tv Impact of Tariffs on Agriculture Part 2 CSPAN July 24, 2018 2:56am-4:04am EDT
mr. leaven. thank you mr. chairman. again, thank you for your patience. we've listened to your testimony eagerly. and i think across the board, there's a lot of sympathy for it. sympathy is maybe the wrong word. empathy even. but here's the problem, we on the democratic side have been urging action on china for years. against their manipulation of their currency. against their practices in terms of state owned enterprises and steel and other products. but we never had any help on the now majority side. when it came to currency, there was virtual hi no support for effort to take action on china's manipulation of its
currency. the same was in terms of using section 301. that's now being used. we urged it be used but it wasn't. and we had no help from the majority side virtually. steel ten years ago, china and the u.s. made the same amount of steel. now china makes ten times the amount. so when the president was a candidate, he saw a vacuum. and he acted on it. and the problem is that we now have administration which responded to a gap but is now essentially saying just sweep the decks. whether it's china, whether it's tpp. which we opposed and he now
says he eliminated it. nafta which many of us opposed 25 years ago and he has now been holding back and forth as to where he's going. and what makes this problem further is that the majority hesitate to take on the president. so we have a hearing where you come and present some strong testimony but in terms of taking on the president directly, that doesn't happen. and so, there's a very mixed picture. so mr. vanderwal, for example, you say i'm hearing more from farmers as time goes along. that the steel trust president knows what he is doing and everything will be fine in the
end. i mean so we're having more or less silence in general as to what the president is doing. which touched on important problems that now has this helter-skelter, unpredictable changing policy. and the republicans, they don't stand up to it in general. you know. they don't really speak strongly. and you kind of give a mixed message. and so i just want to urge people to stand up and be clear because on the democratic side, we have been clear for years and years. but china presents with its state owned enterprises and its hurting our exports. and we've made clear use 301.
and yet nothing happened. and when one of you say let's negotiate, let's talk and not use tariffs. the problem is we've talked and talked and talked. and now tariffs are being used beyond a wake up call and beyond an instrumentality. i want to make it clear where we're coming from. i think democrats will find your testimony pretty important. and we have some understanding of it. what you really need to do is to help us shape a policy that responds to it. and unfortunately, for example, the farm bureau, when we talked about china currency and we talked about their 301. you were getting the benefit at the time and you didn't help us. so now we all have to join
together to help carve out a policy that makes sense. thank you. >> gentleman's time is expired. thank you, mr. kelly you're recognized. >> thank you chairman, thank you all for taking time out of your lives to come here with us. we get called out to vote. we control nothing in our lives. once you get elected. everything is scheduled for you. when you talked about loss of market share. i think it was you mr. paap. when you talk about market share and trueing to get market share back, i think as one of the people that actually do what you do as opposed to people who get elected to represented you actually walk that walk -- represent you so -- with the trade imbalance, do we not have a trade imbalance right now? it certainly didn't start with this administration. it started many, many years ago. how would you turn it around? what would you do. what would the levers be that you would use to change it?
>> thank you, mr. chairman. congressman, you know, we are fortunate. we've had six decades of trade surpluses and agriculture. we can grow more than we can use. and with those relationships of those other countries, i've been fortunate to be involved not only through the farm bureau but also through our minnesota governor's office on different trade missions. whether it be to south korea, china, vietnam, as well as some other countries, cuba. and trade relationships -- or trade is all about relationships, getting to know your customer, making sure that you're a reliable customer. being there. and as we have those discussions in minnesota, we like to think about trade negotiations a little bit like a minnesota pot luck dinner. everybody's kind of expected to bring something to the table. and you really have to have everybody that can come back with some advantages.
