:

The Commission determined that Standard Innovation’s investment and employment under prongs (A) and (B) were quantitatively “modest,” . . ., which we take to mean “insignificant.” The Commission also found that Standard Innovation did not establish prong (C). . . . We agree with the Commission’s finding that investment and employment under prongs (A) and (B) were modest and insignificant. The Commission erred when it disregarded the quantitative data to reach its domestic industry finding based on qualitative factors. Qualitative factors cannot compensate for quantitative data that indicate insignificant investment and employment. As such, Standard Innovation did not establish a “significant” “investment” or “employment” under prongs (A) or (B), and did not set forth evidence of relevant investments under prong (C). Accordingly, Standard Innovation did not satisfy the domestic industry requirement of § 337.

The CAFC then determined:

We hold that qualitative factors alone are insufficient to show “significant investment in plant and equipment” and “significant employment of labor or capital” under prongs (A) and (B) of the § 337 domestic industry requirements. The purchase of so called “crucial” components from third-party U.S. suppliers are insufficient to satisfy the “significant investment” or “significant employment of labor or capital” criteria of § 337 where there is an absence of evidence that connects the cost of the components to an increase of investment or employment in the United States.

NEW 337 COMPLAINTS

On April 30, 2015, Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. filed a new section 337 case at the ITC against imports of Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes, Chargers and Kits Containing Same from the follow companies:

Our Family Jewels, Inc. d/b/a Epipur Skincare, Parker, CO; Accord Media, LLC d/b/a Truth in Aging, New York, NY; Xnovi Electronic Co., Ltd., China; Michael Todd True Organics LP. Port St. Lucie, FL; Mtto LLC, Fort St. Lucie, FL; Shanghai Anzikang Electronic Co., Ltd., China; Nutra-Luxe M.D., LLC, Fort Myers, FL; Beauty Tech, Inc., Coral Gables, FL; Anex Corporation, Korea; RN Ventures Ltd., United Kingdom; Korean Beauty Co., Ltd., Korea; H2Pro Beautylife, Inc., Placentia, CA; Serious Skin Care, Inc., Carson City, NV; Home Skinovations Inc., Canada; Home Skinovations Ltd., Israel; Wenzhou AI ER Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Cnaier, China; Coreana Cosmetics Co., Ltd., Korea; and Flageoli Classic Limited, Las Vegas, NV

PATENT AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES

SIX CHINESE CITIZENS CHARGED WITH ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

On May 19, 2015, the US Justice Department announced that it has indicted six Chinese individuals for economic espionage. The Justice Department stated in the attached announcement, DOJ CHINA PROFESSORS:

Chinese Professors Among Six Defendants Charged with Economic Espionage and Theft Of Trade Secrets for Benefit of People’s Republic of China

Chinese Professors Alleged to Have Stolen Valuable Technology from Avago Technologies and Skyworks Solutions to Benefit a PRC University

On May 16, 2015, Tianjin University Professor Hao Zhang was arrested upon entry into the United States from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in connection with a recent superseding indictment in the Northern District of California . . . .

The 32-count indictment, which had previously been sealed, charges a total of six individuals with economic espionage and theft of trade secrets for their roles in a long-running effort to obtain U.S. trade secrets for the benefit of universities and companies controlled by the PRC government.

“According to the charges in the indictment, the defendants leveraged their access to and knowledge of sensitive U.S. technologies to illegally obtain and share U.S. trade secrets with the PRC for economic advantage,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “Economic espionage imposes great costs on American businesses, weakens the global marketplace and ultimately harms U.S. interests worldwide. The National Security Division will continue to relentlessly identify, pursue and prosecute offenders wherever the evidence leads. . . .

“As today’s case demonstrates, sensitive technology developed by U.S. companies in Silicon Valley and throughout California continues to be vulnerable to coordinated and complex efforts sponsored by foreign governments to steal that technology,” said U.S. Attorney Haag. “Combating economic espionage and trade secret theft remains one of the top priorities of this Office.” . . .

