tv U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer on U.S.- China Trade Relations CSPAN March 5, 2019 4:26am-7:40am EST
across the board tariffs? mr. lighthizer: thank you, mr. chairman. i would say, as you say, currency problems is something i spent a fair amount of my time, not necessarily in my current job but in previous jobs, and it's not just a problem with china, it's a problem with a lot of other areas like asian reasonable case to be made it is a serious problem with japan and those in the car industry realize that and also other areas. but it has been a problem from
time to time. there are costs in being the reserve currency but we can't lose the good people that go to work every day. something we have to focus on. is there agreement? there is no agreement. you know that from how these things work. but we have spent a lot of time on currency and it will be enforceable. the agreement will be enforceable. but i'll talk to you about that. mr. neal: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from independent indiana. mrs. walorski: mr. chairman, i ask permission to insert into the record a letter signed by 150 trade associations that formally delays from 10% to 25%. mr. neal: without objection.
mrs. walorski: mr. ambassador, great to see you again. when can we expect that federal register notice? mr. lighthizer: it it being worked on right now. the president has made a decision and sort in process. in the next day or so. the president made the announcement and we are following the legal process. we have a process that we go through and the process with other agencies and there are steps we have to go through. but that is something that will happen and will happen according to the normal course. mrs. walorski: when do you anticipate to see more decisions for exclusion requests from lists one or two from the 302 process? mr. lighthizer: we are in the process of doing that night. we granted more than 1,000, as you know.
and things have slowed down because of the government closure. but we are in the process of doing that. we expect another traump to come out soon. mrs. walorski: i ask permission to insert into the record a letter from myself and mr. kind that was signed by 167 colleagues to list three of the 301 tariffs. mr. chairman. mr. neal: without objection. mrs. walorski: thank you. mr. ambassador, there is great support in congress for this process and the most recent spending bill wanted to establish a process and almost halfway through that deadline, do you expect to meet that 30-day deadline?
thank you. mr. lighthizer: first of all, that was the report from the appropriations committee. i understand there are people in congress who want us to have an exclusion process. and it's something we are looking at. our view up until now we would have the exclusion process which is at 25% and 10% that you are referring to there wouldn't be an exclusion process. i would note that since the date we put that into place has been a seven or eight when you stop the devaluation of the chinese currency. the effect has been less significant than those people affected. and i hope we can deal with this in the context of our
negotiations with the chinese. rs. walorski: i know you and i chatted that the constraints on resources and the exclusion process. i recognize that the process for lists 1 and 2 and moving slowly and list 3 is out there and four times the size. could i ask you this, is there a way to take a load off of your agency? what about companies are hurt and only able to export finished products to the u.s.? mr. lighthizer: we have a process that we think is fair and looks at the competitive effect whether the products are available in other areas and whether or not it is a focus of china 2025. we are happy with the current process but it's a big, big process. mrs. walorski: mr. chairman,
thank you, i yield back. mr. neal: i yield the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. mr. kind: thank you for the outreach that you have been making so far this year. i'm going to ask you to respond to a few questions, one of which is the level of cooperation and coordination you have with other nations in regards what you are trying to accomplish as it relates to china. and the second one is in regards to the concern i have, that the longer this trade war with china lasts, the more we lose and how difficult it will be to regain the market share because back home in my district in wisconsin, my family farmers are getting hammered. record bankruptcy for family farmers, close to well over 800. i'm not saying the trade war is the sole cause. those are the two questions.
i think it's safe toll assume and you have probably heard it there is bipartisan consensus on the challenges which face with china, i.p. theft, forced joint ventures and what you are trying to accomplish and there is bipartisan agreement on where we need to go on how we need to resolve this. there is a difference of opinion on the tactics being used. there was another approach. multi lateral effort. still believe that our rejecting the trade agreement is oing to be one of the greatest mistakes. 12 nations and the largest and fastest growing region came up with a standards and rules that elevate up to where we are, that china would have been on the outside looking in, would have isolated them and put great
pressure on them, whether prohibition on i.p. theft, on forced technology transfers, joint ventures, strong and labor environmental transfers, e-commerce, everything we are trying to elevate. the prohibition against localization rules, was contained in the trans-pacific partnership. moving forward would have put incredible leverage on china. and now we are on the outside looking in and china is being able to accomplish those rules of trade. at some point we hope to find a way to get back in that agreement instead of disadvantaging us. going back to the original questions in regards to the level of cooperation and coordination with other nations. there is strength in numbers and i think china will respond to the international community much better than the unilateral
action we are taking against them and finally the lost market issue. mr. lighthizer: i think getting out of t.p.p. was the right decision and that agreement was negotiated and the costs was 45% in vietnam and 55% in china. didn't get much on currency and in any event to get to your geo political problem. as you know, we have f.t.a.'s with six of the 11 countries in it already. ive others, they are in japan. in terms of cooperation, we are trying to do it on two tracks and want to cooperate with two countries. we are trying your approach. your approach by itself is less
likely to be successful and so what we want to do is continue that approach and put in place the unilateral action that the president has taken and that unilateral action is what has brought us to the point where we are now and hopefully on the point to turn the corner. in terms of -- mr. neal: if the gentleman will finish. mr. lighthizer: in terms of trade with chipe, we hope to get these barriers down and do it with our supply chains and our customers. mr. neal: let me recognize the the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: thank you for being here with us today. little off china. my colleague, terry sewell have steppeded the caribbean base and trade partnership act for another 10 years from 2020 to 2030.
it's an important program cause it requires the use of u.s.-made yarns and this allows haiti to compete with large asian partners such as china and vietnam. with the program to expire, certainty is important. and important to u.s. companies but especially when doing business in a least developed business like haiti, do you foresee support for re-authorization of this act? mr. lighthizer: i'm not prepared to say. i don't have an idea. the fact that you and congresswoman sewell are in favor of this is a positive indicator from my point of view. i want to look at it and want to say the requirements for
u.s.-made yarn is something that i have supported as a matter of policy and applied in other areas. but i want to look at that so i can give you an informed opinion. mr. wenstrup: hasn't come up in ny conversations with china as how it might affect them? mr. lighthizer: it has not. mr. wenstrup: one other question, when it comes to chipe's retaliation and some of the effects on agriculture and access to markets, you talk about some of the nontariff barriers and one of the things is inspection requirements, can you elaborate on some of the things they are doing in that arena, if you will. mr. lighthizer: i would be happy to do that. something that we spent an awful lot of time on. there is a whole lot of
technical barriers to trade depending on what term you want to use. one of the most single time is the whole issue of biotechnology and their approval processes. . the u.s., it's 18-24 months and in china, seven to eight years. it's a very complicated process and it is one that has a very, very negative effect on the united states because u.s. farmers will not introduce the technology themselves in the u.s. until it is approved in one of their major markets, such as china. we wanted to change things and put in time limits. i don't want to suggest we will be successful. but there be science-based decision making because right now there isn't in many cases.