with some whims and things like that. and the best way to do that is through those relationships. so i guess we would urge anybody and everybody that's listening how important it is to maintain those relationships. once we lose that market. it's tough to get it back. you think about that as you do business early. you don't get the service. you don't get the product you want. you go to someone else. someone else takes care of you. you don't have the reason to go back to the original place. and that's the worry. 60% of the soy beans that i planted last may are exported. a reliable of that export market. we're going to continue to build those relationships. to be at that table. but really, farm bill is important to all of us in agriculture. but our true safety net in agriculture, quite frankly is that international trade. that 95% of our customers that
don't live in the united states. >> anybody else have any opinions on how you would gain market share or regain market share once you lose it? i mean is there any disagreement that right now there's a huge trade imbalance. not in ag. i know what we're doing in ag. we do get hit. the response is to come back and do it well. you want to hit it where it hurts. it's usually in the wallet. if there's any other perspective on how to get there. i watched the automobile market shift tremendously. domestics no longer hold the percentage of marketed share they used to have. but once you lose mark, you don't get it back -- market -- you don't get it back. once the horse is out of the barn, it's hard to get it back in. what would you do, if you had a chance to talk to the administration, what would you tell them is the best way of regaining mark share and holding people accountable that are not towing the line the right way. and i appreciate the fact you can go to the wto and go through all these different things and we win the battle,
we've all ready lost the war, because that market is gone. if anybody else, something to tell us if you were able to sit with us and talk either to mr. ross or to the president. >> very quickly i would say get the exchange rates right. this is something the administration gives lip service to. when other countries manage their exchange rates to get an advantage over us. it makes our manufacturers have a tougher time competing. >> congressman, i would just say we've talked a lot today about china. we've talked a lot today about mexico and canada. and we mentioned a little bit about japan. let's work on some new trade grooms. there's opportunities out there. -- trade agreements. japan is a great market. whether we go back and work ourselves back into tpp or we have a bilateral. anything along those lines are things that can help american agriculture. that's what i would encourage.
>> when we have the biggest market in the world. and everybody wants to compete and have a share of our market, there has to be a way to look alt what we're doing and how we're helping the people who form the market. that's you all in the ag business. but in other places we're looking at lost market share. thanks for being here today. i'm sorry we have to step out. >> gentleman's time is expired. mr. davis, you're recognized. thank you very much mr. chairman. this is a very interesting discussion. there's a great deal of fear that many of the individuals that i know who are in business have that they can't figure out how to get something back once it's lost. if it's slipping. mr. bernstein, let me ask you, agriculture is the world's
biggest industry. it's actually what built america. and established what we call it's greatness over time. if agriculture goes, so goes america. it is the heart and soul of our nation. we spend about 12% of our discretionary income on food. where as some countries spend about 30 to 40% and even some more of their income. many of these countries residents are not able to own their own homes, have cars for transportation. or are even able to afford other things in their lives to have a decent living because of the price of food. mr. bernstein, you pointed out in your testimony, that tariffs imposed by the administration
is subject to have little impact in benefits to certain industry sectors. but agriculture would suffer more where there could be a potential un-naturalization of the farming industry in terms of job loss, export market loss, and lowering commodity prices internationally. if things are not corrected and our administration gambles is found to not be correct, accurate, or not pay off, what picture do you paint for domestic food prices to consumers and how would this effect our nation's economy? well, this has been a unique
hearing for me. on a positive side. oftentimes the other members of the panel are other economists, here we have a bunch of people who actually do stuff. and so if you listen to my fellow panelists, what they're really not saying because it's embedded in the economics is that these are very highly productive producers. and that's why those shares that you mentioned in terms of consumer spending are relatively low in this country because productivity on the farm in america has grown so sharply. and in many ways what i think i hear my fellow panelists saying is that the system that wasn't broken before the tariffs is being damaged by them. that doesn't mean that everything was perfect and we've heard the need for better trade deals from both myself and my colleagues here.
but i would maintain and i think it's been a consistent message across the group today that the tariffs are doing more harm than good in the ag sector. and that's why i've urged this committee, this subcommittee to reassert its constitutional privilege and i might even call it an obligation to intervene and to take back the privilege and the role of regulating trade and of setting tariffs. now, i understand that measures 232 have security issues that are important but canada is not a security threat. neither is mexico or the eu. i don't think that's a very courageous foreign policy statement on my point. these functions are being misused. and i urge the committee to act
accordingly. >> illinois, being the tremendous agricultural state that we are, when it comes to soy beans especially. we're kind of shaking in our boots with china. and so we certainly trust that we're going to be able to reconcile some of those difficulties. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. davis, mr. rice, you're recognized. >> well, this is certainly a topic of great concern. and you know, i've been listening carefully to your testimony, and mr. gabbers, you recognize -- or you brought out that right now there's a 50% tariff on fruit in china. and a 10% vat on top of that.
