IGPAC From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Young, Stewart B. Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:14:53 -0400 Stewart: Here is the IGPAC mailing list that I just used to let committee know that we had spoken. KWILKIE@esd.ny.gov; carol@fedeltapartners.com; JPDIAZ@miamidade.gov; jhurst@nlga.us; greg.ibach@nebraska.gov; jmckinney@nado.org; gmize@ncsc.org; plehman@scspa.com; ksanchez@diversifynevada.com; satreat@gmail.com; jleisher@atg.in.gov; Lbaker- tcochran@usmayors.org; dcrippen@nga.org; kferrell@naspo.org; cgray@naruc.org; jon.jukuri@ncsl.org; akarellas@csg.org; ESarper@naic.org; Anthony@nlc.org; Slrbangaorg The following emails bounced back: re naruc.or SIrb a.or Note that Judge Mize of the National Center for State Courts would also like a brie?ng on the Administration's approach to ISDS. Ex 3 - (5 U.S.C. Sec 552(b)(3)) Many theme in advance. Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phonem? 00001 IGPAC mammalian. as an? 4. 5. him .Ei'umj: From: "Seward, Cameron T. To: mbert hamilton@oommence.wa.gov Cc: "Young, Stewart B. ?lewart.b.young@uslr.eop.gov> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:41:12 -0400 Attachments: (16.5 kB) Hi Robert, I wont with Ste? art at the Office of Intergovenunental Affairs and Public Engagement at USTR. We are going tluough and updating our IGPAC list. When you get the chance. can you take a look at the attached and compare to )our records. What I have put together is largely ba off of the list of emails you sent over last week. Feel free to give me a call and discuss. My cell is (202) (6) and my desk is (202) 395-2210. Thank you. Cameron 00001 L'EliSfl lastQName Abrahamson Anthony Aubihl Baker Chandler Cochran Colombo Crippen Diaz Falls Foley Gray First Name. Shirley Clarence Wesley Mark Tom Carol Dan Jose "Pepe" (J P) Kathe Todd Charles Title/ Organization . I . Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Cou rt Executive Director, National League of Cities Export Assistance Manager, Office of Bisioness Assistance, Ohio Development Services Agency Director, Fan Francisco Mayor's Office of International Trade Commerce CEO and Executive Director, US Conference of Mayors Trade Policy Legislative Affairs Committee Chair, Destrict Export Council Executive Director, \lational Governors Association County Commission, District 12, Miami- Dade Director, Corporate and Foundation Relations at LSL College of the Coast Environment (Presvious; Capital Area CASA Assocationa, Louisiana Economic Development, Gorgia Department of Economic Development) Executive Director, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (Retired December, 2015) .EmailAddressf. .. ,Phone1 (b (6) anthong?mlcerg (bounced back} Lba ker-olivebranch@comcastnet mark.chandler@sfgov.org tcochran@usmayors.org carol@fedeltapa rtners.com dcri en@n a.or Kathe.Falls@la.gov (6) cgrav@naruc.org (bounced back) 20000 CHAIR. Governor's Advisor for l'rade Policy, Washington State Department of Hamilton Robert COmmerCE (6) Executive Director, National Lieutenant Hurst Julia Governors Associalion jhurst@nlpa.us Director, Nebraska Deparement of lbach Gregory Agrculture greg.ibach@nebraska.gov Scheduler, QED lnvestors/ Ffestiniog Company LLC (Previous: National lrby Shelly Governors Association) (bounced back) Senior Director, Labor and Economic Development Committee, National Jukuri Jon Conference of State Legislatures jon.jukuri@ncsl.org Director of Federal Affairs, Council of Karen? Andy State Governments akarellas@csg.org Vermont State Representative, Member of the Commission on lnternational Trade Keenan Kathleen State Sovereignty Lehman Phillip South Carolina Ports plehman@scspa.com Leisher Office of the Indiana Attorney General jleisher@atg.m.gov Executive Director, National Association McKinney Joe of Development Organizations jmckinney@nado.org Judicial Fellow, National Center for State Mize (Judge) Gregory Courts gmize@ncsc.org Executive Director, international O'Neill Bob City/ County Management Association roneill@lCMA.org 90000 Sanchez Sarper 'l ripp ilkie Kristopher krem Kay Director of international Irade, Nevada Governor?s Office of Economic Development ksanchez@diversifynevada.corn Senior International Relations Policy Advrsor and Chief Bilateral Relations Liaison, National Association of Insurance Commissioners ESarper@naic.org sa rea {(023 ma i me Empire State Develo pment/ New York 170000 Phonez (6) Term Expiration Clearance Status Socrot 8/6/2010 None Secret - 12/6/2011 5/509 rec'd email fr. DOC r0. SA's security papers promise to 50nd Sent forms on May 6, 2015; SF-86 forwarded to Carol by Sent forms via email 2/12/2010; pending cxplaniation on "yes" 90000 (6) Secret 5/30/2014 Top Secret 10/1/2015 Interim Secret 11/4/2015 to alurl re. pmming expiration ol- sccurily clearance. 8/ 2/ Sent forms on 4/ 6/ 2015 Sent forms: 4/ 30/ 205; 6/ '1 5 2015; 8/5/2015; forwarded 90000 Secret - 2014 Forward to PSD 12/4/2013 ?0000 . to USTR once secs. 17 18 are completed; PSO forwarded preliniary form 4/ 12/2017 [1/22/2016 ones on forms - 3/ 9/ 10 80000 0 )07; Emailed forms 4/ 7/ 2014; Prliminary forms to PSD 4/8/2014 i forms to PSD 8/26/2015 RE: Topics for USTR IGPAC brie?ng From: "Seward, Cameron T. administrative group cam'> To; "Hamilton, Robert Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 09:03:16 ?0400 Hi Rob?ft, When you get the chance, give me a call to discuss?(202 (6) Thanks, Cameron From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 3:58 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. E0 Subject: RE: Topics for USTR IGPAC briefing Hi Cameron: I keep getting new requests from IGPAC members for a USTR briefing on a variety of topics. NAFTA The renegotiation process, including timing? 0 Will there be an opportunity for stakeholder presentations during the August 16 NAFTA round as was the practice under prior administrations? ISDS What is the Administration?s approach toward the Investor?State Dispute Mechanism? 0 Update regarding the Administration's thinking on TTIP. US-UK FTA What is plan for advisory committees and stakeholders to provide input to the US-UK trade discussions? New IGPAC members 0 What is the Administration?s thinking regarding adding new members to advisory committees? Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: (6) From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) 00001 1 Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:51 AM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Subject: Topics for USTR IG PAC briefing NAFTA Hi Robert. I would really like an overview of the process they intend to follow, the expected timing, some assurance regarding trilateral approach, etc (CCOLOMBO ISDS - mize TTIP New IGPAC members Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: (6) 00002 RE: IGPAC meeting f?gderd, Cameron T. administrative group ca Ilgamilton, Robert ?gung, Stewart B. 19::08 Aug 2017 18:21:57 -O400 OK I'll check with our APEC Affairs office now and loop back. From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:18 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. Cc: Young, Stewart B. EOPIUSTR Subject: RE: IGPAC meeting Works for me. Thank you. Robert Hamilton Governor's Adviser for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: (6) From: Seward, Cameron T. Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 3: 16 PM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Cc: Young, Stewart B. ?rewart.B.Young@ustr.eop.gov> Subject: RE: IGPAC meeting I suspect there will be plenty to discuss surrounding NAFTA and KORUS to fill the hour since those issues are front-and-center. Shall we plan on that? I can make sure someone from our APEC affairs office is available. From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) [m erce.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:33 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. Cc: Young, Stewart B. ?rewan.B.Young@ustr.eop.gov> Subject: RE: IGPAC meeting Hi Cameron: Here is the laundry list of topics that IGPAC is interested in. That said, I think we need to add the KORUS-FTA to the list. (I have sent a draft response to USTR's request for input on that agreement to IGPAC members.) I understand that it is quite possible that not all topics can be address in one briefing due to schedules as well as the possibility that the Adm inistration's position has not been worked out on other issues. 00001 3 Bottom line is that NAFTA is the most pressing issue, but the Administration's approach to ISDS is also a big part of the NAFTA renegotiation for IGPAC. I am open on August 22. I assume that this will be a phone briefing. (My travel budget is $0 with exceptions made to travel to Geneva as part of the WTO Boeing disputes.) NAFTA The renegotiation process, including timing? Will there be an opportunity for stakeholder presentations during the August 16 NAFTA round as was the practice under prior administrations? ISDS What is the Administration's approach toward the Investor-State Dispute Mechanism? TTIP Update regarding the Adm inistration's thinking on TTIP. US-UK FTA What is plan for advisory committees and stakeholders to provide input to the US-UK trade discussions? New IGPAC members What is the Administration's thinking regarding adding new members to advisory comm ittees? Thanks again. Robert Hamilton Govemor's Adviser for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: (6) From: Seward, Cameron T. Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 1:16 PM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Cc: Young, Stewart B. Subject: IGPAC meeting Robert, Wanted to circle back on a potential IGPAC meeting. Would 2:00 on Tuesday, August 22nd work? I have Daniel Watson, Deputy Assistant USTR in our Western Hemisphere office, lined up to give an update on NAFTA renegotiations. What other topics do you think folks would want to cover on the call or do you think NAFTA would take up the better part of an hour? Please feel free to call and we can discuss in person (202) (6) Cameron 00002 RE: IGPAC Security Clearance From: "Seward, Cameron T. To: "Hamilton, Robert "Young, Stewart B. Cc: kferrell@naspo-org, "Tidwell, Deborah D. Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 13:25:15 -0400 Thankyou, Robert. I have looped in Deb Tidwell who handles security clearances for our office. Deb, I believe you still require Ms. Ferrell?s signature? From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 12:07 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. Young, Stewart B. Cc: kferrell@naspo.org Subject: FW: IG PAC Security Clearance Hi Cameron, Stewart: Please note that Krista Ferrell should have a security clearance. Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: (6) From: Krista Ferrell [mailtozkferrell@naspo.