that there be time. and we have a long pipeline of things that have been stacked up for years and years and years and years. we understand how important this is. they are changing the process and getting it really more in line with the international norms and have it be science -based. we'll see how it turns out. we spent a lot of time and realize how important it is. mr. wenstrup: thank you very much. mr. neal: thank the gentleman. let me recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell: thank you for fulfilling that congress has a major role under article 1 in trade negotiations and i thank you for appearing before us. china needs to provide greater access for u.s. services firms
and allowing the ability to invest and operate independently from state-owned enterprises and come pennsylvania in audio-visual sectors. beyond the scope of the 301 report, i want to ask you about two things quickly. one, it is reported there will be a memorandum of agreement on currency in this deal. i have read your comments from security s.-china economic commission where you laid it out. you laid them out very clearly. you argued in that presentation that china's practice of currency manipulation is it constitutes a countervaluable subsidy under our law. i agree. i have a bill that would treat
it as such. you argued that we should be quote, unquote, imaginetive in dealing with this issue inlewding restricting imports or even requesting compensation did the terms you have reached with china live up to your own standards? i'm not very good at that. all, theay first of president has been imaginative. i feel very comfortable i have passed my own standard and i might say in the case of the currency, in terms of
it is certainly objective and agreed to that there be commitments not to do competitive evaluations. complicated what has happened in the last couple of years and i could argue that those kinds of decisions are not made by me some a but the secretary of treasury. past -- without question, china has used currency manipulation in the past. >> we will talk about the your jobhip between and the treasuries drop and where exactly the [indiscernible] they are in the
scope of the 301 negotiations? >> i would say to the extent that they are involved to the unfair trade practices, they are , but this is not like a free trade agreement. because it isrrow based on 301 and by the way, i would love to work with you and other members who want to sit .ack and figure out another way i would love to sit down and talk. >> can i just add one sentence? if your answer is not, i would point out the market access is not in the scope of the 301 report. we are negotiating these anyway.
i wanted you to take a look at that because it has caused some confusion and i would like some clarity on it if possible. >> let me recognize the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you for joining us today. , trade is antative critical issue. support is -- jobs supports over 800,000 and $17 billion for the economy in our state. i focus on trade relations with china, i want to thank you or your work with nafta and the free trade
agreement. [no audio] the agreement did need some upgrading and reform effort. thank you for doing that. hopefully we can get that ratified quickly so we can move forward with some of the other issues. let's go back to the focus on china. retaliation has , led by a lot of soybeans, cotton, beef as well as aircraft manufacturing and other manufacturing. as a big supporter of trade, i
believe a trade war is not what any of us want. , ii talked to kansas farmers have heard over and over have a support the president in getting a better trade deal. one of the things i would think that both colleagues agree with harming trade.en in 2013, chinese nationals were arrested in kansas for attempting to steal intellectual this andand research that to you. -- and send that to china. since we have introduced
negotiations with china, a lot a positive step and we want to make sure we continue to move forward. >> i don't want to stop there. , china'sioned earlier exports are worth [no audio] constituents, particularly in the farming community, as well as aerospace, hopefully we can work on making retaliatory and regulatory processes are fixed -- practices are fixed. >> thank you congressman for your support. it is our top priority and if congress does not see fit to pass that, everything else we are talking about is a footnote.
it would be such an omission of failure by all of us, song very grateful-- so i'm very . we have talked about manufacturing jobs being lost. market.a huge the reality is they should be buying much much more agriculture and my hope is that these purchases, while not central, will lead to new markets that will go on for years. >> thank you. recognize the gentleman. me thank you for the work you have done in the work you and for responding to
inquiries and questions. i represent an area of chicago called chinatown and i'm trying to figure out what it is i say to the chinese-american chamber congress when i go and meet. i would like to know as specifically as i could when it comes to disregard for intellectual properties, protection, currency manipulation and market access for u.s. businesses that are trying to do businesses -- trying to do business in china, given the fact it is an enormous market. to the chamber of congress -- chamber of commerce
in chinatown? >> thank you. i would say first of all, chinese-americans and many chinese businessmen themselves, universally have said to the , hang tough, this is really important. we have to do things that the to reform in china. we are not forcing reform in china, we are working with nobody knows better how important it is than chinese-american businesspeople. they know what the problem is and they realize what the takes al is if china
step forward. i would say the potential for china is enormous. that is why china has reformers. is all of our and probably there's more than any are afraid to do business in china because they will not -- lose not only technology, but just know how, that they won't have intellectual property protected and respected. there are huge markets that could be opened up if we get .his reformed to knowbe interested what their reaction is to what we are doing. i find the people that follow this stuff a lot closer than
most americans and when i talked to them, they are like hang , don't go for the structural change. i would be really interested to get your feedback. >> we will make sure we do that. thank you very much. >> would say that some of the best questions have already been asked. how do we future proof? let's say you have amazing success. the angels thing, whatever happens. proofo we do to future success? here have ahose
serious discussion on streamlining the wto? filings when we read through them a decade later and it's week has been made, what we do so we are not -- what do we do so we are not back having the same discussion into her three years? >> after the number of hearings i have done, whenever i think of the future, i think of you. you are always going to ask the question about the future. we all have a tendency to think of the here and now more than we should. one, having amber real enforcement process. issues, we will
be resolving issues in ways that turn up new problems and trends and i think you have to be able to deal with that process and as i don'tried to say, believe this is going to solve all the problems between the united states and china. they are in a process of reform. headway, but i think there is a role for the international volleys -- bodies and i think the wto is part of that. the timeline, the ability to actualor is it the adjudication process itself?
what can we do to help so we are not doing this all the time? all, tryd say first of to look to the future and reduce problems is a healthy an important process. i believe we will have problems anyway. this in fortress -- enforcement process will be very specific. and working layers ish congress on wto reform something that i'm eager to .ngage in i think there are problems that with respectdress to the economies. to that point, one of my
great interest, i believe there disruptions,y financing, technology that will create disruption and weibel need some type of dispute mechanism. had that havewe said we are part of this wto complaint, but by the time the fees, aears, -- lawyer decade later, we gave up. with that, i yield back. thank you and thank you to ambassador light hauser. haveber of my colleagues
mentioned enforcement mechanisms and i'm wondering if you're able to share with any specific the how you intend any agreements with china to be enforced? much,nk you very congresswoman. i will do it with little specifically -- sp y --ifi there will be quarterly meetings .nd semiannual meetings is individual companies will come to us and we will be able to work through the process
. in many cases, those will have to be anonymous because companies are afraid to come forward and addition to that, problems where we will see patterns developing and a series of things we disagree with. hopefully in most cases, they orl be resolved in the first second level. if not, they will be resolved at my level. that, this is not something that has a lot of precedents. that is helpful because many say if there's no enforceability , then the trade agreements are
not worth the paper they are written on. one sector of want to call to , is the creative industry. 95% of people involved in the creative industry in lar union qualitywho have negotiated benefits and retirement plans. china,iovisual sector in i want to call your attention to , a commitment made by the chinese in 2012. they said in 2017, they would provide additional meaningful conversation -- compensation and increase revenue shares the u.s. studios and it seems clear revenues of 40% at the box thece would be
international norm. can you confirm that it is a priority in a trade deal with china. >> absolutely it is a priority. it is something we spend a fair amount of time talking about. point is that revenue sharing is not that complicated. the distribution becomes more complicated and there should be more changes their. something we want to bring in, the idea of challenge and control. , i don't want to get into the details, but i think you know as well as i do, it is
something that has not been resolved. we understand the importance. lome recognize the gentleman from texas. >> i was going to refrain from bragging about texas, but i have many colleagues [no audio] we feed and close the american people -- we beat and close the cloth thed and american people. , good work, hard work and i know this is a long-term proposition, a long-term game changer. nobody knows about the equities andfairness and the chinese
their bad actions and on fair -- unfair trade practices. keep up the great work. for the last two years, we have inn a decline of over 50% the united states agriculture industry. that is the steepest decline since the great depression. 40% roughly increase in bankruptcies and i'm sad to report that farmers have the highest suicide rate of any profession in the united states. despite of that, farmers and ranchers stand with the president 100%. they will stand with him until they have to sell the family farm. they know he is fighting for them. let me talk about cotton.