According to the indictment, PRC nationals Wei Pang and Hao Zhang met at a U.S. university in Southern California during their doctoral studies in electrical engineering. While there, Pang and Zhang conducted research and development on thin-film bulk acoustic resonator (FBAR) technology under funding from U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). After earning their doctorate in approximately 2005, Pang accepted employment as an FBAR engineer with Avago Technologies (Avago) in Colorado and Zhang accepted employment as an FBAR engineer with Skyworks Solutions Inc. (Skyworks) in Massachusetts. The stolen trade secrets alleged in the indictment belong to Avago or Skyworks.

Avago is a designer, developer and global supplier of FBAR technology, which is a specific type of radio frequency (RF) filter.

Throughout Zhang’s employment, Skyworks was also a designer and developer of FBAR technology. FBAR technology is primarily used in mobile devices like cellular telephones, tablets and GPS devices. FBAR technology filters incoming and outgoing wireless signals so that a user only receives and transmits the specific communications intended by the user. Apart from consumer applications, FBAR technology has numerous applications for a variety of military and defense communications technologies.

According to the indictment, in 2006 and 2007, Pang, Zhang and other co-conspirators prepared a business plan and began soliciting PRC universities and others, seeking opportunities to start manufacturing FBAR technology in China. Through efforts outlined in the superseding indictment, Pang, Zhang and others established relationships with officials from Tianjin University. Tianjin University is a leading PRC Ministry of Education University located in the PRC and one of the oldest universities in China.

As set forth in the indictment, in 2008, officials from Tianjin University flew to San Jose, California, to meet with Pang, Zhang and other co-conspirators. Shortly thereafter, Tianjin University agreed to support Pang, Zhang and others in establishing an FBAR fabrication facility in the PRC. Pang and Zhang continued to work for Avago and Skyworks in close coordination with Tianjin University. In mid-2009, both Pang and Zhang simultaneously resigned from the U.S. companies and accepted positions as full professors at Tianjin University. Tianjin University later formed a joint venture with Pang, Zhang and others under the company name ROFS Microsystem intending to mass produce FBARs.

The indictment alleges that Pang, Zhang and other co-conspirators stole recipes, source code, specifications, presentations, design layouts and other documents marked as confidential and proprietary from the victim companies and shared the information with one another and with individuals working for Tianjin University.

The six indicted defendants include: Tianjin University Professor Hao Zhang, Professor Wei Pang, Professor Jinping Chen, Huisui Zhang (Huisui), and Chong Zhou, a Tianjin University graduate student, and Zhao Gang, the General Manager of ROFS Microsystems.

The maximum statutory penalty for each one of these violations is more than 10 years imprisonment and 100s of thousands of dollars in fines. The case is USA v. Wei Pang.

On May 21, 2015, Tianjin University denied the charges against the three professors, pledged legal support to the professors and accused U.S. officials of “politicizing” the issue and endangering academic exchanges between the two countries.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASES AGAINST CHINESE, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

Complaints are attached to each citation.

On February 13, 2015, e.Digital Corporation filed the attached patent case against Shenzhen Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd. (dba Oco Camera); Ivideon LLC (dba Oco Camera); Global Innovations; and, New Sight Devices Corp. SHENZHEN GOSPELL

On February 17, 2015, Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC filed a patent complaint against ZTE. PARTHENON ZTE COMPLAINT

On February 27, 2015, Innovation Works, Inc. filed a trademark case against Innovation Works (Beijing) Ltd., IW North America. INNOV BEIJING

On March 2, 2015, Optis Wireless Technology LLC et al filed a patent case against ZTE Corporation et al. OPTIS ZTE

On March 2, 2015, Skyworks Solutions, Inc. filed a patent complaint against Kinetic Technologies, Kinetic Technologies Hong Kong and China. SKYWORKSKIN

On March 4, 2015, Petmatrix LLC filed a patent complaint against Wenzhou Yuxiang Pet Product Co., Ltd. WENZHOU PATENT CASE

On March 5, 2015, Magnet Products International Group filed a trade secrets fraud case against Maghold LLC, Mary Zhang, and Dongguan Maghard Flexible Magnet Co, and Xiaodong Wang. MAGNET TRADE