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 9:02 AM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Subject: RE: IGPAC Security Clearance I should have clearance. I worked with Debra Tidwell last August. Do these need renewed? From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 11:54 AM To: jmckinnev @.na.d9._9rg; gmize@ncsc.org; plehman@scspa.com; ksanchez@diversifynevada.com; satreat@gmail.com; jleisher@atg.in.gov; mark.chandler@sfgov.org; tcochran@usmayors.org; dcrippen@nga.org; Krista Ferrell jon.ju kuri@ncsl.org; akarellas@csg.org; KKEENAN@Ieg.state.vt.us; roneill@lCMA.org; ESarper@naic.org; Subject: IGPAC Security Clearance 00001 5 Greetings All: According to USTR, only the following members of IGPAC currently have security clearances and can review documents on the agency's secure website. If you have a security clearance, but your name does not appear on the list below, please let me know ASAP. If you do not have a security clearance, I strongly encourage you to obtain one. Please let me know if you have any questions. Shirley Abrahamson Carol Colombo JP Diaz Robert Hamilton Julia Hurst Gregory lbach Jon Jukuri Joe McKinney Gregory Mize Kristopher Sanchez Kay Wilkie Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: m? 00002 RE: MAX.gov {mam vat-aw liaasueav ?rue-?4 nix-aw From: "Seward, Cameron T. To: "Hamilton, Robert Cc: "Young, Stewart B. Qtewart.b.young@ustr.eop.gov> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:57:08 -0400 Great. Thank you. --?-Original Mcssag From: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Sent: Tuesday. August 8. 20l7 l:55 AM To: Seward. Cameron T. Cc: Young. Stewart B. Subject: RE: MAXgov have sent out an email to members. 1 also encouraged those that don't have a security clearance to get one! Robert Hamilton Governor's Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle. WA 9819?) Phone: (6) --?Original Messag Front: Seward. Cameron T. Sent: Tuesday. August 8, 2017 5:13 AM To: Hamilton. Robert (COM) gov-> Cc: Young. Stewart B. Subject: RE: MAX.gov Thanks. Robert. You might send a note to the group reminding them that an active security clearance is required to have access to the MAX site and the forthcoming NAFTA text and copy myself and/or Stewart so we can make sure they get what they need. Best. Cameron --?-Original From: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Sent: Monday. August 7. 2017 6:42 PM To: Seward. Cameron T. Cc: Young. Stewart B. Subject: RE: MAXgov 'l?hanks. Very frustrating that more members haven't worked to get their security clearance. I believe that Sharon 'l'reat has a security clearance. Robert llamilton Governor's Adviser for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle. WA 98199 Phone: (6) 00001 From: Seward, Cameron T. Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 12:39 PM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Cc: Young, Stewart B. Subject: MAXgov Hi Robert, We anticipate releasing NAFTA text to the secure MAX. gov site for all cleared advisors late this week. Only those with active security clearances will be able to View the text. Below is a list of who from IGPAC will be able to access the MAX site: Shirley Abrahamson Carol Colombo JP Diaz Robert Hamilton Julia. Hurst Gregory Ibaeh on Jukuri Joe McKinney Gregory Mize Kristopher Sanchez Kay Wilkie 1 am working with our folks here to schedule a call with the full committee the week after the first round of NAFTA negotiations and will be in touch as that gets firmed up. Please let us know if you have any questions, Thanks, Cameron 00002 8 Re: Advisory Committee Chairman Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule From stewart.b.young@ustr.eop.gov To: "Hamilton, Robert Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:58:08 -0400 Appreciate it! Helpful to know how things have been done in the past! On Aug 10. 2017. at 2:28 PM. Hamilton. Robert (COM) wrote: 3 Might be a good idea to send out all such notices to all conunittee members in the future, This would be in keeping with past practice. Robert Hamilton Governor's Adviser for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98199 i> Phone: (6) Message-?- From: Young. Stewart B. Sent: Thursday. August 10. 2017 10:58 AM To: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Subject: Re: Advisory Committee Chairman Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule This went out only to chairs. Will you share with your committee? Thanks! On Aug 10. 2017. at 1:50 PM. Hamilton. Robert (COM) wrote: Hi Stewart: Did this email go out to all Committee members or just to the chairs? Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle. WA 9819?) Phone: (6) From: Young. Stewart B. Sent: Thursday. August 10. 2017 7: 17 AM To: Young. Stewart B. Cc: Seward. Cameron T. Subject: Advisory Committee Chainnan Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule Good Morning All - USTR will begin posting text for cleared advisor review this morning. Please review and provide comments as needed prior to COB August ISth. Please share this email with your respective committee members. and feel reach Out to my self or Cameron with any questions. As always. we appreciate your guidance. 00001 9 Best. Slcu'an Stewart Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Of?ce of the United States Trade Representative StewartB . You ugu?q?t STR.eop. (0) 202-395-2864 202% 00002 RE: Advisory Committee Chairman Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule - From: "Hamilton, Robert To: 'Tldwell, Deborah D. "Young. Stewart B. Cc: Carol Colombo Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:48:07 -0400 Thanks Deborah. Robert Hamilton Governor's Adviser for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle. WA 98I99 Phone: (6) Messag From: Tidwell. Deborah D. [mailto:Deborah_Tidwell Sent: Friday. August 11. 2017 4:11 AM To: Young. Stewart B. STR Hamilton. Robert (COM) eormneree.wa.gov> Cc: Carol Colombo Subject: RE: Advisory Committee Chairman Notice: NAFT A TEXT and Call Schedule Greetings Team. PSO confirmed Carol olombo's clearance is still active and paperwork was completed for the reim'estigation process Thank you. -??-Original rom: Young. Stewart B. Sent: Thursday. August l0. 20 7 4:16 PM To: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Cc: Care] Colombo Subject: Re: Advisory Committee Chairman Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule So sorry for asking an admin question. but do you have any idea who I can call to get my user ID and password? My EA is on vacation and I am out of the of?ce far the next week. so I can not access. Best - Carol On .Aug 10. 2017. at 12:02 PM. Hamilton. Robert (COM) a. gm wrote: Hi Carol: ljust got on using the old link to the secure website. (6) Robert Hamilton Gox ernor's Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle- WA 98199 Phone (6) From: Carol Colombo Sent: Thursday. August 10. 2017 11:55 AM To Hamilton. Robert (COM) commerce wagov> Subject: Re: Advisory Committee Chainnan Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule Hi Robert - how do 1 access the text? 1 did not see instructions. Best - Cami l- Sent from my iPlione On Aug 10. 2017. at 11:03 AM. Hamilton. Robert (COM) wrote: Greetings All: Please see email from USTR below about proposed text. Robert Hamilton Govemor's Adn'sor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle. WA 98199 Phone: (6) From: Young, Stewart B. gov] Sent; Thursday. August 10. 2017 7:17 AM To: Young. Stewart B. STR Ce: Seward. Cameron T. Subject: Adx?isory Corrunittee Chairman Notice: NAFTA TEXT and Call Schedule Good Moniing All - USTR will begin posting text for cleared advisor rex'iew this morning. Please review and provide comments as needed prior to COB August 15th. Please share this entail with your respective committee members. and feel reach out to myself or Cameron with any questions. As always. we appreciate your guidance. Best. Stewart 00002 Stewan B. Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Othee of the United States Trade Representative STR .cop. (0) 202-195-2864 202m- 00003 RE: us no From: "Young, Stewart B. administrative group stew"> To: "Wilkie, Kay Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:14:23 ?0400 Thank you! From: Wilkie, Kay (ESD) Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:42 PM To: Young, Stewart B. Subject: Re: Question Hi Stewart, No worries, I will reach out to her. Cheers, -- Original message From: "Young, Stewart B. Date: 8/21/17 6:03 PM To: "Wilkie, Kay Subject: Question ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Kay - Please see below, and let me know if you'd like me to connect you. From: Christine LoCascio Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:41 PM To: Young, Stewart B, Cc: Tom LaFaille (tlafaille@wineinstitute.org) Subject: last caller/ beverage alcohol access to Canada Stewart- I'd like to connect with the last caller regarding her questions on beverage alcohol access to Canada. I did not catch her name. Can you help connect me with her? Thanks, Christine Christine LoCascio 00001 Senior Vice President lntemational Issues and Trade Distilled Spirits Council 1250 Street. NW Suite 400 Washington. DC 20005 Tel: 202-682-8883 Email: Stewan B. Young Intergovermnental Affairs and Public Engagement The Office of the United States 'l'mde Representative StewartBYoun .7211; . 0v (0) 202m- TMPORTANT: This e?mail message and any attachments contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, con?dential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please immediately notify the sender by electronic mail or notify the System Administrator by telephone (518)292-5180 or e-mail (administrator@esd.ny. gov) and delete the message. Thank you. 00002 RE: IGPAC Advisory Committees Notice: NAFTA Round One Call Schedule 451A wwWNWW va/u t, NW ?We, WHMM $333333! From: "Young, Stewart B. adninistrative group stew"> To: "Hamilton, Robert Date: Tue. 22 Aug 2017 14:08:18 -0400 Robert can give me a'call?' 202-395-2864 Thank you! From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:57 PM To: Young, Stewart B. Subject: RE: IGPAC Advisory Committees Notice: NAFTA Round One Call Schedule Getting and invalid participant code message From: Young, Stewart B. [StewartB.Young@ustr.eop.gov] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:18 PM To: Young, Stewart B. Seward, Cameron T. Cc: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Subject: IGPAC Advisory Committees Notice: Round One Call Schedule Good Evening IG PAC Advisory Committee USTR will host a IG PAC meeting on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 2:00 pm, and it will be for the full committee membership. Please use this dial-in number: Participant Dial-In: (202) (6) articipant Cod (6) have attached an agenda for your review. This call is open only to cleared advisors. We look forward to your participation. Thank you, Stewart Stewart B. Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Office of the United States Trade Representative Stewart.B.Young@USTR.eo . 0V 202-395-2864 202W 00001 FW: IGPAC Advisory Committees Notice: NAFTA Round One Call Schedule - yaw.er - wer - From: "Young, Stewart B. Qtewartb.young@ustr.eop.gov> To: "Hamilton, Robert Cc: "Seward, Cameron T. Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:33:47 -0400 Attachments: Agenda IGPAC Call 8-25-2017.pdf (88.05 kB) Robert Will you send out as well? Some may not have my name yet. Thank you again. Stewart From: Young, Stewart 8. Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:33 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. Cc: 'Hamilton, Robert Subject: RE: IGPAC Advisory Committees Notice: NAFTA Round One Call Schedule Importance: High Good Evening IG PAC Advisory Committee - USTR will host a IG PAC meeting on Friday, August 25, 2017, at 2:00 I be for the full committee membership. Please use this dial-in number: Participant Dial-In: (202) articipant Code: (6) have attached an agenda for your review. This call is open only to cleared advisors. We look forward to your participation. Thank you, Stewart Stewart B. Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Office of the United States Trade Representative Stewa rt. B.Young@ USTR. eopgov (0) 202?395-2864 202(6) 00001 IGPACW From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Young, Stewart B. "Seward, Cameron T. Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:28:15 -0400 Attachments: AS POSTED BY USTRE (264.49 kB) Hi Steward and Cameron: Pet Kay?s request (3) (A) (3) (A) Robert 00001 2, 12:333. 5 The Emma?ng mean [Enifg??i R??gjxiegema?m Qf?iu?? 13f ?118 Uniie?i Regr?gwia?w 6300 391er Waghiagm?, 2(3508 ?gaf Ambag Sada? with 5(bji?) ?21? 1:116: i3?p?f?i$a? ?1'rmi3 and Aizgzauniab?ity Ami; 2313 153.3118 sec?cm 135(3) 3% the Tm?e- gci-Qf' a3 amalgam, 123m pfaagec? {a Eirangmii?h? PQEEW gadvimry mine Pari??rshipg 3?6?e?iiz?ig :??s'a?gus majm?ii?y' acivismy {?pinianm? ?3333: Agreem?ni, Sincamly? {m (if; g/ 7 gfgj?vj - f; Rabat?? Jif?gf $151211;Inim?gmwm?jmfal Paglia; a?ivigmy Sammi?a?s 00001 The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Report of the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee December 3, 2015 00002 Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee Advisory Committee Report to the President, the Congress and the United States Trade Representative on the Trans-Paci?c Partnership Agreement I. Purpose of the Committee Report Section 135 1) ofthe Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that advisory committees provide the President, the US Trade Representative, and Congress with reports not later than 30 days after the President noti?es Congress of his intent to enter into an agreement. Under Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the report of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations and each appropriate policy advisory committee must include an advisory opinion as to Whether and to what. extent the agreement promotes the economic interests of the United States and achieves the applicable overall and principle negotiating objectives set forth in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. The report of the appropriate sectoral or functional committee must also include an advisory opinion as to Whether the agreement provides for equity and reciprocity Within the sectoral or functional area. 11. Executive Summary of Committee Report IGPAC members believe that the TPP meets mo st of the overall and principle negotiating objectives as set forth in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 201 5 and most members believe the TPP promotes the overall economic interests of the United States, provided that the serious reservations about the investor-state dispute mechanism and other issues outlined below are addressed. That being stated, not all members of IGPAC have expressed complete support for the TPP. More members would likely support the TPP ifsome of the issues discussed below were addressed prior to sending the agreement to Congress for consideration. IGPAC members believe ?rmly that this TA -- like all trade agreements -- should be drafted, implemented, and interpreted, to respect and give due consideration to existing state and local level regulatory, tax, and economic development policies, and to support the social, economic, and environmental values that those policies promote. Consistent With longstanding principles of federalism, statutes and regulations that states and local governments have validly adopted, that are constitutional, and that reflect locally appropriate responses to the needs of our residents, should not be overridden by provisions in trade agreements. Brief Description of the hiandate of the InterU= overnmental Policy Advisory Committee Established by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), pursuant to Section 135(c)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19C. 215 as amended, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 C. App. II) and Section 4(d) of Executive Order No. 1 1846 dated March 27, 1975, the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC) is charged with providing overall policy advice on trade policy matters that have a signi?cant relationship to the affairs of state and local governments Within the jurisdiction of the United States. 00003 IGPAC consists of approximately 21 members appointed from, and reasonably representative of, the various states and other non-federal governmental entities within the jurisdiction of the United States. These entities include, but are not limited to, the executive and legislative branches of state, county, and municipal governments. Members may hold elective or appointive of?ce. The Chair of the Committee is appointed by the US Trade Representative, and members are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the US Trade Representative for a period not to exceed the duration of the IGPAC charter. The US Trade Representative, or the designee, shall convene meetings of the Committee. objectives and scope of its activities are to: Advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the US Trade Representative and relevant. Cabinet or sub-Cabinet members concerning trade matters referred to in 19 C. Section 2155(c)( A). Draw on the expertise and knowledge of its members and on such data and information as is provided it by the Of?ce of the US Trade Representative. Establish such additional subcommittees of its members as may be necessary, subject to the provisions ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act and the approval of the US Trade Representative, or the designee. Report to the US Trade Representative, or the designee. The US Trade Representative or the designee will be responsible for prior approval of the agendas for all Committee meetings. The US Trade Representative, or the dcsignce, will have responsibility for determinations, ?lings, and other administrative requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Of?ce of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison ofthe Office of the Trade Representative will coordinate and provide the necessary staff and clerical services for IGPAC. IGPAC Members serve without either compensation or reimbursement of expenses. IV. Negotiating Obieetives and Priorities of the IGPAC State and local governments play a vital role in advancing America?s global competitiveness. IGPAC members affirm that our nation?s economic interests are best served by embracing trade and economic development policy strategies that: (1) Are developed in a nonpartisan manner in close consultations with relevant stakeholders; (2) Yield signi?cant, measurable economic gains for the country, increase the competitiveness of American industries, and promote full employment While broadly raising living standards; (3) Create more open, transparent, and reciprocal market access; (4) Commit resources to global market research and trade development assistance for small and mid- sized US businesses, in order that they can take advantage of new and growing market opportunities, and increase exports; (5) Provide comprehensive assistance to workers negatively impacted by technology and changing trade and investment ?ows; 00004 4 (6) Invest in innovative research and technologies to foster commercialization and job creation in the globally competitive industries and jobs of the future; (7) Safeguard essential federalism principles; (8) Respect and promote basic American values; (9) Protect other US objectives including consumer interests, national security and the protection of health, environmental and safety laws and regulations; (10) Promote labor rights and the rights of children in keeping with ILO core labor standards; (1 1) Provide foreign investors with no greater substantive and procedural rights than those enjoyed by US citizens and businesses; and (12) Ensure that environmental and trade policies are mutually supportive. Although the TPP meets a number of these strategic goals, IGPAC believes that the agreement could be signi?cantly improved if the changes discussed below were incorporated in the agreement prior to Congressional consideration. Recommendations for Improving Federal-State Trade Policy Consultations IGPAC appreciates efforts launched in 2003 to broaden participation in trade policy formulation by state and local government representatives through the expansion of the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee on Trade (IGPAC). In order for IGPAC to perform its duty it is absolutely critical that the committee consist of keenly interested cleared advisors that represent a wide variety of states and expertise in state and local interests potentially impacted by international trade agreements. Because effective consultation is critical to achieving consensus on essential trade policy matters, IGPAC hopes that its submission to USTR on August 5, 2004 entitled ?Recommendations for Improving Federal- State Trade Policy Coordination? may eventually be considered by Congress and USTR, and implemented in some form. In addition, while in recent years, USTR has greatly increased its outreach to IGPAC members and has frequently briefed committee members on the status of negotiations; this is no substitute for access to the working text. IGPAC strongly urges changes to the advisory committee process that allow members much more frequent access to the working text. Moreover, IGPAC seeks improvements in the collection and dissemination of international trade data. In particular, as the US economy is increasingly driven by the services sector, it is vital that state-level services export data collection be improved. Similarly, states and regions cannot assess their trade balances and relative global competitiveness unless the federal government makes significant progress in collecting state-level merchandise and services import data. In the past, USTR briefed IGPAC on trade policy developments on the ?rst Monday of every month, but this practice has been discontinued. IGPAC respectfully requests that regular brietin gs be scheduled at least once every quarter by phone and once a year in person in order for members to stay more fully abreast of trade policy developments. IGPAC would also appreciate receiving redacted summaries of trade policy negotiations that can be reviewed by non-cleared members and other state and local officials. 00005 V. Advisory Committee Opinion on the TPP IGPAC members believe that the TPP meets mo st of the overall and principle negotiating objectives as set forth in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 201 5 and most members believe the TPP promotes the overall economic interests of the United States, provided that the serious reservations about the investor-state dispute mechanism and other issues outlined below are addressed. However there is not uniform support for all TPP provisions. A fuller evaluation of the economic impacts of the agreement is hampered by the absence ofthe US International Trade Commission?s (USITC) economic analysis of the TPP, which will not be prepared until next year. More members would likely support TPP in its entirety if some of the issues discussed below were addressed prior to sending the agreement to Congress for consideration. IGPAC members believe ?rmly that all trade agreements should be drafted, implemented, and interpreted, in a manner that respects and gives due consideration to existing state and local level regulatory, tax, and economic development policies and supports the social, economic, and environmental values that those policies promote. Consistent with longstanding principles of federalism, statutes and regulations that states and local governments have validly adopted, that are constitutional, and that refl ect locally appropriate responses to the needs of our residents, should not be overridden by trade agreements. In addition, our trade agreements must recognize and support the sovereignty of state judicial systems and the enforcement and finality of state court judgements. These concerns are re?ected in directive of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 201 5 that trade agreements ?ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world's resources.? Further, the Act makes ?ensuring that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than United States investors in the United States? a crucial trade policy negotiating objective. The principle that the United States may request, but not require, states to alter their regulatory regimes in areas over which they hold constitutional authority must be maintained. IGPAC members reaf?rm that international trade and investment agreements need to be structured in a manner consistent with the principles of US constitutional federalism. To the extent that USTR may wish to negotiate liberalization of services and other matters under states? sovereign jurisdiction, it is essential to confer with states in order to gain their informed, explicit advice and consent. The general ?blanket? exemption for ?existing? and subsequent state and local measures that do not increase the degree of non- conformity could leave open a myriad of potential disputes involving future state policies. The unintended consequence might be to freeze state and local legislation in ways that prevent them from adapting adequately to changing facts and circumstances. 00006 USTR-17-0444-A-000034 6 At the same time that the United States pursues greater market access and more emphasis on SMEs in recent FTAs, IGPAC stresses the importance of expanding America?s trade promotion capacity. While it is often stressed that small- and mid-sized ?rms stand to bene?t the most ?om TAs, these companies frequently ?nd it dif?cult to enter foreign markets. The economic literature has extensively reported that US SMEs face numerous barriers to exporting their products including tariffs, the cost and resources to explore and test new markets, research and development, product localization, compliance with foreign technical standards and other regulations, trade ?nance, the small scale of SME production, time- consuming foreign customs procedures, and language and cultural differences- At the state-level, we are Well aware of the many local companies that have successfully begun to export for the ?rst time, entered new markets or expanded their exports as a result of both federal and state export promotion programs. IGPAC believes that the agreement could be signi?cantly improved if the changes discussed below were incorporated in the agreement prior to Congressional consideration. Environment IGPAC members support the increasing focus on environmental issues in recent US FTAs including the extension of dispute settlement provisions to the chapter. The committee also appreciates the exclusion of state and local environmental laws that are not enforceable by action of the federal government from the enforcement provisions of the TPP environment chapter. Multilateral Environmental Agreements: The TPP environment chapter contains some improvements over environment chapters in other FTAs, while falling short in other areas. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of2015 speci?cally requires TPP to ?ensure that a party to a trade agreement with the United States?(i) adopts and maintains measures implementing internationally recognized core labor standards (as de?ned in section 1 1(1 and its obligations under common multilateral environmental agreements (as defined in section It is unclear Whether the chapter in its totality meets this obligation. TPP members have committed to implement all the MEAs to which they are a party but some TPP member countries have not signed on to the MEAs that were speci?cally cited in the May 10, 2007 bipartisan agreement on trade and the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. The TPP environment chapter does not directly name the Ramsar Convention on \Vetlands and Waterfowl, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and the Inter?American Tropical Tuna Convention, although it contains provisions that address the issues underlying these MEAs. The TPP environment chapter does include obligations related to three other MEAs referenced in the May 10, 2007 agreement and the Bipartisan Congress Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), and the Montreal Protocol on protection of the ozone layer, but it appears that CITES is the only MEA that is fully enforceable under the TPP- It is unclear why provisions related to the Montreal Protocol and MARPOL differ from earlier FTAs since all TPP members are signatories to these two MEAs. In short these MEAs must be fully enforceable under the TPP. 00007 The four missing MEAs are signi?cant. For example, Japan has a major whaling ?shery and a record of non-compliance with international whaling provisions. As recently as April of this year, Japan announced that it would continue to kill Minke Whales in the Antarctic despite the rejection of its plan by an expert panel advising the International \Vhaling Commission?s Scienti?c Committee. Although the TPP environment chapter addresses the issue areas covered by the four missing MEAs, the agreement would be greatly improved ifall seven MEAs were enforceable under the agreement for all TPP member countries. IGPAC ?rmly believes that the US government should make it a high priority to convince TPP members to sign and strongly enforce all of these seven MEAs ifthey have not already done so. Other Natural Resource Provisions: The provisions relating to the prohibition of two of the most harmful ?sh subsidies and commitments to combat illegal trade in wildlife and plants and ?sh that go beyond CITES are a step in the right direction but should be strengthened, particularly given the problems in those areas in some TPP member countries. Speci?cally, the TPP includes legally binding rules that address two key subsidies that contribute to unsustainable ?shing practices, which is a positive development. At the same time, the text 011 shark ?nning and whaling is not binding but rather merely aspirational, and provisions related to illegal trade in flora and fauna should be stronger, as the text only commits TPP countries to ?combat? illegal trade, but not prohibit it. Given that a number of TPP countries are signi?cant exporters, importers or transit countries for illegally taken wildlife, and sites of extensive illegal logging [for example the World Bank estimates that 80 percent ofPeru?s timber exports come from illegal logging), these provisions should be signi?cantly stronger. Enforcement: A key question is whether the environment provisions will be consistently enforced. For example, serious questions have been raised about whether Peru has complied with the environmental provisions as they relate to forestry products of its FTA with the United States. As of this time, no party has ever brought a formal case based on the environmental provisions of any US FTA, despite documented violations. The public submissions provisions found in Article 20.9 of the environment chapter, which could be a useful mechanism to identify violations and trigger enforcement, do not require any action to be taken in response to a submission. recognizes the dispute settlement might not always be the most judicious way to address environmental complaints but the United States must utilize all consultative and environmental cooperative arrangements to expeditiously and thoroughly address any valid complaint under this chapter. IGPAC strongly encourages the devotion of enough resources to ensure that the provisions of the TPP environment chapter are enforced. in addition strongly supports the environment cooperation agreements that are negotiated in parallel with the FTA, which connect US technical assistance and capacity building efforts to the implementation of specific FTA obligations. 00008 Government Procurement The United States made no firm commitment to cover sub-federal government procurement under the TPP. (Thirty-seven states agreed to be covered by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and a smaller number of states have agreed to adhere to the government procurement chapters of other FTAs, including those with some TPP?member countries.) The TPP, however, does include a built?in agenda where within three years the member countries shall initiate negotiations to consider expanding coverage at both the federal and sub-federal level. IGPAC endorses consistent approach of seeking the approval of sub-federal governments for any government procurement commitments under the TPP, particularly as sub?federal coverage has become increasingly controversial in recent years. IGPAC would object to any expansion of state?level coverage Whether in the form of removing any exceptions, lowering procurement thresholds or coverage of state procurement entities Without explicit state consent. As IGPAC has pointed out many times in the past, one of the biggest difficulties for US sub-federal governments in this area is the complete lack of data on the success of US companies in obtaining foreign government contracts or foreign companies in obtaining US federal and state government procurement contracts. As a result, it is impossible for sub-federal governments to make a decision on government procurement coverage based on any concrete data. Moreover, little effort has been made by US trade agencies to provide follow up information or seminars about how US SMEs can take advantage of foreign government procurement opportunities. IGPAC members urge USTR, the US Department of Commerce, and other relevant federal agencies, to provide information to the public about the economic consequences ofproeurement market liberalization, collect. and share data on the market value of international procurement opportunities, and provide technical assistance to US firms that will allow them to succeed in foreign procurement markets under all FTAs and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. As a matter of general principle, IGPAC members support the goal of improving transparency and increasing fair market access in government procedures and regulatory decisions related to procurement, while preserving the independent authority of state and local governments to adopt legislation, standards and procedures consistent with their experience and interests. IGPAC members are split on the advisability of sub-federal governments agreeing to adhere to procurement agreements. Intellectual Property Rights IGPAC recognizes the importance ofintelleetual property?intensive industries to the economy of our country and the estimated 40 million Americans jobs that are directly or indirectly related to these industries. The enforcement of strong intellectual property rights (IPR) helps ensure that IPR holders reap the bene?ts of their creativity and innovation, While preserving the comparative advantage of US intellectual property?intensive industries. The failure to enforce strong IPR damages US firms and workers and potentially exposes consumers to harmful counterfeit and pirated products. For example, several years ago the US Inteniational Trade Commission estimated that if China by itself improved the protection of IPR to that found in the United States, the US economy would enjoy an additional $107 billion in additional sales While supporting an additional 2.1 million jobs in our country. 