Today the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee held a hearing on U.S-India trade issues. India represents a large market for U.S. manufactured goods exports and it’s important that India is playing by the rules.

The hearing today really looked at how we can strengthen and expand trade and investment with India, as well as what can be done to better protect investors and manufacturers who export and sell in India. It is important to enforce existing disciplines on intellectual property (IP) in the WTO and continually make progress in improving those disciplines. We have yet to reach our full potential for U.S. exports to India and there are several intellectual property risks which need to be resolved.

Testifying on these issues from a manufacturing perspective today was Roy Waldron, senior vice president and chief intellectual property counsel for Pfizer. Mr. Waldron’s duties include protecting the company’s intellectual property portfolio throughout the world. The pharmaceutical industry supports more than 4 million jobs in the United States and exports $46 billion in goods. (continue reading…)

The latest lobbying disclosure report from American Association for Justice reveals the trial lawyers to still be working Congress and the Treasury Department to finagle a $1.6 billion tax break for its members, a sort of stimulus bill for suing people.

The AAJ’s first quarter lobbying report filed April 15 lists the U.S. House and Senate as targets on the issue, “Lobbying with regard to the deduction of attorney-advanced expenses and court costs in contigency [sic] fee cases.” (The AAJ reported $850,000 in lobbying expenses for the period, down from the $910,000 reported in the fourth quarter of 2010.)

We last wrote about the issue in October, so to recap: Under current law, the IRS does not permit lawyers to deduct expenses advanced to clients in contingency suits — “we only get paid if you win!” — because the agency considers the money a loan. Deductions are only permitted after the case comes to end, either with a judgment or settlement, or if the client loses the case and default on the loan. These kind of arrangements allow lawyers to front cases even though most states outlaw “champerty,” i.e., direct financing of suits. (For more on champerty, see this discussion by Barry Barnett.)

This special interest tax break erupted into controversy in 2009 when Legal Newsline reported that the AAJ’s top lobbyist, Linda Lipsen, told members the group hoped to sneak the tax break through Congress by quietly “tucking it into” another bill. When the publicity worked against the legislation the AAJ moved to a backup plan: just having the Treasury Department grant the tax break through a tax interpretation or other action.

A widespread outcry greeted news of the Treasury maneuver, but the AAJ continues to pursue it. In the first quarter, the AAJ paid the tax specialists at the Washington Tax Group to work the issue, not just with Congress but also the Treasury Department. The $10,000 reported lobbying expenditures for the quarter is down from the $40,000 the previous quarter.

No tax-lawyer-tax-break bill has been introduced yet in the 112th Congress, and one suspects members will be reluctant to sponsor the legislation. After all, last session’s Democratic sponsors, Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama (H.R. 2519) and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (S. 437) both lost elections and are out of Congress.

So the Treasury remains the lobbying target. We trust the House Ways and Means Committee will continue to pay close attention to the issue. The last thing the economy needs is tax subsidies for more speculative lawsuits.

Earlier Shopfloor.org reporting here.

This afternoon, NAM Vice-Chairman Doug Oberhelman, the CEO of Caterpillar, will testify before the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee on the pending Free Trade Agreement with Panama. As you can see in this advertisement that Caterpillar is running in a few Capitol Hill newspapers today, they strongly support quick passage of all three pending FTAs – adding in Colombia and Korea.

You might recall Will Marsh of Baker Hughes, Inc. testified on behalf of the NAM two weeks ago at a similar hearing on passage of the pending FTA with Colombia, and one expects a similar hearing on the FTA with Korea to be up at the Subcommittee in the near future.

It’s a powerful lineup for today’s hearing. The economic benefits for manufacturing in America that will accrue as a result of passage with our FTA with Panama may not be as large as we’ll see with Korea. But, we shipped $5.6 billion in U.S.-made manufactured goods to Panama last year. With the expansion of the Panama Canal – the largest public-works project on earth right now – there is going to be huge demand for manufactured goods of all kinds to support the construction work, the infrastructure, the workers, and the new facilities. By removing the average 8 percent duty our products face, the U.S.-Panama FTA will put our manufactured goods exports in a preferential position to fill that expanded demand.