and that vat existed before all of these discussions came about and mr. boening, you brought out that john has been cheating on agricultural subsidies by $100 billion for years and obviously that's hurt the american farmer. who here thinks that america has a fair trade arrangement before all the tariffs, before all this came about with china who here thinks that's true? what about the eu? what about the eu? do you think we've got good reciprocal tariffs that everything's fair in agriculture. >> no, certainly canada with lumber and with dairy, we've got problems, correct. and also, i don't think anybody here would argue we've had
problems with steel and aluminum. you recognize that china has been treating us unfairly and dumping on us. let me ask you this, we all recognize there's a problem. here's the second issue, who here thinks these countries, if they got the better end of the deal, that they're willingly going to give up that advantage and say you know what, you're right, i'll sign that off, mr. bernstein, do you think they're going to do that? does anybody here think that? what's it going to require to get them to give up this advantage. some pressure would have to be brought to bear. we can disagree about the type of pressure. the pressure being brought here is tariffs. but to say we're not talking when obviously we were, we are, you know, we've got the secretary of commerce, mr. ross, and we've got mr. menu nuchin and ambassador
lighthouser who are experienced financial folks. mr. bernstein, you're saying we need to grab back our constitutional authority. i don't think we've given up. we've delegated to the administration. but who thinks 435 people or 535 if you i collude the senate. who thinks 535 people can sit in a room and effectively negotiate a contract. that's right, nobody. we have to -- >> i don't agree with that. >> you think 535 people who can't agree the sky is blue can come up with a complex contract. >> it doesn't have to be 535. it has to be majority. i believe there's a majority who would pushback on these tariffs. >> we have to have a point person. that's common sense. we have a really good point person. these steel tariffs came about this year. there's been follow up and follow up. because -- and there's been talks and rounds of talks and people have come to the table and walked away from the table.
but they all came about this year. here we sit, seven months a year. who thought this would get resolved in seven months? so look, i am really -- >> gentlemen -- >> if i had more than a minute i would but here's the thing. you guys are in the cross hairs, and nobody wants you in the cross hairs, and you're under pressure, and nobody wants you under pressure. i want to do anything we can to alleviate the pressure that you're under. but we all have to understand the big picture. with these existing tariffs that existed before all of this went into place. if john has a 25% tariff on ag. and we're exporting 20% of our ag products to day as you pointed out mr. boening, what do you think would happen if they dropped their tariff or if
they lowered it to 10%. obviously our exports would go up. so the end result here is to try to get a better playing field for you guys. and i feel your pain and i want to do anything i can to make it speedy and ameliorate it. but we all have to understand that for any of this to happen, the administration is doing what i think they have to do in bringing pressure to bear to bring these people to the table. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. higgins, you're recognized. before i go, can i yield 15 seconds to mr. pascrell. >> mr. chairman, this has to be said. if you follow the logic we just heard from the gentleman, we would have no checks and balances and we might as well just hand over the whole process to the executive branch of government. what we should be doing is trying to get back what we deserve from the constitution of article 1 section 8. and i
yield back my time. >> thank you,. >> thank you. >> all of you here either own an agricultural business or you represent people who do. so no one here seems to support these tariffs. congressional leaders know that the president is wrong on this issue. and as has been stated previously, the united states constitution article one section eight is very clear. congress and not the president is vested with the power to levy tariffs. you can't tariff your way to economic strength and growth. the imposition of tariffs are a race to the bottom. you impose tariffs, another country responds by imposing their own tariffs. and in the end, consumers get hurt. because it hurts demand. it hurts profits. and you know this better than
anybody else. if congress wants to stop tariffs, it has one option. pass a law with a veto proof majority that ends the tariffs or strips the president of his authority to impose tariffs. so while its somewhat helpful that you're here appealing to your elected representatives to provide you with some relief, just so that you can do what it is you do everyday. to help contribute to the growth and the strength of the american economy. we're not exercising our constitutional authority to help you. you should be indig indignant about that. from what i heard from the introductions you traveled quite a distance here to appeal to congress about something that's hurting your business directly or the constituencies that you represent.