00009 9 At the same, the TPP text must find the appropriate balance between protecting IPR and the affordability of products and services to consumers. In particular, given the increasing costs of healthcare, the affordability of pharmaceutical products is extremely important for consumers at home and abroad, particularly in dEVeloping countries. Any provisions that address patent linkage, the ever-greening of patents and excessive data exclusivity periods must allow for distinguishing between the failure of health care authorities to respect the bona ?de rights of intellectual property holders and the efforts of pharmaceutical companies to expand their pro?ts at the expense of consumers. One area of concern is the data exclusivity protections for biologics. While the ?nal TPP data exclusivity provisions for biologics provide some ?exibility for developing TPP member countries, they might fall short of the terms May 10, 2007 bipartisan agreement on trade with respect to developing countries. Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Healthcare Technologies IGPAC supports the non-application of dispute settlement to the annex. Investment Despite some Welcome modi?cations to the TPP investment text, the investment chapter of free trade agreements continues to concern due to the inclusion of the investor state dispute settlement (ISD S) mechanism. IGPAC strongly urges that the mechanism be eliminated from the agreement. In addition to being concerned about cases that can be brought against the United States, IGPAC is concerned that investors from nations with well-developed legal systems appear to have abused these provisions to improperly and frivolously challenge the authority of developing country governments at both the central level and sub-central IGPAC is concerned that the ISDS system creates greater procedural rights for foreign investors by establishing a mechanism that is not available to domestic companies and is free from the procedural and other rulings of domestic courts. Even more concerning, these rights are still not limited to procedural advantages; the expansive de?nition of?investment? in the TPP, and arbitrator interpretations of terms including ?fair and equitable treatment,? have veered from the stricter Constitutional standards applicable within the domestic judicial systems. Some of most important concerns and comments on the investment chapter are as follows: I Amicus Briefs and Transparency: IGPAC supports the establishment of investor-state dispute procedures that empower state and local governments to ?le amicus briefs and the provisions to increase transparency cases. IGPAC appreciates that the US has taken commitments to improve the transparency of proceedings and the disclosure of documents. IGPAC encourages USTR to actively oppose any proposals that would revise arbitration rules in order to increase the con?dentiality of proceedings, and instead to continue to assert US principles of transparency and openness in investor?state proceedings. I Appellate Body: IGPAC continues to support the creation of an appellate body that could review the merits of any panel ?nding. As a result, IGPAC believes that the TPP investment chapter should contain a ?rm commitment to establish such a mechanism. 00010 0 Capital Controls: IGPAC is concerned that the capital controls provisions of the chapter might go too far in limiting the ability of governments to restrict the cross?border transfer of funds where such limits might be necessary to mitigate or prevent a ?nancial crisis. Costs to States: IGPAC strongly recommends that the federal government commit to seeking compensation for legal costs, including staff time, incurred by states and localities when assisting in the defense ofinvestor?state disputes. IGPAC is aware that ISDS challenges cannot directly or automatically overturn local, state, or federal laws, regulations, or court decisions. Still, the possibility that state or local laws may be challenged (by way of an action against the United States) is itself a chilling factor for those governments considering legislative and regulatory action. While the federal government is responsible for defending investor challenges that are lodged against state and local measures, state resources are heavily taxed during the course of such disputes. IGPAC therefore strongly recommends that the federal government commit to seeking compensation for legal costs, including staff time, incurred by states and localities when assisting the federal government to defend investor-state disputes. At the close of the Methanex dispute, for instance, the federal government was awarded full payment of the millions of dollars in fees and costs that it incurred while defending the case, however California was not similarly compensated. De?nition of Investment Overly Broad: The TPP definition of investment is overly broad, covering investment authorization, licenses, permits and the expectation of gain or pro?t and the assumption of risk. IGPAC recommends changing the de?nition of investment to only cover the types of property that are protected under the US Constitution. Financial Services: Given the considerable controversy concerning the mechanism and the economic devastation caused by the recent ?nancial crisis, IGPAC is very concerned that ?nancial service ?rms can bring a breach of the minimum standard of treatment claim under the TPP investment chapter. IGPAC strongly opposes the extension of MST claims to ?nancial service providers. In addition, the TPP national treatment text in the ?nancial service chapter appears to provide a higher standard for regional governments than the central governments. While national governments must provide no less favorable treatment to foreign investors than it provides to its own investors, regional governments have to give foreign investors the best treatment given to anyone "treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded? to its own investors. lt is not clear why there is a distinction in the text between the central and regional level. IGPAC is concerned that this might be an issue in any national treatment claims under the ?nancial services chapter or an ISDS dispute. Forum Shopping: The TPP investor?state dispute mechanism contains some welcome improvements over the mechanism found in earlier trade agreements. However, the TPP does not override con?icting provisions in earlier agreements as the TPP will co-eXist with other US trade agreements. As a result, foreign investors can opt to pursue a challenge under those earlier agreements rather than the TPP agreement. For example, a Canadian or Mexican investor in the United States can invoke the NAFTA investment chapter instead of the TPP investor chapter to increase their chances of Winning a dispute before an ISDS tribunal. 00011 11 I Frivolous Claims: IGPAC supports the mechanism for expedited review and dismissal of frivolous claims. Impartialitv and Independence of Arbitrators: Currently, there are no rules preventing an ISDS panelist from rotating between serving on a tribunal and then switching to representing an investor in other cases. This creates a huge con?ict of interest. Given this concern, IGPAC is pleased that prior to the entry into force of the agreement, the TPP countries have agreed under Article 9.21 to provide guidance on the application of the Code of Conduct for Dispute Settlement Proceedings under Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) to arbitrators selected to serve on investor-State dispute settlement tribunals. As part of this effort, the signatories agreed to ?provide guidance on the application of other relevant miles or guidelines on con?icts of interest in international arbitration. Arbitrators shall comply with that guidance in addition to the applicable arbitral rules re garding independence and impartiality of arbitrators.? Among other things, IGPAC urges that this guidance address the con?ict of interest issue. Minimum Standard of Treatment/Fair and Equitable Treatment IGPAC is troubled by the reasoning of several ISDS cases that determined that international investors were denied the Minimum Standard of Treatment/Fair and Equitable Treatment Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) v. Guatemala and TECO Guatemala Holdings v. Guatemala). In those cases, the tribunals ruled in favor of investors, apparently disregarding Annex of the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement TA), which de?ned the term determining that the defending country did not meet the ?reasonable expectations? of the investor. This also appears to be an issue with the Bilcon v. Canada case. appreciates the new language that is intended to better protect governments from foreign investors? challenges and to allow governments to regulate in the public interest. Specifically, IGPAC supports the provision that the burden is on the investor to prove all elements of its claims, including any MST violation, and that the investor cannot prove a MST violation just by showing that a government measure foiled the investor?s expectations. IGPAC, however, questions why ?investors? expectations? are allowed to be part of any investor?state dispute case because the concept is very open ended and subject to interpretation. Even the footnote in Annex 9-B (Expropriation) which seeks to de?ne what is meant by ?reasonable investment-backed expectations? still leaves great latitude for tribunals to interpret the term. The Bilcon case in which the panel found that the Canadian government interfered with the investor?s expectations was a significant factor in ?nding in favor of the investor. 