Yesterday, it should be noted in passing, was the 77^th anniversary of the passage of the “Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act” which passed Congress in 1934 by a vote of 274-111 (and 47 Members not voting). This act was the first to provide the President power to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with foreign nations. With it, Congress reversed decades of protectionist inclinations. In fact, the Act came just 4 years after the passage of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised U.S. tariffs to very protectionist levels — which in turn caused our trading partners to raise their tariffs and, most economists agree, prolonged and deepened the Great Depression. After the passage of the 1934 Trade Act, President Franklin Roosevelt called for a tariff-free Western Hemisphere that would unite fully half the globe in a closer trading relationship and would jump-start economic growth.

We’re not there yet – but passage of the Colombia, Korea, and Panama agreements as soon as possible would be another step on that road. With Peru, Chile, CAFTA, NAFTA and other FTAs that have been passed in recent years, America has a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our trade agreement partners. We need to pass all three pending agreements as soon as possible, and then look to new trade agreements to further boost our exports, increase U.S. employment and grow our economy.

President Obama’s weekend radio address built on his trip to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador to make the cause for expanded U.S. trade with Latin America. From the White House transcript:

Latin America is a part of the world where the economy is growing very quickly. And as these markets grow, so does their demand for goods and services. The question is, Where are those goods and services going to come from? As President, I want to make sure these products are made in America. I want to open more markets around the world so that American companies can do more business and hire more of our people.

Here’s a statistic to explain why this is important. Every $1 billion of goods and services we export supports more than 5,000 jobs in the United States. So, the more we sell overseas, the more jobs we create on our shores.

Absent from the President’s remarks is any mention of Colombia and the ever-pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Colombia boasts the second largest economy in South America, so its omission from the address stood out.

Last month, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) also traveled to Brazil and fittingly included Colombia in his South American journey. From the Finance Committee, Feb. 26, “Baucus Meets with Colombian President, Highlights Need for U.S.-Colombia FTA, Renewing Andean Trade Preferences“:

Washington, DC / Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today met with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. (continue reading…)

Tomorrow morning the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the Pending Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Colombia, the first in a series of hearings to examine each of the three pending FTAs (the others are with Panama and Korea). William Marsh of Baker Hughes Incorporated, a NAM Member, will be testifying at the hearing.

Colombia is an important Western Hemisphere destination for U.S. manufactured goods exports. In 2010, the U.S. exported over $11 billion worth of manufactured goods to Colombia. Manufactured goods account for 85 percent of total U.S. merchandise exports to Colombia.

Small and medium manufacturers will strongly benefit from the U.S.-Colombia Agreement as over 10,000 small and medium sized companies export manufactured goods to Colombia, representing 85 percent of total U.S. exporters.

U.S. manufactured goods exports to Colombia have grown by 130% over the past five years. Last year we had a $7 billion trade surplus in manufactured goods with Colombia. Manufacturers are looking forward to the hearing tomorrow to discuss with members of the subcommittee of the tremendous economic benefits  of passing this agreement as soon as possible. Every day we are losing market share and manufacturers can no longer afford for additional delays.

Catching up on the death tax, we see in CQ Politics, “Ways and Means Democrats Buck Their Chairman on Estate Tax“:

House Ways and Means Committee Democrats support a one-year extension of current estate tax levels, a significant departure from plans laid out by House leaders and panel Chairman Charles B. Rangel .

During a meeting Wednesday morning, committee Democrats agreed to back a one-year extension and tie it to a broader overhaul of the tax code in 2010, said committee members John B. Larson , D-Conn., and Richard E. Neal , D-Mass…[snip]

But Rangel, D-N.Y., and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., have been seeking a permanent extension of current law, which would cost $233.6 billion over 10 years but would not have to be offset under the budget framework backed by Democrats.

Dow Jones also covers the story, “House Democrats To Ditch Permanent Estate Tax Bill For 1-Year Fix,” citing the NAM’s spokesman on the issue:

“It would be disappointing if Congress chose not to take on substantial estate tax reform this year,” said Dena Battle, director of tax policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “We are still working with lawmakers in the House and Senate on legislation that would give our members the relief they need.”