and what congress is telling you is, despite the fact that it has the constitutional authority to help you, they're not going to help you. they're not going to help you. so you know, and then, you know, it was a law. it was the trade expansion act of 1962. 1962. section 232. that allows a president to bypass congress and impose tariffs under circumstances that threaten national security. so the president invokes that trade expansion hack of act of 1962. to justify imposing tariffs on canada. on canada. canada has been with us in every single war. canada is a great trading
partner. if we were smart about trade, what we would be doing is partnering with them to give us greater leverage and negotiate a more favorable north american free trade agreement. you know, everybody here whines about china. everybody. they cheat on their currency. they treat their environment poorly. they treat their workers poorly. you know what we ought to do with china, compete with them. they're bypassing, they're doing what we used to do to strengthen the american economy. you look at your smart phone, the internet, global positioning satellite, touch screen technology, guess where all that came from? the american taxpayers that financed research to make those products possible. guess where all smart phones are made? they're made in china. you know so we just need so be smarter about trade policy and economic policy. you can't tariff your way to
economic strength and growth. what you can do, and what we ought to be doing, particularly this body and this subcommittee, is promoting investment in the growth of the american economy. i apologize to you for coming here and appealing to congress that is constitutionally authorized to help you and is failing to help you. in a senate bill, it's insulting that the senate passes overwhelmingly by 88 votes a bill which is a nonbinding recommendation on this -- >> gentleman's time -- mr. paulson is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here and sharing your personal stories. being from minnesota, you know, minnesota being the third largest producer of soy beans in the country, it's our
farmers who have been planting soy beans well before the current trade dispute haves been in place. and well before china announced a tariff on u.s. soy beans. prices for soy beans are down a dollar and a half or more per bushel. you have farmers facing uncertainty, knowing they have to harvest the crops in the fall. but they won't have access to the marks they've come to rely on. would you share your perspective on that. i think the uncertainty farmers are facing from these tariffs are hurting the broader community, projects being put on hold and it's hurting the economy on a broader perspective. let me just ask you as a fourth generation farmer, do you think that these tariffs will hinder future generations of farmers from a long-term perspective and make it more difficult for the family farm to be handed down? putting us in a tougher situation for long-term impact on the farming community. >> mr. chairman, congressman
paulson, i think that's a great question. the driveway that julie and i drove down yesterday on the way to the airport was the same driveway our family used 119 years ago. in my lifetime, i've only ever lived in three houses on two farm yards a half mile from each other. we've got our fifth generation, our son andy, who is farming half a mile down the road, living in a house that his great grandfather built. sleeping in the same bed room his grandfather was born in as that fifth generation in agriculture. and quite frankly, julie, we hope they're working on the sixth generation at some time as well. and what we need, what that safety net is is trade to continue. you know, as we have young farmers and ranchers wanting to get in. it's hard to get started in agriculture. even as an existing family.
farmers and ranchers are all about sustainability. but the most important sustainability in agriculture with farm families is that generational sustainability. that ability to continue on the next 119 years. and i really worry that we don't have that ability. we're not taking advantages of markets that we've got. we had some great opportunities in tpp we chose not to do that. but that doesn't mean the other 11 countries aren't going ahead without us. so we're really concerned about that. one way to do that is livestock. that's animals carrying for animals. the best way for the next generation to get in. we looked at that. i brought with me today a proposal. but where the prices are today, that's not going to cash flow. that's not going to work. you'd be surprised how much
steel and aluminum is in animal housing as we talk about the costs going up and up. so we really look at trade as that ability to not only survive this next year, but for the next generations to survive as well. what other industry would give up 95% of their market share. and say i don't care about that 95%. we need to work together to see what we can do to keep the next generation involved in the farm if they wish to. >> to follow up on that. you said the safety net for farmers has been trade. some said the united states doesn't need to worry about retaliation against agriculture. you talked about it being the tip of the spear. but some have said look, countries aren't going to want to increase prices. they're not going to care about decreasing supply through retaliation, would you agree with that argument? we're blessed. we've got the ability to produce more than we need. we need those other countries. we hope we'll have those
relationships where we'll continue to be able to trade with them. and again, everybody has to have something in that trade agreement. but we would still urge anybody that would listen that we need to be at the table. we need to have those negotiations. because quite frankly, that not only is our future in the next few months, but it's that next generation's future in agriculture as well. >> mr. boening, do you want to add anything to some up? >> i can second everything kevin said. we're in the same boat. we're multigenerational as well. farming land that my grandfather started farming in 1930. i is one son there with us -- i have one son there with us. but long-term, this is how we've progressed. this is how we've gone forward is because we've been blessed. kevin pointed it out so well. but we have to have those trade agreements. whether it's china or whether it's japan or whatever it is. we need them.
>> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. vanderwal. i look at the reason this is a crisis right now is we've gone through four or five years of really low commodity prices. if we have perfect tried agreements and our ag products got into every market across the globe and we were treated fairly, we probably wouldn't have had as low of markets the last four or five years. am i correct? president trump correctly identified we needed to fight for better trade grooms, would you agree with that? >> better trade agreements -- >> i agree with that. we've westbound beat out historically in trade agreements -- we've been beat out -- there are higher tariffs coming this way.