On March 9, 2015, Orlando Communications LLC filed a patent case against ZTE Corp., et al. ZTE ORLANDO

On March 10, 2015, Saint Lawrence Communications filed a patent complaint against ZTE.  STLAWRENCE ZTE

On March 12, 2015, Anki Inc. filed a patent case against China Industries Ltd T?A Wow Stuff. ANKI CHINA INDUSTRIES

On March 13, 2015, China Central Television, Dish Network LLC et al filed a copyright and trademark case against Create New Technology (HK) Ltd., Hua Yang International Technology Ltd., Shenzhen GreatVision Network Technology Co., Ltd., Club TVPAD, Inc., Bennet Wong, Asha Media Group Inc. d/b/a TVPAD.com, Amit Bhalla, NewTVPad Ltd., Liangzhong Zhou, and Honghui Chen.  CCTV

On March 18, 2015, Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. filed a copyright case against uCool, Inc. and uCool Ltd. LILLITH GAMES SHANGHAI

On March 24, 2015, Wetro Lan filed a patent complaint against Huawei. HUAWEI PATENT COMPLAINT

On March 25, 2015, Streamlight Inc. filed a patent complaint Ningbo Highlite Technical Co., Ltd. NINGBO PATENT

On March 26, 2015, Tianhai Lace, a Chinese company, filed a copyright case against Posh Shop, a US company. TIANHAI COPYRIGHT

On April 1, 2015, Crafty Productions, Inc. et al filed a copyright and fraud case against Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co. Ltd., a China company, Tony Zhu, MRF Associates, Inc., Michelle Faherty, The Michaels Companies, Inc., Michaels Stores, Inc., ZheJiang HongYe Co. Ltd., a China company, Fuzhou Bomy Trading Co., Ltd., a China company, Fuzhou Great Suns Co. Ltd., a China company, Sunface Crafts Co. Ltd., a China company, and a number of other US retail companies. CRAFTY COPYRIGHT

On April 2, 2015, Trans-Texas Tire, LLC filed an unfair competition and breach of contract case for unfair misappropriation of molds against Tianjin Wanda Tyre Group Co., Ltd, and Zhang Guanghhui and Li Xue Yong. TIRE MOLDS UNFAIR COMPETITION

On April 6, 2015, Express Mobile filed a patent case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. ALIBABA EXPRESS

On April 9, 2015, Nonend Inventions, N. V. filed patent complaints against Huawei and ZTE and multiple other high tech clients. NONENDZTE NONENDHUAWEI

On April 17, 2015, Synaptics Inc. filed a patent case against Goodix Technology Inc., Shenzhen Huiding Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Shenzhen Goodix Technology Co., Ltd. and Blu Products, Inc. SHENZHEN PATENT

On April 24, 2015 Nova Intellectual Solutions LLC filed a patent complaint against ZTE. NOVA ZTE CASE

On April 30, 2015, Cellular Communications Equipment LLC filed a patent case against ZTE Corp and a number of other companies. CELL ZTE

On May 1, 2015, Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. filed patent complaints against Wenzhou Ai ER Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. dba Cnaier and Shanghai Anzikang Electric Co., Ltd. PACIFIC BIO WENZHOU PACIFIC BIOSCIENCE

On May 4, 2015, Ti Beverage Group, Ltd. and Michael Machat filed a trademark infringement case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., and Ebay Inc. TIBEV ALIBABA

On May 4, 2015, Anthony California, Inc, filed a copyright and trade secret case against Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Ltd., Chien Tsai Tsai, Chien Ho Tsia, James Moran and M&M Sales, and Direct Lighting LLC. CHINA SHEN NEW BRIGHT

On May 8, 2015, Frequency Systems, LLC filed patent complaints against Huawei and ZTE. ZTE FREQ HUAEWEI AGAIN