when you land at the airport, you'll land in the largest cotton patch in the world. we have lost 50% of our market share in china and it is a big market. we want reforms. we want the enforceable and structural reforms. we want that for every american job creator, manufacturer and producer. you mentioned the purpose commitment and we talked about soybeans. talk about cotton. produced the most and best cotton in the world, but result,ese market as a
our guys are suffering. can you talk about cotton being mentioned? >> first of all, thank you for that. as you know, we cannot talk to the president about trade without farmers coming up. perdue, i don't know all the secretary of -- secretaries of agriculture. in terms of the purchase commitment, cotton is certainly a factor. it is easy to buy more of, so we understand these people have suffered and it is in the list
of things we expect to have substantial increases on and something the president keeps us very focused on. i have gone with the president on various items. i've had a lot of members asked me about it will stop you are doing a great job. we will now move to two democrats and recognize one republican. >> thank you for being with us here today. i was pleased last month, we saw .6 countries however, i'm concerned that china in these talks could
weaken those overall efforts and lead to a watered down agreement since the current regime is radically different than ours. in your talks with the chinese, are you pushing them to address likecal issues restrictions on cloud service providers? this would not only help many american companies, but also be a more constructive partner. if we don't address these issues immediately, we risk creating borders and those could create massive disruptions in the supply chain we have. i would love your thoughts and how we are addressing these issues. something ithis is care about.
agree one, i completely that we should have a small group on e-commerce and then expand. the more people you bring into the negotiation, the harder it is to get world-class kind of rules. i would point to the mca. it is probably the gold standard. number two, are we dealing with these issues in china? absolutely. i mean, down to the most minute
detail, i'm happy to sit down and go through so you can get some actual appreciation, but it is me sitting down among the most senior officials there talking about where there are circumstances to enforce those codes. had -- we have made headway. it is not going to be what you and i think as a model agreement, but we will make substantial progress. i agree that this is one of those things that we should lock in goals that stop barriers in the beginning of an industry. all of the world,
it is much harder to change then have people adopt best practices at the beginning. it is also an issue for us colloquially. >> u.s. technology companies and specifically cloud service providers, significant market restrictions. the 301 terrorists also impact -- other datar centers are subject to these tariffs. i would like to know your commitment, but also are you looking at eliminating foreign equity caps so that u.s. companies don't have to rely on chinese companies to operate? >> yes. >> i know where at a time. we can follow up. now recognize the
gentlelady from california. los angeles, the heart of the television and film industry. i wanted to follow-up on what he about the unfair practices affecting the film industry. part of the unfair practices has revenue-sharing. for the filming in china, the revenue-sharing is 40%, but for the rest of the country it is 20%. the wto for the film industry was entered into by both parties and in that in the leu, the chinese committed to engaging in
consultations and 2017 and providing additional meaningful conversation in terms of revenue-sharing. my question is, have they engaged in the consultations which were supposed to be done and 2017 and if not, what is your plan for enforceability in this regard? we have had discussions that predate the current 301 process, but now we have insufficient theress and it is one of issues. also, trying to make some improvement on the distribution side because the reality is -- thereon helps their also. i don't know if i could predict
but your industry is very well represented did by you and others. itare focused very much on increase is the likelihood of the successful outcome, but it is a difficult issue. you find philosophically all those areas you dig in and you say why this or that and it is almost a situation where there's an interest this -- interest in the other country that is getting rich off of it. people case, there are who make money on squeezing us. you know the reasons why we have this problem, but it is something we are focused on. we are not asking for the moon.
we are asking for what is normal. >> i thank you for continuing to press on that issue in these trade negotiations. , also, i wanted to make a andement about a company which develop the famous rumba. it employs so many people in my district, but the rumba is manufactured in china and the i robot is on that third list of , but it may goow up to 25% if a deal is not reached and so, they are very some way tot having apply for exclusions and i hope
you can make that process happen. >> if we go to 25%, we will. short of that, i want to see where we are and think about ways to manufacturer in the u.s.. >> now that we recognize the gentleman from north carolina. .> it is always a pleasure i'm glad to see the administration is willing to tackle unfair trade practices and set of talking about it and whining about it. enough support that theym to agree play by the rules when it behooves them, but otherwise ignores them. not only has the best barbecue in the country, we are also one of the leading pork
producing states in the country. i'm glad i did not hear any objections to that. [laughter] >> we won't subtract that from the gentleman's time. tariffs, over 50% of exports have slowed to a trickle. they lose eight dollars per hog and i know you have made soy and, especially for i appreciate your work on behalf of farmers, but there is demand -- it seems like there is time for [indiscernible]
which would put a dent in the trade imbalance. could you give us any indication as to where you are for the negotiations? >> you are absolutely right. pork is one of the issues that is very important to us. before we talk about the , we have specific say lackwith i would of a scientific basis, so that is another area. we would expect if we have a deal, there would be extensive improvements, given the fact that china has issues with their own for production right now that are substantial and it is something we have talked about.