>> i agree whole heartedly. we've been living with unfair trade agreements. we've been paying the price, and our farmers and ranchers have been dealing with that when previous mayings did not fight for the american farmer. this president is fighting for him and china knew directly where we were the most vulnerable. they came after our farmer and the ranchers. it gets me upset when i talk about people indicating it's the president not defending farmers and ranchers, he was fighting for better trade grooms and china came after us. -- trade agreements. if we're going to win for better trade agreements we need the help of the administration. the help of us da. the help of congress to make sure farmers and ranchers can continue to provide the food supply for this country and the world and do what they to best. that's the message i have a tough time delivering up here. i spent my whole life in agriculture but it's difficult for anybody who hasn't. they don't understand how highly leveraged the industry
is. when you get in a state like south dakota and you're borrowing money to buy land and machinery, and you go back to the bank and buy money to operate to put seed and fertilizer chemical in the ground and hope there's something to harvest that fall, that's a highly leveraged industry. the impact it could have on operations that have been in families on communities and counties and states. that's something that i think is very difficult for people on capitol hill to really grasp how important it is that we do something and we do it quickly. >> yield. >> i won't yield right now. because i want mr. vanderwal to talk about the situation on the ground in south dakota. and how tenuous the financial situation is. >> thank you mr. chairman. miss nome that's a great question. we have decreasing population
in our rural areas all ready. and if we lose any more population in the state in these rural areas not only does it take young farmers and ranchers that leave. or like i mentioned the almost retiering people like my age or roller it takes out the people that supply the farmers and ranchers. the feed store. the fertilizer dealer. all the people we need to raise the products we do. so it has a tremendously long tail. not just the feed and seed suppliers, the hardware stores, the food stores in these small towns. and everybody in these countries relies on a safe and affordable food supply. it doesn't matter if you live in new york or california. you care when you go to the store, you can afford the loaf of bread and eggs to feed your family, that's what's important about these rural areas continuing to grow our food. that's the message i've carried out here on capitol hill is that we can't afford to let another country grow our food
for us. if they provide our food for us, then they control us. so it's incredibly important. not only do we fight and continue to fight for better trade grooms and more market access. but we get through this situation too that allowstous be victorious. i appreciate you being here. i know you guys are away from your operations and families to be here and advocate for good policy and trade. it and means the world to us and our country. so thank you for what you do. god bless you. >> thank you. mr. smith. and mr. chairman. thank you. being a fourth generation owner of our family ranch. i relate to a lot of you in these issues but mr. vanderwal, you spoke about several of the tariffs like the tariffs on soy beans. who put the tariffs on the soy
beans ? was it the trump administration? or was it the chinese? >> the chinese have put the tariffs on the soy beans in retaliation for the tariffs that have been on their products coming this way. >> that's the excuse they said. but i want to point out that the trump administration did not put the 25% tariff on soy beans or cotton or corn or the other ag products. it was the chinese. and we can't lose that direction. we have a president and i think it's an important distinction that needs to be made by those of us on this committee. because farmers, ranchers, and workers in southern missouri have been on an uneven playing field for quite some time. president trump knows this. and that's why he's asked secretary ross to investigate and fight back against unfair trade practices. we know 95% of the world's
consumers are outside of the united states. and we all believe in free trade. free trade. and fair trade. countries shouldn't be putting tariffs on us. our president is wanting policies where there's no tariffs on either side. we can compete with the world. if it's fair. the problem is for so long we've had elected officials that are afraid to stand up to chinese and other countries that are putting tariffs on our ag products we come main about low commodity prices because we don't have free trade grooms with other countries because they want to protect their own industry ustr and secretary ross found several things after the president asked for. the american dairy farmers faces a metro no, ma'am call tariffs -- astronomical tariffs levied by india.