On May 12, 2015, Nuhertz Technologies, LLC filed a copyright and trademark case for software piracy against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Alibaba.Com Hong Kong Ltd., Alibaba. Com Ltd., Alibaba.Com Investment Holding Ltd., Other Alibaba Companies, Taobao Holding Ltd., Taobao China Holding Ltd., Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd., and Alipay.Com Co., Ltd. NUEHERTZ ALIBABA

On May 15, 2015, Gucci filed a major trademark and counterfeiting case against Alibaba. Specifically, on May 15, 2015, Gucci America, Inc., Balenciaga S.A., Balenciaga America, Inc., Bottega Veneta S.A., Bottega Veneta Inc., Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. Luxury Goods International (L.G.I.) S.A. and Kering S.A. filed the trademark and counterfeiting case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Alibaba.Com Hong Kong Ltd., Alibaba. Com Ltd., Alibaba.Com Investment Holding Ltd., Other Alibaba Companies, Taobao Holding Ltd., Taobao China Holding Ltd., Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd., and Alipay.Com Co., Ltd. GUCCI ALIBABA

Complaints will be posted on my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com.

ANTITRUST

There have been major developments in the antitrust area in China.

CHINA ANTI-MONOPOLY CASES

DORSEY ARTICLE BY PETER CORNE

Peter Corne, who heads Dorsey’s Shanghai office, published the following article on March 13, 2015 about China’s antimonopoly law:

NDRC’s Qualcomm Decision Sends Mixed Messages

Chinese New Year celebrations culminated in a big way for foreign multinationals in China with the news at the end of February that the head of the National Development and Reform Commission’s (“NDRC’s”) Antitrust Bureau had been removed. Xu Kunlin had made his name by initiating numerous investigations against sectors involving multinationals such as auto parts and bearings, cars, and contact lenses. Former Director Xu (who is still director of the NDRC’s Price Department) was widely regarded as a fine leader, and his Antitrust Bureau hit monopolies with hefty penalties of RMB 7.9 Billion (US$1.29 Billion) from 2014 through February 10, the date the Qualcomm decision was announced as discussed below. He has been replaced by Zhang Handong (former deputy director of the Healthcare Reform Office under the State Council), whom we presume will take time to settle into his new position. Based on his familiarity with the medical sector, we would caution clients in that sector to continue to pay close attention to antitrust compliance.

The full content of the long-awaited result of the Qualcomm decision was published in early March (following the February 10 announcement of the result). In only three prior cases has the NDRC published the full content of an antitrust decision. Qualcomm was ordered to cease its infringing activities and was assessed a fine of RMB 6.1 billion (US$975 million), which represented about 8% of its 2013 revenue in China. The NDRC found Qualcomm guilty of abuse of market dominance and implementing monopolistic activities that eliminate and restrict competition. The following activities were deemed illegal: (1) charging unfairly excessive patent royalties, (2) tying patents that are not standard-essential patents in the telecom industry without a legitimate reason, and (3) imposing unreasonable conditions in the sale of baseband chips. During the investigation Qualcomm cooperated with the authorities and raised a series of rectification measures including the following:

(1) calculating patent royalties on the basis of 65% of net wholesale price of the device sold in China,

(2) when Qualcomm licenses its patent to Chinese licensees it will provide a list of patents and not charge royalties over patents that have already expired,

(3) Qualcomm will no longer require that Chinese licensees provide a compulsory (and royalty-free) cross-license for Qualcomm customers,

(4) where wireless standard-essential patents are concerned, Qualcomm will not tie in non-standard-essential patents without a legitimate reason, and

(5) unreasonable conditions will not be included in the license agreements when selling baseband chips, such as conditions prohibiting licensees from challenging the terms in the license agreement.

The Chinese press celebrated the decision as a victory for China. But Qualcomm was not forced to change its business model by the NDRC, so the decision could have been far worse for Qualcomm, reflected in a rise in the stock price of Qualcomm by 4.69% on the second day after the decision was announced.

Qualcomm’s core business model is to impose royalties on the net selling price of the entire device rather than the chips or other components, so it need now only change the calculation of the royalty base rather than the business model itself, leading some commentators to claim that the decision was a victory for Qualcomm.