i'm happy to talk to you about it off-line. if there's a package, i'm confident there will be substantial good news for our pork producers. >> switching to tariffs, we are for theto find ways exclusion process. is excluding progress were regulation already constrains the ability of importers to access the products. example, the fda when the consumer cannot ship to all the suppliers. i believe we have an opportunity
to address these products and minimize consumer impact. i hope we cana work on together in the future. that is not really require an answer. i'm out of time. i yield back. >> with that, we recognize the gentlelady from wisconsin. >> i want to thank the ambassador for his patience and indulgence. already, been covered so i won't regale you with repetition. i want to say that while the on all have had impacts of our constituents, they are having an impact on china's as well, but many economists seem to think china is adapting and they are recovering. one of the things they are doing
is by expanding their export market. a question that has not been asked, we don't have a functioning export import bank now. do you think that is having an adverse impact on our trade position? >> thank you for that question. the answer is yes, it is having an impact and it is way beyond china and it is costing us jobs and there'sfor it in my opinion. i don't know what else to say. >> you have talked a lot about science-based decision-making. that is also one of the things our companies have leaned into, where companies would report and --rain from using complex .onflict minimum
is that a consideration in terms of unfair trade practices, undercutting the prices of their products? it is not something we have talked about and if there is a specific action that we should be thinking about, i would be happy to work with you on it. you would love to work with on it because that could productsundercut our and we want to make sure they are not being taken from countries where people are being murdered. i want to follow up with my colleague on the republican side . i know my colleague from wisconsin will probably wax on about how this is hurting those
in wisconsin. i have a mission to try to sudden infant death syndrome. one of the products we have found to be very effective and cost-effective, especially for poor women, something that is ,arketed in the united states .t is only made in china it is subject to the tariffs and if we were to continue these tariffs, it would be out of the reach of many consumers. i was wondering how to get that , don't touch these items. >> make you. i cannot say how important it is for wisconsin. that, my guess is
why is the manufacturing campaign here? >> before my great grand daughter was born march 23. >> unsympathetic. be bottom line is we have to manufacturing these things in united states. 10% tariff on that product does not go up. the devaluation of the chinese currency, it is probably 2% or 3% in price and if the cost of that two or 3% is a bunch of
people have jobs they would not otherwise have, that is a trade i would make. >> let me recognize the gentleman from michigan. thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing. thank you for your willingness to engage with us on a regular basis. it makes a difference and i very much appreciate that. . have a question before i get into that, i want to note how much i appreciate issue.nging up the it is important that we address the retaliatory tariffs in response to legitimate trade remedies. it is important to my district and i appreciate your efforts in that regard. obviously, the congress and
administration need to work together to deal with china and hold china accountable for -- unfairresses practices. it was a moreh multilateral approach. it,area that has to do with president trump promised to currencyna a manipulator during his first day on the campaign. obviously, that did not happen. i know you agree with the president's general assessment that china manipulates and currency. in fact, back in 2010 you testified that china should be labeled a currency manipulator. you outlined a list of actions tot the u.s. needs to take
address the currency manipulation, but i would like to hear your perspective on the president announcing the currency issues in your previous testimony. simply put, does this meet the standards you laid out in 2010? all,would say first of whether or not china is manipulating currency right now is something we could talk about. they are in a different position than in 2010. that is one thing i would say is not a foregone conclusion. -- i do not think you can make a case that right
intervening. or they done it in the past when i made that testimony, that is absolutely true. >> i don't think you could rule out the possibility that we could see that happen again. that is why the structural importance is -- structural appearances are important. i completely agree with your statement 100%. what we want to get is commitment to not have competitive devaluation in the future and a certain level of transparency. you can guard against that problem in the future and the other point i made, this is an issue beyond china.
it has beenot where a problem in the past and a lot right now because of this issue, and a lot of people were told you did not do a good job. i appreciate your attention to these issues. that, we recognize the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you for taking the time to be here. we are here to talk about china. they have been taking advantage of u.s. workers for long time and i think the president, along with yourself deserve a lot of credit for sticking your neck issue this very difficult . it is clear that progress is being made and there's real afterial for changes years of false promises from china. a lot has been reported on the
recent negotiations. you are able to shed light on the process. resumes that china will purchasing u.s. soybeans is a huge announcement. i'm hoping we can achieve more that go beyond current market assess. i would like to reiterate by the gentleman from texas in regards to cotton. the only thing i would agree with is that missouri cotton is better, but we are definitely my client -- like-minded when it comes to open a -- open markets. rice farmers have been fighting for over a decade for access to chinese markets. while the administration has , since 2017, china
has been displacing u.s. rice in our territories. are you and administration investigating the situation and what you doing to address it? >> absolutely. to your first point, structural issues are fundamental and i tried to make that point. today in the new york times we were not making headway. contacts of lighthizer. it is a source, a contact. that is another issue. is we arent, the fact
making headway on structural central tothey are would have inyone a great agreement. issue of rice, [no audio] cases, the other of which has not become public. those are two cases and resolving those cases in the context of this agreement is something else we are talking about, so whether weeks even .hat, we will see
if there are issues or someone has a case that they want to , as you knowffice very well i'm for enforcement. if we don't enforce it, then it breaks down. >> i have several other questions for the record. appreciate your response. >> let me recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> we have been discussing and your compelling on the issue that china refuses an unlawful -- a lawful trading system. monday, deputy attorney general rosenstein spoke about what he
process towards the law. this is not how our justice system works. [no wall way -- wal audio] meeting, the president discussed talking to the u.s. attorneys and u.s. attorney general. he added this would be a subject for trade talks. you are responsible for the trade deal. are you familiar of any further discussions regarding this case or leverage? are you not concerned that
posting a transactional will undermine our own legal system as we have a ready seen? >> i'm not aware of anything on this. i don't get involved with it. >> thank you. the popular discourse centers -- 75% of americans work in services. you really focus on the trade deficit goods. -- want to ensure make sure you know we run a surplus. companies face significant barriers across a number of sectors.
it is safe to assume it could be a lot [indiscernible] on you provide us a detail how it is addressed in your current talks and can we expect changes by the chinese in this sector? >> i'm remiss in not making that point clearly. services are the crucial point of what we have talked about. here it is. we spent a lot of time on cloud computing services, delivery. i will not go through all of them. we spent a lot of time getting
subsectionl to the on pages and pages of services and you are exactly right. service jobs are equally good jobs. it is very important and millions of people work on them and we should be doing much areas, weause in many are by far the most competitive in the world. an enormous amount of time spent magicand it is less the and more specific, but there is progress that was made on a .umber of these threats thank you fore to coming to the committee today.
there are 100 chinese firms operating in pennsylvania, supporting over 3000 jobs. $17sylvania imports almost billion from china. mandarin is the third most in philadelphia. the question that keeps coming up is the issue around intellectual property when it comes to investment. this question has already been .robably asked the issue about intellectual long-term, protect can you speak specifically to that again? first of all, i will repeat one thing i said before and that is i have found almost toericans are
a person -- don't cave, don't sellout for soybeans. chinese-americans will be people who, number one that have a change in that system and number two, babel the beneficiaries. front, very little ip protection. what we did and i will talk to you later, we went through section by section by section of what we would consider to be some of the best practices and we negotiated those. things on what a proper
definition of intellectual property is. sure you haveke current level penalties because if you don't have that, you make sure you have neutral people making decisions. there is variation and we didn't get all of that, but the people in china want to reform this process. i think they legitimately want to reform it. i think they view themselves as craters of intellectual property. when that changes, people will have a different attitude. we have an enormous amount of see, this was can
an extremely important discussion. it is something they seem to want to do. >> real quick, you raised the issue about making. the restrictions on capital is a concern for the investment. wants chinesent investment just like he wants everybody else, so that creates jobs. we don't want investments in areas where they will end up it in certain areas. and people want technology the secretary position is quite clear.
