As estimates for the amount of U.S. natural gas resources have grown, so have the prospects of rising U.S. natural gas exports. The United States is expected to go from a net importer of natural gas to a net exporter by 2020. Projects to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) by tanker ship have been proposed-cumulatively accounting for about 12.5% of current U.S. natural gas production-and are at varying stages of regulatory approval. Projects require federal approval under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b), with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission being the lead authorizing agencies. Pipeline exports, which accounted for 94% of all exports of U.S. produced natural gas in 2010, are also likely to rise. What effect exporting natural gas will have on U.S. prices is the central question in the debate over whether to export. A significant rise in U.S. natural gas exports would likely put upwards pressure on domestic prices, but the magnitude of any rise is currently unclear. There are numerous factors that will affect prices: export volumes, economic growth, differences in local markets, and government regulations, among others. With today's natural gas prices relatively low compared to global prices and historically low for the United States, producers are looking for new markets for their natural gas. Producers contend that increased exports will not raise prices significantly as there is ample supply to meet domestic demand, and there will be the added benefits of increased revenues, trade, and jobs, and less flaring. Consumers of natural gas, who are being helped by the low prices, fear prices will rise if natural gas is exported. Electric power generation represents potentially the greatest increase in natural gas consumption in the U.S. economy, primarily for environmental reasons. Natural gas emits much less carbon dioxide and other pollutants than coal when combusted. Other types of consumption are not likely to increase natural gas demand domestically for a long time. Use in the transportation sector to displace oil is likely to be small because expensive new infrastructure and technologies would be required. There is discussion of a possible revival of the U.S. petrochemicals sector, but the potential extent of a change is unclear. Getting natural gas to markets where it can be consumed, whether domestically or internationally, may be the industry's biggest challenge. Infrastructure constraints, environmental regulations, and other factors will influence how the market adjusts to balance supply and demand. Environmental groups are split regarding natural gas use, with some favoring increased use to curb emissions of certain pollutants, while others oppose expanded use of natural gas because it is not as clean as renewable forms of energy, such as wind or solar. The use of hydraulic fracturing to produce shale gas has also raised concerns among environmental groups particularly concerned with its possible impacts on water quality. The possibility of a significant increase in U.S. natural gas exports will factor into ongoing debates on the economy, energy independence, climate change, and energy security. As the proposed projects continue to develop, policymakers are likely to receive more inquiries about these projects. Proposals to expedite and expand LNG exports have already been raised in the 113th Congress, including in S. 192 and H.R. 580. Two other bills, H.R. 1189 and H.R. 1191, would reform the DOE's process for determining the public interest regarding LNG exports and prohibit exports of natural gas produced on federal lands.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) in November 2011, the leaders of the United States, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam announced the broad outlines of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which the parties hope to complete in 2012. If enacted the TPP would eliminate 11,000 tariff lines among the parties and, with 26 chapters under negotiation, potentially it could serve as a template for future trade pact among the APEC states. At the same venue the leaders of Japan, Canada, and Mexico announced that they would seek consultations with partner countries with a view towards joining the negotiations. Nine rounds of negotiations have occurred since the beginning of 2010.

Talks on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Round refer to the cutting of tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTB) on industrial and primary products, basically all trade in goods which are not foodstuffs. The Doha Round was suspended for an indefinite period of time in July 2006 due to differences in the agriculture negotiations. While the agriculture negotiations have received greater scrutiny in the Doha round, trade of industrial and primary products, the subject of the NAMA negotiations, continue to make up the bulk of world trade. Average tariffs in developed countries have declined from 40% at the end of World War II to 6% today through successive rounds of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO trade negotiations. Developed countries seek the reduction of continuing high tariffs in the developing world, particularly from such countries as Brazil, India, and China. Developing countries seek special and differential treatment and tie their cuts in industrial tariffs to reductions in agricultural tariffs and subsidies.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) being negotiated among the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. U.S. negotiators and others describe and envision the TPP as a "comprehensive and high-standard" FTA, presumably because they hope it will liberalize trade in nearly all goods and services and include commitments beyond those currently established in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The broad outline of an agreement was announced on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) ministerial in November 2011 in Honolulu, HI. If implemented, the TPP potentially could eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment among the parties and could serve as a template for a future trade pact among APEC members and potentially other countries. Congress has a direct interest in the negotiations, both through influencing U.S. negotiating positions with the executive branch, and by passing legislation to implement any resulting agreement. The next round of negotiations will take place in Auckland, New Zealand, between December 3 and 11, 2012. In Hawaii, the leaders of Canada, Japan, and Mexico also announced that they would seek consultations with partner countries with a view towards joining the negotiations. Canada and Mexico subsequently were welcomed to join the negotiations in June 2012 and became formal members in October 2012. Japan and the TPP partners are conducting bilateral consultations on its possible entrance as well. In addition, Thailand formally expressed its interest in joining the negotiations during President Obama's trip to the country in November 2012.

In debates on export administration legislation, parties often fall into two camps: those who primarily want to liberalise controls in order to promote exports, and those who are apprehensive that liberalisation may compromise national security goals. While it is widely agreed that exports of some goods and technologies can adversely affect US national security and foreign policy, many believe that current export controls are detrimental to US business, that the resultant loss of competitiveness, market share, and jobs can harm the US economy, and that the harm to particular US industries and to the economy itself can negatively impact US security. Controversies arise with regard to the cost to the US economy, the licensing system, foreign availability of controlled items, and unilateral controls as opposed to multilateral regimes. In the last few years, congressional attention has focused on high-performance computers, encryption, stealth technology, precision machine tools, satellites, and aerospace technology. Congress has several options in addressing export administration policy, ranging from approving no new legislation to rewriting the entire Export Administration Act. This book examines some of the controversies and debates raised by these opposing options.

Canada-United States relations covers more than two centuries, marked by a shared British colonial heritage, conflict during the early years of the U.S., and the eventual development of one of the most successful international relationships in the modern world. The most serious breach in the relationship was the War of 1812, which saw both sides try to invade the other, and both failed, leaving the status quo. Friendship was solidified in the 20th century with the shared experience of the world wars and a close alliance during the Cold War. Canada and the United States are currently the world's largest trading partners, share the world's longest border, and have significant interoperability within the defense sphere. Modern difficulties have included repeated trade disputes (despite a continental trade agreement), environmental concerns, and debates over immigration and the movement of people across the shared border. While the foreign policies of the neighbors have been largely aligned for much of the post-war era, significant disputes have arisen, including over the Vietnam War, the status of Cuba, the Iraq War and the War on Terror. At this time, the Canadian dollar has gained considerably versus the U.S. dollar with as yet unknown consequences.

This book provides background on intellectual property rights (IPR) and discusses the role of U.S. international trade policy in enhancing IPR protection and enforcement abroad. IPR are legal rights granted by governments to encourage innovation and creative output by ensuring that creators reap the benefits of their inventions or works and they may take the form of patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, or geographical indications. U.S. industries that rely on IPR contribute significantly to U.S. economic growth, employment, and trade with other countries. Counterfeiting and piracy in other countries may result in the loss of billions of dollars of revenue for U.S. firms as well as the loss of jobs. Responsibility for developing IPR policy, engaging in IPR-related international negotiations, and enforcing IPR laws cuts across several different U.S. Government agencies. The main structures for co-ordinating interagency efforts are the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Co-ordinating Council (NIPLECC) and the Strategy Targeting Organised Piracy (STOP!).