00012 12 In addition, it is our understanding that the laws of many states would provide no relief to an investor based on even an explicit change in the law during a pending application unless and until a permit was granted and construction initiated. The standard used in the investment chapter, as exempli?ed in Bilcon, would give foreign investors far greater rights than under that standard. Moreover, it is our understanding that, to date, the United States has taken the position that investor expectations (that do not derive from the actual statutes or case law in the applicable jurisdiction) are no part of the decision on whether there has been a violation of these provisions The current language, by suggesting that they are not enough, ?standing alone,? suggests that they are i as was held in Bilcon a meaningful element in ?nding a violation. Thus, this language appears to be a step back from the position currently taken by the United States. IGPAC supports the provision that. ?the mere fact that a subsidy or grant has not. been issued, renewed or maintained, or has been modified or reduced, by a Party, does not constitute a breach? of the MST. The test of the effectiveness of these changes, however, will be how future arbitrators interpret these provisions. National Treatment: IGPAC endorses the provision in the investment chapter, as well in other chapters ofthe agreement that clari?es that in terms ofthe regional level government (state level) the commitment to provide ?national treatment? means ?treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment, accorded in like circumstances? by that particular state, rather than the most favorable treatment offered by any state within the country. The TPP language removes the uncertainty that was left by language in earlier trade agreements. No U?Turn: IGPAC supports the ?no u?turn? provision, which requires a claimant that has initiated an case to waive the right to have a domestic proceeding. However, it appears that investors from TPP member countries can bring a case under the system even after they have lost a case in domestic court except if they are bringing a case against the countries listed in Annex 9-J (Chile, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam.) continues to support a ?fork-in-the-road? provision that would require an investor to pursue a claim through domestic courts or through the system, but not both. IGPAC strongly recommends the inclusion of a ?fork-in-the?road? provision in the investor chapter. Punitive Damages: IGPAC supports Article 9.28.6 of the investment chapter that make clear that tribunals cannot award punitive damages. 00013 3 0 Regulatory Safeguard: Annex II i Expropriation contains a regulatory safeguard which states that ?non?discriminatory regulations by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health], safety, and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations, except in rare circumstances.? While additional regulatory safeguards are appreciated, TGPAC is very concerned that the effectiveness of this provision could be undermined by panel determinations of what constitutes ?rare circumstances? An earlier, leaked draft of this Annex was greatly preferable in that it did not include the ?rare circumstances? clause. Subsidiaries of US Companies in TPP Countries: Although the TPP investment chapter includes a provision that would allow a Party to the FTA to deny the bene?ts of the chapter in certain cases, it does not appear to prevent US companies using their af?liate in another TPP member country from bringing a case against the United States by that af?liate. This appears to allow the US ?rm to challenge a US law or regulation under ISDS, thereby bypassing the US domestic court system. IGPAC recommends amending the chapter to clarify that overseas subsidiaries cannot bring investor-state dispute cases against the TPP member country of the parent company. Labor As with the environment chapter, IGPAC welcomes the growing US emphasis on labor rights in recent FTAs and the coverage of the chapter by the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement. IGPAC also strongly supports the inclusion of an enforceable commitment by the signatories to maintain laws addressing minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health, as this is the ?rst FTA to include this requirement. The labor chapter, however, falls short in several areas with the result that truly meaningful, enforceable commitments are missing in those areas. For example, the commitment to ?discourage? trade in goods made with forced labor is not equivalent to a commitment to prohibit trade in such goods. IGPAC also supports the side letters that establish the ?labor consistency plans? with Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam that will enter into force on the same date as the agreement and are subject to dispute settlement. IGPAC strongly encourages the devotion of enough resources to ensure that the provisions of the TPP Labor Chapter are enforced. The committee also appreciates the exclusion ofstate and local labor laws that are not enforceable by action of the federal government from the enforcement provisions of the TPP labor chapter. 1 "For greater certainty and without limiting the scope of this subparagraph, regulatory actions to protect public health include, among others, such measures with respect to the regulation, pricing and supply of, and reimbursement for, pharmaceuticals (including biological products), diagnostics, vaccines, medical devices, gene therapies and technologies, health?related aids and appliances and blood and blood-related products.? 00014 14 Market Access In general, US tariffs are already quite low, except for a few sectors. To a large degree this is an outgrowth of the international trading system that was created at the end of World ?War As the only remaining strong economy at the end of that war, the United States agreed to lower its tariffs to a greater degree than other countries in order to help them recover from the destruction of the war. In subsequent negotiating rounds, the United States has been negotiating from behind in terms oftariff parity. FTAs, which eliminate almost all tariffs, can be a means to restore this balance. In general, the same pattern holds true for the tariff levels for those TPP countries with which the United States does not already have a FTA (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand and Vietnam). Signi?cant exceptions include low New Zealand agricultural tariffs and low Japanese non-agricultural tariffs. It is also likely that the services provisions of FTAs will provide a net benefit to US companies as the US service market is one of the most open in the world. As a result, the United States receives greater market openings from other TPP countries than it provides under the agreement. In sum, the market opening provisions should provide a net benefit to US industries although some sectors will be injured by increased imports. However, as indicated above, a fuller evaluation of the economic impacts of the agreement is hampered by the absence ofthe economic analysis of the TPP, which will not be prepared until next year. Moreover, we note that the report, while greatly appreciated, typically does not address trade in services or change in investment ?ows caused by trade agreements. Re gulatorv Coherence The ?nal text of the TPP Regulatory Coherence chapter indicates that no later than one year after the agreement enters into force each Party will determine what measures are covered under the chapter. USTR has informed IGPAC on several occasions that sub-federal measures will not be covered by the agreement. Although it is likely that most states already comply with most ofthe provisions ofthe TPP regulatory coherence chapter, it is critical that the United States not apply the chapter to sub?federal measures. In particular, IGPAC is opposed to any future impact analysis requirement at the state level as currently this is not the consistent practice of states and would be quite expensive and burdensome, and could be entirely contrary to regulating and governing in the public interest. IGPAC also supports the non-application of dispute settlement to the chapter. Services Given the growing importance of services industries to the US economy, state and local governments generally support the objective of FTAs to liberalize trade in services industries as a means ofincreasing market access for US ?rms and for furthering trade development objectives. IGPAC members equally assert that the independent exercise of state and local legislative and regulatory power is critical to protecting citizens' interests and safeguarding the federal system. IGPAC, however, has always been concerned by the potential impact of trade rules on the ability of states to regulate services in the public interest. US states regulate a broad range of service activities, including health care, communications, financial, utilities, and professional services. States maintain many non?discriminatory regulations to advance important policy objectives that are not related to the quality of service at issue, including those related to environmental protection, land use, fair completion and economic development. 00015 15 IGPAC members are very pleased that the TPP services text does not contain a domestic regulation ?necessity test? which would require that services regulation be no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service. Inclusion of such a test in the disciplines themselves would effectively reverse the deference that US courts have given for many years to state economic legislation. Dating back to at least the 1930s, US courts have deferred to legislatures? choice of the degree ofburden to impose on commerce, as long as such regulations are not applied without a rational basis or discriminatorily. For these reasons, IGPAC has been very concerned by the inclusion ofa necessity test in earlier US FTAs. The absence of a necessity test in the TPP services domestic regulation text is a very positive outcome. Although the absence of a necessity test is a positive outcome, IGPAC members are concerned with the ?negative list? approach to scheduling commitments for services trade liberalization and would strongly prefer a positive scheduling approach. The WTO tribunal ruling against the United States in the GATS internet gambling case brought by Antigua and Barbuda illustrates the inherent peril of the ?negative list? approach, which risks covering economic activities that were expected to be exempted, either by inadvertence or by lack of knowledge of relevant laws and regulations. Many members are also opposed to the ratchet provision contained in Annex I which bind autonomous liberalization of measures that currently violate the core obligations of the service chapter. The ratchet provision would prevent any reversal in the event that the liberalization of the sector led to unanticipated and unwelcomed results. IGPAC also continues to be concerned by the narrow exemption for services supplied in the exercise of govermnent authority contained in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and FTAs, including the TPP, which excludes ?services supplied in the exercise of government authority.? The text. provides that ?services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority means, for each Party, any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.? The concepts of ?commercial basis? and ?in competition? are unde?ned and are subject to con?icting interpretations- At worst, if narrowly interpreted the exclusion of services supplied in the exercise of government authority could expose state public service programs to challenge. IGPAC supports provisions in the professional services annex that encourage cooperative work on licensing recognition and other regulatory issues because it leaves the cooperation up to the regulatory authorities and does not mandate any particular outcome. 