we don't want to lose technologies because it will hurt us. there's a balance there and it is important that we balance properly. >> thank you. >> we recognize the gentleman from illinois. and thank you for your toughness on china. we are lucky to have you on our negotiator -- as our negotiator going up against china. in terms of corn and soybean production, there's a lot of anxiety. wall street journal came out with an article and the down 30%al economy is directly related to the trade war with china, so a lot of stress and concern. however, most of my constituents
support the president in going after china. you made a statement that technology will rule the future and how the change behavior with china seems to be their crocks at where you are getting at. historically in the last 25 years have been able to do anything, whether it is cyber , stealing intellectual property, we have not been able to change that behavior to put china on the same playing you've talked a little bit about art of leverage in this negotiating process. as i look at what you're trying to do, i'm wondering what's going to be different in changing the behavior in china. this is an article from reuters.
and the title is china says u.s. accusations of unfair trade practices are groundless. the spokesman goes on to say they made groundless accusations and that's from their spokesperson. i'll sun mitt that, mr. choirm. how -- mr. chairman. >> how do we have a structural base? how do we have a more laws-based system? first on the ag side, as we begin planting season for our farmers, what assurances can you give my corn and soy bean farmers and pork producers that the market share will be there? and secondly, as we look at this different approach that you're confidence gives you that it's going to be different?
and what if it's not? what are the consequences if we're not able to hold them accountable and changing that bad behavior? thank you. >> thank you very much, congressman for that question. it covered a lot of territory. and i have one minute now. but i'll do it as quickly as i can. first of all, in terms of soy and corn we're trying to get more sales, it's a question of ethanol in corn. a huge user of corn producters. of corn. i believe if we have a deal, we've seen a substantial amount of purchases and we've seen it moving together of soy prices back to traditional levels in terms of the foreign competition. so we've seen some impact particularly with the most recent, 10 million metric ton purchases that china has gone into the market for.
so if we have a deal, i think, you know, we will see substantial new sales there and hopefully some other improvements in terms of s.p.s. stuff. how is this different? it has to be enforceable. it's got to be specific. we're covering many more areas that anyone has ever covered. but it requires the grit and determination of the president and it really requires a corporation of people who want to reform in china and there are people in that. and the alternative is what's been going on and that's for sure failed. we know that approach doesn't fail. hopefully ours will succeed. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. > from that let me ask the gentlemen from illinois. >> thank you for your time and the availability you've given us throughout this whole process. being from illinois, i share the concerns of my colleague for our farmers and our state.
i represent the constituents of chicago. they were working on some product designs trying to get the company in china was delaying and we started seeing the products showing up, a clear theft of intellectual property. i agree with you that china is a bad actor and that we can't let their deefs you behavior go unchecked. we need to have a level playing field so that we can absolutely succeed. i have a real concern with the way the administration has caused a treated war that has caused damage to businesses throughout my district. last summer, i visited a number of districts to talk about the impacts the tariffs were having on them. and everyone was having their concern that it was hurting their ability to compete. but a local school district in any district had to spend $2
million in contingency funding to cover the increased cost of materials for a remodeling project. so i was pleased to hear that you made progress in the discussions. in your testimony, you mentioned that the administration is pressing for significant structural changes to allow for a more level playing field. what speck structural reforms are you pursuing to help our businesss that are experiencing hardships and can you insure that they will be meaningful and long lasting and looking towards the long-term. what outcomes have you secured to help my constituents that have been harmed by these chinese companies? >> thank you, congressman. first of all, your example of intellectual property theft hearing from your constituents, i've got many, many more. we could exchange stories at
some point. that's real people losing money, losing market share not only overseas but in china and actually in the united states. i mean, they'll literally are competing against the people here in the united states. a blunt. tariffs are if you want to create new tools, i would love to do it. we're using the tools that we have. we know that just sitting around blathering hasn't worked so. we have to try something new. we've gotten to a point where we might have success. hopefully we'll have success. how will it be long lasting? we'll see. this is going to be a challenge because for a long, long time my guess is it goes long after i've left and hopefully by the time you'll be sitting in the chair hopefully the people in my chair are continuing to do that because enforcement tends to be about people. and if we're not going to
enforce this agreement they'll figure it out pretty quickly. and that will be the end of it. what all we can do is try to set up a situation where we have the potential that if people go in here and have the right attitude the tools can be there so they can be successful. and that's our objective. we're using the tools that congress has given us as imaginatively as possible. i testified in 2010, i thought we have to have imagination. i think that's what the president has shown here imagination and grit. >> if i could use my last couple of seconds to emphasize something as well. thank you for that. you mentioned that technology is our biggest asset. we have to protect that. it's more than that, it's application of that techology. it's the continued innovation to think about the next technology and it's the y alliances that we built to apply those. i appreciate that. i yield my time back. >> with that let me recognize the gentleman from new york, mr.
waze. >> thank you so much for your public service. we appreciate that on behalf of the country. secretary kissinger and the u.s. has operated under the assumption that with increased economic integration and our exposure of capitalism and democracy that china would adopt some of our systems at least in part. that simply hasn't happened. not only has communist china es cued democracy and engaged in awful human rights abuses, epression and abuse of their people, not only have they treated their workers poorly but they have not transitioned to capitalism. they cheat restricting access to their markets. but the chinese government zes
their industry. -- subsidizes their companies. they are viewed to be 50% or more owned by the state. could you share with us your sense of what the long-term poll so i the united states is and the goals that you have as part of this negotiation to have long-term structural change on this relationship? >> thank you for that question. i hope lite hauzer is short winded. there was a myth that grew up. and if you look at my 2010 testimony which i think is really quite good testimony. it's been heard in the past. the myth was that if you open up a market, if you have an economy, you will become
democratic, small d democratic. that is the myth. you'll open up that that will lead to an open economy and an open political system and all of a sudden, we're a bunch of people from ohio where i'm from, right? that's the myth. and that was -- that was professed by all the smart people, all the clever people. and that really is what led us to - to really -- to -- pntr. i read the speaker's quote which is very pressing saying this ain't so. she said it. and she was right. all those smart people were wrong. the reality is that it doesn't. you can have a very good economy and not have any freedom or have very little freedom, right? we made this up -- well i didn't. assumptions were made that were incorrect. i completely agree. and the tone of your remarks without saying every specific part of it is why we have a bipartisan view on this and why
we're making success. it's because of people like you that we have success. the fact that it's baurnl is why we're making success on this. >> so what's the goals of this negotiation specifically to try to have long-term structural impact? and will we ever get to a place where we think china represents closer to what our system of capitalism is? i'm not going to put democracy on your done on yoush should -- your shoulders too. >> you're younger than i am. you're more likely to have a better view and see it. i don't know. our objectives are to foster reform in china which there's a group of people that want to do, to lead to structural reforms on the kind of things where we can on the confines of the statute that you given us and the report that we did. here's our report and here's -- if you haven't seen it, here's our supplement. >> well, we can't get to the
whole report in the last three seconds. i'm going to work with you to see if there are other tools that congress can help to give you and people like you to be more effective in the future. >> thank the gentleman with that. let me recognize the pament are pennsylvania, mr. chelly. >> thank you. we get a chance to go around our direct and talk to people when we're back home during our district workweek. last summer i stopped in blair steel. it started in 21800's when pittsburgh was known as the iron city when it became the product of choice and how it took off. so i asked mr. kenny, i said mr. kenny, looking at what's going on right now what could we have done differently. and he looked at me and said, i'll tell you what we could have done differently, we should have elected this guy 39 years ago. no, that's exactly what happened
because we've taken a backseat and somehow we think that if we're just nice other people will play by the rules. mr. swaze is on top of this. we have to be damn fools if we don't think we've been in a trade war for decades and we're afraid of a trade war today that's taken place and have taken heavy casualties. we just never stood up to it saying, you've taken advantage of us. but we're so damn nice, we're not going to call you out on this. other than what you're doing right now -- because i thought maybe congress could help out. this administration and your tireless efforts to make sure that everybody's playing if the role -- i'm so damn tired of forfeiting the game and crying because we lost. this is absolutely stupid. we've allowed ourselfs to get into this position. what could we do differently? stand 100% behind the administration and don't let these people get away with what they've been say.