turkey is dumping cotton and many other countries through tariffs or other barriers are harming our farmers and ranchers. that cannot be unnoticed. the 301 investigations into china found numerous trade violations and theft of beck chyle property from americans. -- intellectual property from americans. in china there's two types of businesses. government owned businesses. and government subsidized businesses. that's tough to compete as a farmer in southeast missouri. whenever the chinese two businesses are government owned and government subsidized. the entire world knows china is taking advantage of them. but it seems that president trump is the only one who wants to do something about it. he wants a better deal for missouri farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and families, that's how our trade actions came about. link the investigations and specific responses to unfair
trade practices. does anyone know how the european union decided to levy our tariffs on us, mr. givers do you know how the european union decided to levy the tariffs on our ag products ? >> i don't know the exact process. but i know they used several methods to both fido sanitarily, and monetarily. >> here's the european union's trade chief. he just recently quote said it's well known that the agriculture constituency is one of the few groups with political clout to bring about change in washington. and it is no coincidence that all the u.s. main trading partners have selected agriculture products for their rebalancing list. that is the trade chief of the eu. openly saying they are targeting american farmers in rural communities for pure my call reasons. does that sound like our
friends and allies targeting you all for political reasons. we need to have friends and neighbors that do want free trade. and i'm very supportive of president donald trump trying to make sure that my farmers in southeast missouri have the highest commodity prices possible. and it's going to be a roller coaster. and it has been a roller coaster and as a rancher myself who just sold 31 steers today, i understand how the market changes very quickly. and i'm telling you, i'm very glad that i have someone in the white house that i trust that's willing to stand up for our farmers. and we're going to get to a good agreement. thank you mr. chairman. your time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you to the panel for coming. i want to echo that everything you said rings true in my district. and i want to give a shout out to mr. bernstein for mentioning
the rv district. so when we talk about 232 and some of those issues, it's ringing even more clear. but the folks in my district. in northern indiana, a friend of mine summed it up with one word. when asked about what's happening right now with the tariffs in northern indiana. he says the results are terrible. his gross income dropped $100. he grows corn, soy beans, and tomatoes, to diversity and provide a buffer if one has a bad year. the problem is right now everything is down. another family farm in my district grows 3200-acres of corn and 3,000-acres of soy beans and estimates they've lost $700,000 in gross income since june 1st because of the price drops. one thing i've heard commerce secretary ross repeatedly say is essentially this, quote, if china is buying more soy beans the u.s. can sell to wherever
brazil isn't saying any more. he's saying u.s. agriculture can fill the void where others are abandoning. is it really that simple? is it one brush stroke away? and if not, i don't care who rains in on it. but can i ask you to talk about it. >> it's not that simple. there will be a certain amount of rebalancing the world supply. but there are two things you don't want to happen. we do not want to give up and be a residual supplier to china. they're the biggest consumer of protein in the world. and a huge opportunity for the wheat market. that's not something we want to give up and be a residual supplier. the other thing that makes that more difficult. is there are sanitary. fido sanitary regulations that it may not be impossible to take u.s. soy beans and u.s. wheat, and automatically send it to brazil, argentina, whatever the void in the market
is. it's not necessarily a straight forward we just ship it all to argentina and then really it could go to china. those type of regulations could impede how that plays out in the world market. anybody else want to comment? >> as simplistic as it seems these marks not plungable by any means. the chinese customers are very discerning. don't get me wrong. they understand the products they buy from us. and they're willing to pay for those products. i've been an athlete my whole life. and there's no handicaps in athletics. you have to have fundamentals and confidence to execute on a level playing field. that's why there's rules. that's why there's boundaries and lines on a football field or a basketball court. nobody handicapped larry byrd, he earned that, to be an all- star, that's all we're asking,
let's level the playing field. and i get where we're headed. i'm patriotic. there's going to be some pain shared. make sure the pain is shared amongst all industries. a trillion dollars over seas. make sure they're sharing in the pain of this ip protection. we're high profile. we're easy. there's an apple grown in darn near every state. it's easy to get under the skin of your ag producers and make a difference. that's why we're here. but these markets are not fungible. we can't just do that there's no way it works that way. >> i want to pass ita hong to you all what i tell my farmers everyday. indiana is the fifth largest exporter in the country. and this matters so much to the majority of the farms in indiana. they're family farms. and a lot of them. a couple weeks ago said hey, we'll do the short-term pain for the long-term gain. but just last week when i had a
little summit with a lot of my farmers, they're nervous. they're nervous that the long- term gain here may be much longer than what they thought. and they can't ride this through. but i want to thank you for what you do. there's very few professions that i can honestly say having been raised and currently living in a rural area that really honor to really say you take so much risk and for the generations that are sitting here, you've taken so much risk through the generations. and to basically engage and be responsible for global food supply and for that, i thank you. we want to do everything that we can to have your back and to make sure that our ag economy continues to role forward with a lot of strength. so thank you for being here today. and thank you for what you do. i yield back mr. chairman.