00016 6 State Owned Enterprises IGPAC welcomes the inclusion of a chapter establishing rules for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as US companies are facing increasing competition from them in international markets. Frequently, US companies cannot compete against SOES on a level-playing field as they often receive government support including discounted loans, land grants, lower input costs or other subsidies, preferential access to government procurement, trade protection, regulatory advantages including national standards, and relaxed regulatory enforcement that unbalance the playing field. The TPP contains welcome transparency provisions that will throw light on the operation of SOEs and help to ensure that US companies can compete with them on a level playing field. As of this time the Chapter only covers central government SOEs but calls for the future coverage of sub- federal SOEs. IGPAC welcomes the postponement. of sub-federal coverage as it is unclear how the text would impact US sub-federal 80135, as we are unaware of any comprehensive study identifying US sub- federal SOEs. TBT supports the limited scope ofthe TBT chapter and annexes as they apply to state governments. Tobacco IGPAC strongly supports the provision (Article 29.5 of the Exceptions and General Provisions Chapter) that provides TPP members with the option of denying the use of the investor-state dispute mechanism in challenging a tobacco control measures. (A footnote makes clear that such measures are still subject to govemment?to?govemment dispute settlement.) TGPAC is very supportive of this measure in view of the investor-state eases brought against tobacco control measures in Australia and Uruguay. While this is an important safeguard, it highlights the maj or de?ciencies and unfairness of the ISDS system, which has been success?illy used to challenge legitimate, reasonable, non-discriminatory health and environmental laws and regulations in other countries. Some IGPAC members would also support the complete carve? out of tobacco from the agreement given public health concems. Currency Manipulation The TPP does not contain firm provisions related to currency manipulation. The agreement, however, is accompanied by the ?Joint Declaration of the Macroeconomic Policy Authorities of Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries,? which rules out competitive devaluations and the persistent misalignment of currency. This declaration also calls for greater public disclosure and transparency of data on exchange rate policies including government intervention into exchange rate policies. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 identi?es addressing currency manipulation as one of the principal negotiating objectives of the United States. 00017 17 In recent years an increasing number of economists and trade policy experts have identified currency manipulation as causing the United States to experience much larger trade deficits and jobs losses than the country otherwise would have experienced absent such manipulation. The current international economic system has been ineffective in addressing currency manipulation and it is questionable whether the declaration by the TPP members to avoid currency manipulation will be effective in addressing this perpetual problem. IGPAC would prefer strong enforceable currency manipulation provisions in the body of the TPP. It remains to be seen whether this declaration will effectively address currency manipulation by TPP member countries and Whether it meets the objective outlined in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of2015, particularly since there is no enforcement mechanism. 00018 18 VI. Membership of Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC) Roster as of July 2015 Wes Aubihl Lindora Baker Mark Chandler Anthony Clarence Thomas Cochran Carol Colombo Dan Crippen Jose (?Pepe?) Diaz Kathe Falls Krista Ferrell Trey Martinez Fisher Charles Gray Robert Hamilton Julia Hurst Gregory lbaeh Jon ukuri Andy Karellas Kathleen Keenan Joe McKinney Gregory Mize Peter Owens Lehman Robert O?Neill Kristopher Sanchez Ekrem Sarper Sharon Treat Kay Wilkie Gregory Zoeller Shirley Abrahamson* Ohio Development Services Agency National Association of Counties City and County of San Francisco National League of Cities (NLC) US Conference of Mayors State of Arizona National Governors Association (NGA) Miami-Dade County State of Louisiana National Association of State Procurement Of?cers (NASPO) Texas House of Representatives National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Washington State Department of Commerce National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) Council of State Governments (CSG) National Conference of Insurance Legislators (N COIL) National Association of Development Organizations National Center for State Courts South Carolina Ports Authority International City/ County Management Association Nevada Governor?s Office of Economic Development National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Maine Citizen Trade Policy Commission NYS Department of Economic Development National Association of Attorneys General WAAG) Wisconsin Supreme Court *recused from participation in this report 00019 Cleared Advisor Notice: New Documents Posted to Secure Website . in From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Young, Stewart B. ?stewart.b.young@ustr.eop.gov> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:06:28 -0400 Thank you! Very helpful. From: Young, Stewart B. Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:06 AM To: Young, Stewart B. Subject: Cleared Advisor Notice: New Documents Posted to Secure Website Good Afternoon Adviso rs, We are pleased to inform you that we have posted the following NAFTA 2.0 chapters to the secures site: Comments Requested by: COB August 30, 2017 If you have any questions or need to speak with the lead please email Stewart Young Documents should be treated as confidential and may not be printed or shared outside the advisory committees. The secure advisory committee website is for the use of cleared advisors only. You are solely responsible for protecting any documents from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526. Failure to do so is a violation of law, and may affect your security clearance. Use of this system constitutes acceptance of monitoring by USTR of your logins and the documents you view. Stewart B. Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Office of the United States Trade Representative Stewart.B.Young@USTR.eop.gov (0) 202-395-2864 202 (6) 00001 rarer"; 3:233: Sacri?ce ,4 espsaraear or: soc-o- a soascairass September 8, 2017 The Honorable Sonny Perdue The Honorable Robert E. Lighthizer Secretary of Agriculture Ambassador United States Department of Agriculture United States Trade Representative 1400 Independence Avenue, SW 600 17Eh Street, NW Washington, DC 20250 Washington, DC 20508 Dear Secretary Perdue and Ambassador Lighthizer: As the nation?s largest agricultural producer and exporter, California?s farmers and ranchers are an important constituency for the promotion and expansion of free and fair trade for the United States. Our unique agricultural diversity, representing more than 400 different agricultural products, makes market access issues along with sanitary and phytosanitary measures key priorities for our growers and manufacturers. In working collaboratively with the Administration to enhance and expand our global trade ties, California?s agricultural community would like to extend an invitation to you, or an appropriate designee, to visit our state and meet with our agricultural representatives. This trip will allow the opportunity to visit farming operations as well as discuss trade priorities with California?s agricultural trade stakeholders representing more than 30 agricultural boards, commissions, marketing orders, cooperatives and associations. We look forward to working with you in expanding the nation?s agricultural trade outlook While also protecting our farmers, ranchers and farmworkers from unfair and non-reciprocal trade relationships. We, the undersigned, are hopeful for the opportunity to share our outlook and priorities for the nation?s trade agenda with you in the coming months. The California Department ofFood and Agriculture (CDFA) can serve as your point ofcontact and will work with the stakeholder community to ensure a robust and engaging visit. Please contact Carol Tate, CDFA at (916) 654? 0433 or caroltate?kdfacagov for coordination. Sincerely, - Karen Ross, Secretary California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFA Executive Office a 1220 Street, Suite 400 9 Sacramento, California 95814 State of California Telephone: 916.554.0433 a Fax: 916.654.0403 a Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 00001 August 21, 2017 Page 2 Donn Zea, Executive Director California Dried Plum Board Kiel Nelson, President California Citrus Mutual Richard Waycoit, President/CEO Almond Board of California V, ,5 5 23% f; 7k/w my Melissa Poole, Senior Counsel Director of Governmental Affairs Wonderful Orchards Jim R. Cranney, Jr., Pesident California Citrus Quality Council Robert Koch, President/CEO Wine Institute 5 i - - 3 ?x Michelle Connelly: Executive Director/CEO California Walnut Board Commission Richard Matoian, Executive Director American Pistachio Growers Paul Buttner, Manager of Environmental Affairs California Rice Commission Bill Mattos, President California Poultry Federation Paul Wenger, President California Farm Bureau Federation Mark Jansen, President/CEO Blue Diamond Growers August 21, 2017 Page 3 john Talbot, CEO California Milk Advisory Board Marcy Martina Director/Trade California Fresh Fruit Association Matthew M. McInerney Western Growers Debbie Powell, President/General Manager California Raisin Marketing Board 00003 g? fit A, if if a? .afir/ f. we: Frederick W. Klose, Executive Director California Agricultural Export Council Rayne Thompson, VP Government Relations Sunkist and Fruit Growers Supply Kathleen Nave, President California Table Grape Commission RE: Letter from the California Department of Food and Agriculture From: 'Cobaugh, CC M. administrative group ch'> To: "Ross, ?ecretary.ross@cdfa.ca.gov> Cc: "Eddy, Date: Tue. 12 Sep 2017 11:25:07 -0400 saw Atternoo'n. rate, Thank you for your email. We have received your invitation and have passed it along our public engagement office for review. Someone from our team will be reaching out shortly. Thank you! CC From: Tate, On Behalf Of Ross, Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:47 PM To: Heidi Green (Heidi.Green@osec.usda.gov) Cobaugh, CC M. Cc: Eddy, Subject: Letter from the California Department of Food and Agriculture Importance: High Please see the attached letter from California Secretary of Agriculture Karen Ross to United States Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perd ue and United States Trade Representative Ambassador Lighthizer. Thank you. Carol Tate Principal Assistant Office of Secretary Karen Ross California Department of Food and Agriculture 1220 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 3 ain carol.tate@cdfa.ca.gov Follow us: Fasebook Twitter. 00001 NAFTA and Alcohol 1 Liillvl {ml-ll: ll ilsi at rill-1H1.? '2 lv if}. HI ll! . llil. {Hill 12' .ll? iml ll? From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Young, Stewart B. Qtewartb.young@ustr.eop.gov> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:43:57 ?0400 Hi Stewart: 19 USC 2155(9) 19 USC 2155(9) .ii. :Hi 3 ,2 Roben Message-nu From: Young. Stewart B. ISTR [tiiailto:Ste\\arlB Young?n'nslreop gov] Sent: Friday. September 15. 2017 1 1:21 AM To. Hz-unilton. Robert (COM) Subject. Re: Could you do at 4pm EST call'.? Ag/ anta thank you! On Sep 15. 