this is very crude. if you're in a peeing contest th a skunk the only way to have more.is i'm so offended to not being offended with intellectual property. we've been game so badly for so long. anything we can help you, mr. ambassador? >> first of all, it really is important. i've said this -- this is my theme. it's been my theme for two years that this has to be bipartisan. it cannot be bipartisan. this is different than a lot of other stuff we deal. with and hearing the last two questions shows why exactly it is bipartisan why this is a fundamental both intellectual and gut reaction to what is going on. and i think sub porting us, supporting the president when we get this package together if
there is a package. and i'm not there yet as i say all the time that we have to look at it and get behind it. and say this is a great step forward. but you have to keep your -- your eye on making sure that -- that -- that we enforce it and i that i enforce it and that my successors enforce it and that years down the road that new presidents enforce it. the second thing i would suggest which i said, i would love to work with members with new tools. i think we need new tools. i won't go through it here but what's happened to 301 is troubling. i don't want to go through it. >> just because we talked about 231 and 301, when i won't go through, what happened to 3 -- >> we talk about 232 and 301 and back home in weston penciling you people don't look at me, tell me what is in 232, that goes back to 1974 and the reason we did is unfair unreasonable discriminatory trade policy practices so these are things congress created.
the executive branch -- it takes eternal vigilance and what you said earlier, trade agreements are like children, we are in grave danger thinking somehow, people will play fair with us because we are nice as opposed to being vigilant. thank you for time and effort. i yield back, mister chairman. >> i recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you, thank you for being here. the 116th on the ways and means committee you have been here three times, that says a lot about you and your commitment and the usmc as well.
that as well as trade with china is important to me and my district. they are in california. california is the number one and producing state in the nation and questions for other members on the dais, california knows what it is about as agriculture and the salad bowl of the world. it contributes to the title, we are the number one and producing state. these tariffs, retaliatory tariffs reflected farmers. agriculture product being taxed, a lot of these products obtained from other non-us trading partners. what we are seeing is closing of certain markets. i appreciate the fact that there is an aid package. they were benefiting from that.
what we have heard and you heard is not about it but trade, not about short-term bailouts but long-term business and so my question is in regards, to markets being shut off, that are being closed, what are we doing to recoup those markets in regards to your negotiations with china? >> the problem on retaliatory tariffs goes beyond china. one thing we are doing is grabbing negotiations in certain areas where the stalemate with europe right now, they won't include agriculture, we have talked with japan, the agriculture component, usmc a and the 232, looking forward to working with you on this because it is so important for california and illinois and everyone else.
in terms what is retaliatory tariffs, if we get an agreement those tariffs will come off and the president's hope is although it is not the purpose of the negotiation, purchases will have the effect of not only giving short-term -- we are looking at numbers that go up several years, not like i should make this point. contrary to what is in the newspaper, it is not a function, the purpose of this, these purchases have targets and amounts the go several years and if you increase those agriculture sales you will create new customers that have results that go years into the future.
obviously when you get into a situation trying to bring change about it will have costs. no one has been treated more than the farmers, they are in a position where they should have enormous markets in china. that is a big market for us, second or third, depending on the year market, in 2018, there is a much bigger market, a lot of people in fair trade, farmers would be beneficiaries too. >> thank you for understanding the negotiations. >> we will revert to 1-for-1 with both sides in the chair will recognize the gentleman from new york, mister reid. >> it is great to be with you and i echo what my colleagues said about you.
thank you for taking on a much-needed negotiation with china. and your thoughts as well as my colleagues to focus as we deal with these tariffs in the future after we negotiate this agreement, i believe we will negotiate the agreement and you have one chance to do this right, with the trade relation with china, i see the chinese position. they are thinking long-term. with negotiations proceeding and the tariffs on the books and reaction in china, i see the commitment as cochair of manufacturing pockets to build excess capacity and add another issue, expert inventory of certain product so that when the new marketplace is created what we do we do to replace -- protect american markets from that excess capacity, inventory
that would be dumped or thrown into the us market in a very dangerous way in my opinion. do you understand what i'm getting too? i see folks especially with advanced manufacturing, china reacting to this transaction with negotiations but as these tariffs come off as we operate under this new agreement how will we minimize the adverse impact of what the chinese 2025 long-term vision of positioning them as a world leader in manufacturing to protect the manufacturing base on domestic soil? >> thank you, that is the fundamental question. i want to make a point clearly. the united states has short-term thinking but i don't think that is true of donald trump. that's why he is going after it.
he's looking down the road, thinking he wants to know what is going on way down the road. we have to be number one, we have to stay number one and most people want us to be number one. >> what are you going to do when that valve opens up. will there be strict enforcement mechanisms? >> no matter what happens, strong laws in the country of trade. >> that inventory dumped on the us market, that enforcement is there and easily executable to take on the chinese action? >> we have provisions if agreed to that will limit subsidies specifically in cases of so-called competitive industries where there is a problem with access capacity, what happened in aluminum and solar panels and
-- >> advanced manufacturing. >> there is an agreement to limit subsidies in those cases. there are unfair trade laws and there is the enforcement provision in here. this is a pattern. sometimes they just start this and the provincial governments and local governments get into it and don't have a way to put the brakes on. >> do we agree the potential threat is there? >> i absolutely think it is there. it is undeniable. >> we want to put enforcement mechanisms readily available to us as partners in this agreement that we can deploy against china and make it clear to china we are ready to use this. >> absolutely. >> i yield back. >> let me recognize the gentle lady from florida to inquire.