mr. chairman, thanks for holding this hearing. we're inevitably going to have to tee up more hearings to get more feedback as far as working with all of you to find a safe landing zone so we don't mess up the economic recovery that's occurring in our country now. with all do respect, we haven't heard anything new today than what we're hearing each and everyday. i come from one of the largest agriculture producing districts in the nation throughout western wisconsin, one of the biggest dairy producers in the nation. i hear from farmers everyday and manufacturers in & the concern consumers are raising right now too, so this isn't much new news that we're getting here with your testimony. it's consistent if that brings you any comfort. but i think the president's under appreciating what the impact has been. the pr war he's losing terribly back home in my state in wisconsin. let me read a few media headlines of late. trump's tariffs, wisconsin
manufacturers hit by trade policy. discuss plight with senator ron johnson. trump's global trade war expected town flick economic casualties across the nation. wisconsin construction seeing cost increases following steel and lumber tariffs. wisconsin cheese makers facing double whammy. other costs raise home building prices. harley davidson stung by tariffs. shipping production over seas. an article about how trump responded in wisconsin. and on and on and on. and so you're wondering where do we go from here? and one thing that's lacking from this panel today is an official from the trump administration to give us clear guidance of where the landing zone is. what the objectives are, what are we asking of china? what are we demanding of the eu at the end of the day? because we have very little to go on right now and that must frustrate all of you right now that we don't know where this
could possibly end in a good way, unfortunately from my perspective. i don't see it ending very well soon or very safely because we're in a for tat situation. they've become addicted to tariffs. they're addicted to protectionism. and they don't believe in trying to go out and negotiate trade agreements that could solve a lot of these problems. i was struck by your testimony about hopefully there's an end game in this. in the fact that china's been cheating. there's unanimous agreement. bipartisan that china hasn't been playing by the rules when it comes to ip theft and subsidizing their own agriculture production. technology transfers or through joint ventures, we know that, but the proper course of action is to bring that to the wto.
not unilaterally hit china. which makes it easy to retaliate. and mr. vanderwal, you were saying they know how to do it and they know how to hurt us. the previous administration filed more wto complaints than any other previous administration. 100% win record with the wto the current administration filed just a few. they were previous obama -- that would have been the proper venue to take on china.
outside community about congress needing to have a greater voice and what's being done. i also introduced legislation that caused for a congressional view act, that congress has a chance to disapprove of what the administration is doing. there are steps forward, but it is going to be -- require congress willing to assert ourselves in developing trade policy, rather than punching this guy who is addicted to terrorist. that will end badly for all of us. we will thank you all for testifying in your involvement,
but we have got a lot of work to do in the u.s. congress. >> thank you mr. chairman for allowing me to be here today, and thank you to our witnesses for sharing your insights and expertise. your -- you are practitioners in agriculture. i think it is important i think this entire debate on trade has generated more discussion across our country. i think we can be better off with it. it makes a lot of us nervous as you reflect on that. your meeting with folks back home, buyers in the dry been market, and you have a great insight to the concern about their situation.
reflects the concern of producers they work with. i appreciate your testimony. you appreciate -- pointed out how you appreciate president trump's efforts. part of the concern is this is all in the context of agriculture has not enjoyed it the economic uptrend that other parts of our economy have. in that entire context, i think it is very important that we address these issues in a timely fashion, because we have a lot of things to work on. just in the trade arena, there is a greater understanding for trade in a greater appreciation for trade. i is a great appreciation for trade, the president has appointed to that. again mr. vander walt, it looks like from your bio, and your background, you are familiar with resolve, they are a pretty
strong competitor that we have. i was wondering if perhaps you can elaborate as much as you can what these trade issues me to marketshare, and perhaps other countries might do, particularly brazil. >> thank you congressman i wonder if i could respectfully yield my time to mr. bain, because he has to leave. if he would be able to answer your question, and i can come back and address it. >> thank you scott. related to brazil as a competitor, there is no doubt that they are a very strong competitor. what was your question again, congressman? >> just reflecting on marketshare, just highlighting what that means, perhaps to the
particular producer. >> if we lose those markets, brazil would be in there right away. they are a very strong competitor. they will pick up our market share readily. if they become the supplier that is most reliable, it will be hard to get that market back. mr. pat pointed that out earlier. to get those markets back will be severely difficult. there is no doubt about that. >> anyone else choosing to reflect on the question >> mr. chairman, i need to leave. i appreciate being here today. >> thank you sir. mr. vanderwall? >> congressman, thank you for the question. i just want to elaborate more on that. like you notice in my biography, i have been in brazil three times.