2017. at 2:12 PM. Hamilton. Robert (COM) wrote: '3 Yes. See number below. What is the topic? Roben Hamilton Gox ernor's Ad\ isor for Trade Polie) 2001 Sixth Avenue. Suite 2600 Seattle. 98l2 Phone: (206) 256-6122 7" Message?- From: Young Stewart B. Sent: Frida} . September l5. 20 7 10:34 AM To: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Subject: Could you do 3 4pm EST call? Let me know what number [5 best to call you on? "x Stcwa? B. Yonulg Intergovernmental Affaim and Public Engagement The Of?ce ofthe L'nited States Trade Representative I r; (0) 202-395-2864 (C) 202W ?2 00001 USTR-17-0444-A-000053 Re?wammentS. or! the. Partial investment chapters From: "Young, Stewart 8. To: "Hamilton, Robert Cc: "Seward, Cameron T. Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:19:47 -0400 Will do! hank YouPM. liamillon. (COM) role: Hi Cameron, Stewart: I could not post my comments on the investment chapter even though the deadline is COB today. I would greatly appreciate it if you would forward the following comments to the appropriate people at USTR. Thank you! 19 usc 2155(9) 00001 19 use 2155(9) Robert Hamilton Govemor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle WA 98121 00002 NAFTA. From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Seward, Cameron T. "Young, Stewart B. Date: Fn?, 22 Sep 2017 19:07:08 ?0400 Hi Cameron, Stewart: I could not post my IPR comment so if you could pass it along to the appropriate officials at Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (6) 00001 RE: MY. comments on the. Labor Chapter From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Young, Stewart B. ?stewartb.young@ustr.eop.gov> Cc: "Seward, Cameron T- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:40:51 ?0400 Thank you. I ?as able to post on some earlier chapters. Message-nu From: Young. Stewart B. ustrcop govl Sent: Monday. September 25, 2()l7 1 40 AM To: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Cc: Seuard. Cameron T. To: "Hamilton, Robert Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:44:49 ?0400 I'll double check out lists. she should have gotten it! Message-?- From: Hamilton. Robert (COM) Sent: Friday. October 6. 2017 12:22 PM To: Young. Stewart B. Subject: RE: NAFTA: Request for Participation Advisory Committee Call 1 do not who else did not get the invitation. but it appears that Sharon Treat did not receive an invite to the call. --?-Original From: Young. Stewart B. Sent: Wednesda} . October 4. 2017 3:54 PM To: Young. Stewart B. Subject: NAFTA: Request for Participation Advisory Commillcc Call Good Evening Advisors - USTR will host an advisory committee call for all cleared advisors on NAFI A Updates. These calls are for advisory conmnittee members only. and will include an update by USTR staff. We look forward to your participation. This call is oFf the record and infomiation discussed should not be shared outside the advisory committees. Date. time. and call-in information below: Date: Friday. October 6. 2017 Time: 9:00am - 10:00am Participant Dial-in: 877 (6) Participant Code: (6) Please let me know if you have any questions. Best. Stewart B. Young lntergovermnemal Affairs and Public Engagement The Of?ce of the United States Trade Representative to) 202-395-2364 to MW 00001 . From: "Hamilton, Robert To: "Young, Stewart B. ?stewartb.young@ustr.eop.gov> Date: Fn?, 06 Oct 2017 19:14:28 -0400 I will be around. The quick turnaround time and the cascade of new proposal is impossible to manage. From: Young, Stewart B. Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 4:08 PM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Seward, Cameron T. Subject: RE: NAFTA - Alcohol Thanks Robert! Why don?t we call you Monday Tuesday? From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 6:58 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. Young, Stewart B. Subject: FW: NAFTA - Alcohol Hi Cameron, Seward: see that USTR posted (W04 19 USC 2155(9) R0 bert From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 8:41 AM To: Seward, Cameron T. Young, Stewart B. Cc: Wilkie, Kay (ESD) Subject: NAFTA - Alcohol Hi Cameron, Steward: I do not have Leslie Yang?s email on file or I would have copied her. 19 USC 2155(9) 00001 Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (6) 00002 RE: NAFTA - Alcohol From: "Seward, Cameron T. administrative group cam'> To: "Hamilton, Robert Cc: "Yang, Leslie 3. Date: Tue. 10 Oct 2017 17:26:18 -0400 Hi Robert, Leslie and I just tried you number to discuss the alcohol beverage text. Please give me a call back when you get the chance. 202 Thanks, Cameron From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:39 AM To: Seward, Cameron T. Young, Stewart 8. Subject: RE: NAFTA - Alcohol Yes. I should be free around 3:00 PM EST. I am working from home: 206 (6) From: Seward, Cameron T. Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 5:47 AM To: Hamilton, Robert Young, Stewart B. Subject: RE: NAFTA - Alcohol Hi Robert, Circling back on this. Are you free for a call anytime today? Thanks, Cameron From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 7:16 PM To: Young, Stewart 8. Seward, Cameron T. Subject: RE: NAFTA - Alcohol I do have a conflict Tuesday morning. Monday afternoon might be best. From: Young, Stewart B. Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 4:08 PM To: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Seward, Cameron T. 00001 Subject: Rh: NAHA Alcohol Thanks Robert! Why don?t we call you Monday Tuesday? From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 6:58 PM To: Seward, Cameron T. Young, Stewart B. Subject: FW: NAFTA - Alcohol 19 use 2155(9) Hi Cameron, Seward: see that USTR post 19 USC 2155(9) Robert From: Hamilton, Robert (COM) Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 8:41 AM To: Seward, Cameron T. Young, Stewart B. EO CC: Wilkie, Kay (ESD) Subject: NAFTA - Alcohol Hi Cameron, Steward: I do not have Leslie Yang's email on file or I would have copied her. Robert Hamilton Governor?s Advisor for Trade Policy 2001 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (6) 00002 RE: De Minimis NAFTA From: 'Vl?llcockson, Katie" To: "Young, Stewart B. Date: Fn?, 20 Oct 2017 14:46:14 -0400 Hi Stewart; Would sometime Monday afternoon work for you? Best, Katie Willcockson T: (6) From: Young, Stewart 8. Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 7:37 AM To: Willcockson, Katie Subject: RE: De Minimis NAFTA Kate Absolutely. Would love to talk let me know when is best for you? Thanks, Stewart Stewart B. Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Office of the United States Trade Representative Stewart.B.Young@USTR.e (0) 202-395-2864 HQ 202% From: Willcockson, Katie [mailtozKWillcockson@mt.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 5:05 PM To: Young, Stewart 8. Subject: De Minimis NAFTA Hi Stewart- My name is Katie Vchockson and work at the Montana Department of Commerce as the lntemational Trade Of?cer? it is very nice to meet you via email. I left a brief message for you this morning but thought I would follow up with an email in case it is easier. I reached out to Andy Karellas yesterday and. although traveling. he thought you might be a good person for me to speak with. A bipartisan letter was recently signed by several senators and is now being passed on to state Governors 00001 concerning the raising of the de minimis level in Canada as a part of the NAFTA renegotiations. I did some reading but have been trying to put together the effects of this on the Montana/US economy since we raised our de minimis level in 2016 as well as the general proposed NAFTA negotiation points. Would you be the right person to speak with? Thanks for the assistance! All the best, KATIE WILLCOCKSON International Trade Officer MONTANA OFFICE OF TOURISM AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (6) MarketMT.org ExportMontana.com it; ma? mar; I 00002 E: MS Trade Interest From: Joey Songy To: "Young, Stewart B. Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:08:12 ?0400 Thanks Stewart. Joseph D. Songy Chief of Staff Governor Phil Bryant From: Young, Stewart B. Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 11:07 AM To: Joey Songy Subject: RE: MS Trade Interest I?m set for the time being next NAFTA round is Nov. 17th. Let me know if you need anything. Best, Stewart From: Joey Songy Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 11:18 AM To: Young, Stewart B. Hoelscher, Douglas L. Cc: Clark, Justin R. Subject: RE: MS Trade Interest Hey Doug, Stewart and I talked last week. Thanks a bunch. Stewart, Feel free to call if we need to talk again. Joseph D. Songy Chief of Staff Governor Phil Bryant From: Young, Stewart B. Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:51 AM To: Hoelscher, Douglas L. Cc: Joey Songy Clark, Justin R. Subject: RE: MS Trade Interest Thanks sir absolutely. Joey happy to talk anytime that is best for you. From: Hoelscher, Douglas L. Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:36 AM 00001 To: Young, Stewart 8. Cc: Joey Songy Clark, Justin R. Subject: MS Trade Interest Hi Stewart, Cc'd is Gov. Bryant's COS -- Gov. Bryant indicated that Joey is interested in talking with you all about NAFTA and other trade-related items. Contact information is: I Joey Songy (6) (6) Joey.Songy@governor.ms.gov Stewart?s phone is: (202) 395-2864 Sincerely, Doug 00002 RE: Cleared Advisor Notice: New Documents Posted to Secure Website ease From: "Wilkie, Kay To: "Young, Stewart B. Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:29:48 ?0500 Hi Stewart: Do you know if my security clearance has been granted? Thanks From: Young, Stewart B. Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 1:26 PM To: Young, Stewart B. Subject: Cleared Advisor Notice: New Documents Posted to Secure Website This email"! an external scarce-Doric} dick on links senders or 33 7 "unexpected emails. Good Morning Advisors, 7 We are pleased to inform you that we have posted the following NAFTA 2.0 chapters to the secure site: Sectoral Annex: Chemical Substances Additional Text Comments due 5pm Monday 11/13 Financial Services Annex (NCM's) Comments clue 5pm Tuesday 11/14 If you have any questions or need to speak with the lead please email Stewart Young stewart.b.young@ustr.eop.gov. Documents should be treated as confidential and may not be printed or shared outside the advisory committees. The secure advisory committee website is for the use of cleared advisors only. You are solely responsible for protecting any documents from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526. Failure to do so is a violation of law, and may affect your security clearance. Use of this system constitutes acceptance of monitoring by USTR of your logins and the documents you View. Stewart B. Young Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement The Office of the United States Trade Representative Stewart.B.Young@USTR.eop.gov IMPORTANT: This e-majl message and any attachments contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual(s) or entity to Whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any Viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please immediately notify the sender by electronic mail or notify the System Administrator by telephone (518)292-5180 or e-mail (administrator@esd.ny.gov) and delete the message. Thank you. 00001