Although the media claims victory for both sides, many problems seem to have been forgotten. For example, why was a formal investigation only initiated at the end of 2013 when publicly-available information indicates that the first complaint was made as early as 2008 by Texas Instruments? Further, under the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law a guilty decision requires that illegal gains be confiscated, but this case resulted only in the imposition of a fine.

The NDRC required such a confiscation in the LCD maker case. So if the NDRC agreed that 65% (mentioned above in Qualcomm’s rectification plan) was the correct calculation base, then Qualcomm should at least have been asked to return the portion of royalties calculated on the other 35% (which could amount to billions of dollars). In addition, the law provides that a fine should be charged on the basis of the revenue of the previous year, i.e. 2014, and not 2013, which was used in the decision. Some even questioned the jurisdiction of the NDRC in the first place because, judging from the decision, most of the illegal activities listed were not price-related, indicating that it would have been more appropriate for SAIC to launch the investigation.

On the other hand, Qualcomm dropped its request for a hearing at the last minute, and paid up the fine in only three days. All of the above clues lead us to believe that the decision was the result of a compromise between the investigator and the investigated, in the context of which the investigator somehow lost sight of the fact that it was deviating from the national law. But we have seen this before. For example, in the Liquor Case involving Chinese spirits (Moutai and Wuliangye), the NDRC limited its investigation to provincial level, only in Guizhou and Sichuan.

The moral of the story seems to be to make sure that you proactively engage the authorities up front. It may be best to do so before any investigation is even contemplated. Regardless of the timing, it appears that open engagement during an investigation should lead to a much better result.

ANJIE LAW FIRM

On March 16, 2015, Michael Gu, a Chinese antitrust lawyer at the Anjie Law Firm in Beijing, sent out the attached 014 review of Chinese anti-monopoly law. Public competition enforcement_China 2015_AnJie_20150316.

T&D JANUARY REPORT

On May 2, 2015 T&D also sent us the attached April report on Chinese competition law. T&D Monthly Antitrust Report of April 2015

SECURITIES

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (“FCPA”)

DORSEY MAY ANTI-CORRUPTION DIGEST

Dorsey recently published its attached May anti-corruption digest.  Anti-Corruption-Digest-May2015  With regards to China and Ukraine, the Digest states:

China

China has continued with its ongoing anti-corruption campaign.

In the energy sector, a senior executive at the state energy firm China Sinopec Group is reportedly under investigation for suspected “serious disciplinary violations”, a phrase which has become synonymous with allegations of corruption. China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has reportedly confirmed the investigation but has not disclosed further details about the case. The Chairman of Sinopec, Fu Chengyu, said in an interview with Chinese media that the company supports “the government’s long-term anti-corruption effort, not just cracking down on illegal acts but disciplinary wrongdoings as well”.

In the healthcare sector, it has been reported that the head of Yunnan’s No. 1 People’s hospital is under investigation for allegedly receiving bribes of ¥35 million ($5.6 million/£3.6 million) in cash, 100 properties worth approximately $13 million (£8 million) and a number of car parking spaces. It is alleged that Dr. Wang Tianchao used his position to seek bribes related to medical device procurement and employment positions. Dr. Wang, who was reportedly in the running to become the head of the region’s food and drug regulator, has been removed from his post.

In the retail motor industry, a former top executive at Volkswagen’s joint venture with FAW Group Corporation has been sentenced to life in prison for allegedly accepting bribes. Shi Tao was reportedly convicted of taking ¥33 million ($5 million/£3.2 million) in bribes in exchange for giving business to advertisers and car dealers from FAW-Volkswagen. In a statement, Volkswagen said that it was aware of the case, noting that “globally, Volkswagen is strictly against any kind of illegal conduct, and attaches great importance that all applicable anti-corruption laws are adhered to”.

In its global efforts to trace alleged “economic fugitives”, the Chinese government has published a list of 100 individuals suspected of corruption. The “most wanted” list, which displays the individuals’ photographs, identification numbers and likely whereabouts, is said to be composed of former local government officials, police officers and accountants who are suspected of accepting bribes, misappropriating funds and money laundering.