>> mister ambassador, presumably the goal of section 301, china, economic pain to persuade china's leadership and negotiate an enforceable agreement for tailing its abuse of trade practices. in a previous answer you noted yourself tariffs are blunt instruments, not only are they not precision guided, they can have unintended consequences often for us consumers and businesses and i imagine before you made the unilateral decision to include tariffs in china you weigh the cost and benefits and designed tariffs to maximize damage to china, with the damage for consumers and the us. whatever your intentions were, the evidence on the ground is grim. i had small business owners in my community in central florida breakdown when they talk to me
about the impact on the companies they have spent a lifetime building and on workers, danny is the owner of a firm that imports components from china and sells finished product to american retailers. this is appended by the trenton 10% tariffs which took effect on september 24th. the upfront bill of $230,000 to release goods from china, that had already landed at a us port. notice from the government, no time to adjust and since september, david has paid $800,000 in tariffs. a lot of money for a small business. what he had to do is raise the cost of his products. some big retailers agreed to pay more but they are passing those costs to consumers.
smaller retailers can't accept the price increase, david has lost business. these have decimated his cash flow, jeopardized financing and made it unprofitable, placing his workers jobs, my constituents jobs at risk. unlike his bigger competitors david doesn't always have ways to mitigate the harm. if this 10% tariff endures the damage could be really severe and if it includes is 25% damage could be fatal. and 40 years as a business owner, government action interferes directly with his business. i know you're not insensitive to this. what do i tell small business owners like david his livelihoods are on the line. when will this end? what will their sacrifices allow you to achieve and do you think you will be willing to accept a deal that falls short of what you indicated in order to end this trade war? >> we are sympathetic to
situations like david's although i don't purport to know the details of it but there are clearly people who are negatively affected. i suggest this is a 10% tariffs for the chinese policy, 5% or less on its business. this would make that statement. in terms of notice, go through the common process, the tariffs in place. and i don't want to let anybody have the impression that we woke up and did this. months and months and months, through here, i always thought with the practices do you think we have a problem with china? if you don't think, all of this is crazy. if you think we have a problem with china we have to way what
is necessary to move forward and in terms of what we are willing to accept i don't think we should accept anything with structural changes and ends enforcement. >> let me recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> ambassador lighthizer, thanks for being here. i told you repeatedly, this administration's people like you and secretary ross, taking on these jobs to lift american workers heartened by your observation about the loss of the 5 million jobs as sign into the wto in your objective in taking this job, lifting of the middle class. i believe the middle class, american workers compete with anybody in the world on a level playing field and we in washington have allowed the playing field to be tilted for
far too long. beginning around 1990 we were competitive at that time, we sat on our hands and allowed everybody else including tax system and so forth to take advantage of american workers and we could accept trade agreements, you can't do that anymore. i'm proud of what the president has done restructuring the tax code, restructuring the regulatory system. the most important thing we can do is balustrade agreements. it is so important and so impressive, progress gives us great hope, i heard you say a dozen times what is done yet. i want to applaud you in how far we have come because i don't think there is anything more important at this point after
regulatory reform that we can use to make the economy competitive and allow workers to compete on a level playing field. once we get through this we need more infrastructure. i want to tell you i had a townhall in south carolina last week, a group of farmers came to the townhall in lawrence and they grow peanuts and tobacco and cotton and soybeans primarily and they said we are worried about this disruption with china and what can we expect? how quickly is it resolved? i promised them i would raise these issues at this hearing so they are watching me right now. they asked me to tell you, and
how important it is. tell my farmers back home as best you can, what they can expect. >> thank you for your comments about me. the obvious statement, people in my position, we are inspired by the president. if it wasn't for the president i would have no power and no inspiration. i'm happy to have this opportunity to at least fight for the things we all care about. we are seeing how that turns out. i would say to these farmers, they have been victims as much as anybody in america. i think they are more vulnerable
than a lot of other people for a variety of reasons we all know about and if we have an agreement there is a likelihood that we will begin the process of the payoff once again. we don't enforce, good things happen automatically. if we do our job and get an agreement, the president is very grateful for those, understand these are real people putting it on the line. >> we thank the gentleman and with that, we recognize the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you to the ranking member for this opportunity in the hearing. i appreciate, mister ambassador, these negotiations have been ongoing and fraught that our congressional committee is getting an opportunity to address concerns we heard from
constituents that directly impact each of our districts. i wanted to say, mister ambassador, we want you to be successful on behalf of the american worker, the american business owner, the american consumer, all of whom are depending on the successful outcome of negotiations. i wanted to share with you in nevada it is estimated $107 million worth of exports are threatened by new tariffs. that is exports to china totaling 28.7 million and these exports affect an estimated 367,000 jobs in nevada. as the price of steel rises so does the construction cost across the state. currently an estimated $25 billion of planned, proposed, currently under construction
major projects, at the stadium. and the expansion. and all have become more expensive. food is a component of exports threatened by the us china trade deal. everything from food, bread, pastries, condiments and even milk. companies that make everything from metal castings to appliances to the dairy sector and bakeries are impacted. since last march the administration embarked on a series of tariff actions that drew retaliation from trading partners and i know this, mister ambassador, you have talked about the need to focus on enforcement and structural changes, what hope and relief can we give our constituents
about these pressing impacts based on this ongoing trade war with china. >> first of all, in these circumstances, one has to begin this analysis, is there a problem? if you believe there is a problem, where we are right now between the united states and china, and that problem threatens our future and kids future and all of those people who are concerned and adversely affected, if you don't believe those people are seriously affected unless we change policies, there is no point in this. the features that are threatened, our objective is to minimize the effect as the congress lady said, to minimize the effect, our own consumers
and maximizing the effect on others and we try to go through the process but when we go out the other end we have to be in a position to defend our workers and farmers and ranchers and have potential for structural change in china. we have done a reasonably good job minimizing the effect, if individuals are not affected. we have an administration process. we are sympathetic, in terms of steel, i would say generally. the president wants to give me a steel agreement if i can with canada or mexico. >> thank you, i yield back. >> >> i want to thank you, this discussion is long overdue.
this administration proposed to tariffs. and chinese imports. they retaliated with $100 billion on us exports. we are all aware of china's unfair trade practices and the fundamental question is not just a we believe there is a problem with china and trading, we do. universally all of us will agree with that. more from the question is what do we do about it. it is important we do something about it but i can also tell you tariffs have had a devastating impact on the folks back home in alabama. i have three concerns about 301 terrace as enforcement mechanisms. it is a go it alone strategy i am concerned about this
administration is taking. we could have put to use our alliances in creating multilateral pressure on china and probably a little more effective quicker. when we in alabama do believe trade works for us, retaliatory tariffs don't and the retaliation, the most impact in my district has been with farmers and manufacturers. according to a brookings study, birmingham, alabama has the fifth highest exposure to retaliatory tariffs since the trade war with china has become, alabama exports are based $254 million in retaliatory tariffs and more cotton and soybean growers, supply chains were dramatically affected. the more likely it is a lot of this shifts in the supply chain will become more permanent
causing more concerns by a lot of my constituents. the forest industry in my district is suffering the 25% tariff, southern pine logs and the softwood lumber. i guess my question really is one of the fundamental belief that while there is definitely a trade problem with china, the enforceability of tariffs the way we are doing them, the best way to get at the problem. given the fact that we are looking for section 301 tariffs as a tool to enforce other trade agreements, my question to you is do you see section 301 tariffs as an enforcement tool of last resort when all our options have been exhausted or do you see it as a weapon that can be deployed regularly to exert concessions from other economic rivals and allies.