Ukraine

A new law has been enacted requiring companies to have compliance programs in place. The law applies to most companies participating in public tenders and state-owned enterprises over a certain size and in essence requires companies to appoint a compliance officer with responsibility for implementing the compliance program and reporting to shareholders. The law does not include penalties for failing to implement a compliance program; however companies are encouraged to:

 Conduct regular risk assessments.

 Develop programs to raise employee awareness of anti-corruption.

 Include compliance provisions in contracts with third parties.

Despite the apparent lack of enforcement in place, it is said that officials may consider the establishment of a compliance program when deciding whether to pursue an action against a company.

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS

On February 11, 2015, Claire Rand filed a class action securities case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Lu and Maggie Wu. RANDALIBABA

On March 3, 2015, the SEC filed a securities case against China Infrastructure Investment Corp., Li Xipeng and Wang Feng. SEC CHINA INFRASTRUCTURE

On March 13, 2015, Felipe Garcia filed a class action securities case against Lentuo International, Inc, Hetong Guo, Jing Yang and Yang Jiangyuluo. GARCIA LENTUO

On March 24, 2015, Placidius Silva filed a class action securities case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Lu and Maggie Wu. ALIBABA PLACIDUSE

On March 25, 2015 Qiang Wang filed a class action securities case against Yoliku Tudou, Inc., Victor Wind, Chelfng Koo, and Michael Gexu. WANG YOKOU

On March 26, 2015 Edward Martindale filed a class action securities case against Yoliku Tudou, Inc., Victor Wind, Chelfng Koo, and Michael Gexu. MARTINDALEYOKOU TUDOU

On March 27, 2015, the SEC brought an action against Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc., Aaron Black, and William Fang, the Underwriters of Puda Coal, a Chinese company. SECPUDA COAL

On April 2, 2015, Troy Hung filed a class action securities case against Idreamsky Technology Ltd., Michael Xiangyu Chen, Jun Zou, Anfernee Song Guan, Jeffrey Lyndon, Ko, Steven Xiaoyi Ma, Erhai Liu, Mingyao Wang, David Yuan, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Stifel Nicolas & Company, In Corpora Ted, and Piper Jaffra. HUNGIDREAMY

On April 14, 2015 Rashid Jahm filed a class action securities case against Yoliku Tudou, Inc., Victor Wind, Chelfng Koo, and Michael Gexu. JAHM YOKOU

On April 15, 2015, James Patrick Griffith filed a class action securities case against Idreamsky Technology Ltd., Michael Xiangyu Chen, Jun Zou, Anfernee Song Guan, Jeffrey Lyndon, Ko, Steven Xiaoyi Ma, Erhai Liu, Mingyao Wang, David Yuan, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Stifel Nicolas & Company, In Corpora Ted, and Piper Jaffra. GRIFFITHIDREAM

On April 21, 2015, Francis J. Bonanno filed a class action securities case against Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., Wei Cao and Tony Liu. CELLULAR SECURITIES

On April 29, 2015, the SEC filed an insider trading case against two Chinese nationals, Xiaoyu Xia and Yangting Hu. SECHUAXU

On May 5, 2015, Abraham Jeremias, Roger Mariani and Michael Rubin filed a class action securities case against Idreamsky Technology Ltd., Michael Xiangyu Chen, Jun Zou, Anfernee Song Guan, Jeffrey Lyndon, Ko, Steven Xiaoyi Ma, Erhai Liu, Mingyao Wang, David Yuan, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Stifel Nicolas & Company, In Corpora Ted, and Piper Jaffra. JEREMIASIDREAM

On May 8, 2015, Steve Surrey filed a class action securities case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Lu, Masayoshi Son, Daniel Young, Chee Hwa Tung, Walter The, Ming Kwauk, J. Michael Evans, and Jerry Yang. SURREY ALIBABA

On May 19, 2015, Paul Heller filed a class action securities case against Vishop Holding Ltd., Ya Shen and Donghao Yang. HELLERVISHOP