>> i don't want to complain to tariffs with other tariffs because it is a litigation matter. i think 300 what is an effective tool, working with members to find more effective tools and at some point, through the history of 301, ready to go to sleep or can't get to sleep -- >> on the intel committee, many sleepless nights for me. >> i guess that is right. we need better tools, in terms of whether we had done what we did a multilateral approach i honestly believe, good people tried to the top approach and i can tell you, the trade
deficits, all of these areas. they just demonstrably failed. something really matters in our kids lives and you try something and it failed for 20 years you would have to be crazy not to try something else. it leads to results where everything else didn't. >> i want to say thank you for allowing the ambassador to complete his answer and i want to say in closing. your success is our success. we want to get a better balance when it comes to trade with china. i thank you for being open enough to talk to us on a regular basis with respect to the tariffs and trade agreement. >> we conclude with a gentleman from georgia, mister ferguson. >> thank you for being here
today. it has been fascinating sitting here and listening to both sides recognizing common threads. china has been participating in unfair practices for years and it hurt american business and american innovation, most importantly the american worker. the support for these efforts to really put china into a new trading position with the us. across the board, whether it is republican or democrat, small business, large business, they'll understand the need to do this and the need because we have not done it in the past, there is going to be a rough transition period while the fight takes place but it is worth it in the end. i want to thank you and the administration for fighting so hard on behalf of the american worker. as i look at this and other
thing is we recognize this, i have heard a couple comments on these lines, talking about the context of the china deal, with everything else going on in trade. could you speak? we all recognize the problem with china. a very large problem to deal with. can you speak to the importance of getting the usmc a deal done on the heels of the south korean deal in japan, and to the europeans, that we develop these trade deals to collectively work to change chinese behavior. >> thank you for the comments, the president's program is working, the comments people made about what we are trying to
do, but you are right and i said this and i will say it again. there is no trade program in the united states if we don't pass usmc a. there just isn't one. what it says is we don't have consensus. there is no less then that at stake. it is clearly, it is $1.3 trillion worth of business, millions and millions of people are affected and you have to pass. if it doesn't you have no credible any at all with china and no credibility on any deals with your other trading partners. every day i talked to two or three members literally every day and it is always constructive and a have thoughts and ideas, and they don't pass usmc a don't bother. just wait a few years before we
see anything. >> thank you for addressing that but i want to switch gears. in my hometown we have an automaker, kia motors manufacturing georgia. we have seen the benefits of a free-trade agreement with south korea, we continue to see that. one concern i have, the timelines both on the usmc a, potentially any trade deal, 3 to 5 years for implementation, talk about why that seems like a relatively tight timeline. is there opportunity, moving in the right direction to give some leeway as we try to bring jobs back to america? >> usmc a requires the
transition to additional two years if they are meeting certain requirements. we work with the manufacturers in that timeframe. is it a doable timeframe? yes. we have to maintain what citizens can by extending this out and by extending it out you postpone it, americans getting jobs, i don't want to do that. i want people to be employed. it is a doable thing. the manufacturing engine, they are going to quit using the korean engines and transmissions to a large extent. this is a big win for you but i already pushed as far as i can push it. >> thank you, mister chairman. thank you for joining us, your accessibility is appreciated by the committee.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> where is the relationship with treasury and what does that mean for tax policy? >> he is going to stats -- testify for the house and ways means committee first. that is what the treasury office does. >> it is enforceability. and opponent of these
agreements, that is where it rests, with the american people. when you have the agreement there has always been a suspicion that geopolitics might interfere with enforcement mechanisms and healthy suspicion shared by both sides, it is legitimate idea of enforcement with china and constant efforts to reign in drug cartels but there are other geopolitical situations. >> were you convinced by the ambassador's explanation of this deal with china? >> he has taken a vigorous position on china throughout the course of his career and that reinforces, there is consensus on the committee that a tougher line with china is good for american economics.
>> what do you think about repeated comments that if congress can pass you and send ca there is no other trade adjustment? >> it is broader in terms of what we are trying to describe. and it is an improved nafta. you can go back to this in the fall which everybody agrees has to be revised or you can also acknowledge the threat the president has offered that if you don't do the new and improved one you end up with nafta so there is -- what he is saying and i won't put words in his mouth, what he is saying is there were three options, two of which don't seem to the possible. >> there is a lot of work that still needs to be done. is it premature for the president be talking about the chinese president? >> i don't think me telling the president what is premature will
have much impact. >> do you see a deal happening? do you see a deal coming together? >> you have to consider chinese have the big mistake in this than we do. their economy is slowing and sometimes the threat of tariffs are important as the use of tariffs. when the tariffs be held in advance after an agreement was reached and he asked for some discretion on that which is entirely plausible. >> you talked about usmc a and how important that is and the administration has 232 tariffs on canada and mexico which approved them from ratifying, he was asked about that today. >> he was not specific. >> we have to wait and see.
>> it is, the old part of bargaining is when something is included everything -- if you keep revisiting it, the segments doesn't strike me as reaching a final deal. the other thing i encourage polity members is one something is agreed to, now they think it is volunteering. >> is that true for usmc a? >> once it is agreed to can't say. there are other things that are agreed to. you obviously if something happens you did not participate, that is fair game, and that is not the agreement but the other thing that has come out of this,
once we proceed down the road we have been talking about it. probably time to have the wto hearing so that is the news. >> on usmc a. talking about reopening what is inside. is that an option for people who are dissatisfied? >> there will be ample opportunity once the agreement is sent to us for conversation and that is the better way to handle it. thank you all. i noticed. >> what is your take on this enforcement mechanism that means more attacking the unilateralist of it? >> the whole idea. >> here is live coverage tuesday. at 10:00 on c-span with the centers for disease control and prevention, reporting 150 people nationwide infected with measles, the senate health
committee holds a hearing on vaccine preventable diseases. then the house gavels into debate several bills including one directing the veterans administration to carry out a pilot program for undergraduate students, clinical health experience with the va. in the morning on c-span2, senator amy club which are -- b --klbucgar talk about corporate monopoly in the us. and the senate continues debate on donald trump's executive and judicial nominees. on c-span3 the senate armed services committee reviews the trump administration's budget request for the defense department with generals heading the european command and transportation command. in the afternoon the house rules committee needs to set the guidelines for debate on hr one. voting rights, campaign finance and ethics bill. the measure is set f