it is interesting the way they look at the united states. this goes back to 2001, when we had set-aside programs and all of that. this statement was made by those people that we watch the united states carefully. every time you set aside acres, or take acres out of production, we expand that much. they look at these kinds of things, too, if we lose our markets with whoever, they will go after those markets. they are hungry for our markets, and they are not afraid to compete. that is why we need to have this playing field to compete with them. >> i do want to say that tariffs and their negative impact, ultimately on consumers, has me greatly concerned. also, non-tariff trade barriers, we should not lose sight of the fact that we need to address nontariff trade barriers, that trade agreements, be they bilateral, or more
trilateral -- multilateral, it is important to address that those get on the books. let's bring as many of these trade concerns to him and, get this resolved so we can move forward, and see more prosperity for american agriculture. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, thank you for allowing my participation today. thank you to all of the witnesses for being with us. i am very sympathetic to many of the concerns you all have, regarding the negative effects of the totalitarian terrace. i want to share concerns small business owners in south florida have on these tariffs. the florida keys represent the largest commercial seaport of the state of florida, and represent an enormous economic value to forever work -- monroe county. next to terrorism, commercial fishing is the second economic
lobby in the keys, valued at $900 million. 300 million is directly attributed to the harvest of lobster. that was part of a letter sent to me yesterday by captain bill kelly. one of the florida keys economic engines is at risk of being stalled as china begins to impose retaliatory tariffs on all seafood products imported from the united mr. chairman, i would like to submit in the record, the records -- reference the florida keys fishermen service sent yesterday. i would also like to submit and to record the letter i sent to the president yesterday, regarding the same issue. >> no objection. >> last year's hurricane season was difficult for many communities, especially for the florida keys fishermen. fishermen are still struggling with loss of income, repairs, and recovery of property.
small gains may sense the hurricane season are in peril as china retaliates on our fisherman export. shortly after the administrations tariffs went into effect, china retaliated with a 25% tariff on its own list of imports or american items including fortis spiny lobsters. florida keys fishermen are worried these tariffs will have a negative economic effect on their livelihood, and that they will never again be able to work -- regained their market share in china, even after a negotiation to decrease terrace. it is worth noting some of the fishermen export up to 75% of their spiny lobsters to china. while i agree with the administration that china should be held accountable for damaging u.s. with unfair practices, this retaliation is
a source of great harm to many of our fishermen and farmers. instead we should be working with our allies canada, the eu, and mexico, to implement a more targeted approach that will adjust china's practices, and help restrain retaliation provided our fish, farmers, and workers with a level of certainty, and helping our communities and your communities return to economic prosperity. i am grateful for all of the testimony we have heard here today. i think when people think of american farmers, they think of more traditional farming, like the ones that have been highlighted today. but, there are a lot of other people across the country, fishermen and others, who are already facing the consequences of this growing trade dispute. i just wanted to come here to add my voice to all of the voices we have heard today, and to really encourage the administration to try to bring
this plane in for landing, because there are many americans and american families, not just consumers, but people like this fishermen in the florida keys, who hire -- are already being agreed, especially at a time when my district is still trying to recover after the powerful storm, hurricane irma, that had as last year. we cannot take more pain at this time. we really hope that working together, republicans and democrats with the administration, with so many stakeholders throughout the country, we can all figure this out as soon as possible. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you for all your testimony, and your patience in waiting for us to come back from our responsibilities in voting. i think you have heard from both sides today, there is a little frustration expressed.
all of us i think want more communication with the administration, that is not unique to this administration. it occurred during the obama administration also, as we were discussing trade issues, and i was proud to be a part of the president's export council, and have the opportunity to participate in those discussions. it does not matter how many times we have mr. lighthouses are here, or mr. ross, or mr. navarro, or have opportunities to beat -- meet with the president, vice president, etc., we will always want more. that is what our responsibility is. we need to increase that conversation between administration, and the members that represent our the truancy. so, what i sort of caught was mr. bernstein's comment about the honor of testifying with people that to do stuff.
part of our responsibility is not just trying to communicate with the white house, and with the people who work there in making sure this does have a smooth landing, as mr. cabello pointed out, but the other part of our job, even though mr. kind recognized immediately, that we are hearing these things from our district. coming from washington state, those of those who represent districts in washington state, are hearing those stories. what is important is ensuring the stores today in washington dc in an open hearing, where a people around the country and around the world can hear your stories, hear your testimony, and hear our concerns and questions. most importantly, it is another way of communicating with the administration, because they also watch these hearing, and they listen and learn from what they have said, and what you have said, and what our questions are. that also gives us the
opportunity to continue that dialogue to say did you catch the hearing in the trade committee today. we will continue to fight. both parties will continue to fight, because we want to see you succeed. we want to help the people that do stuff. that is our job. the first job is to listen to you, and to help find a solution to help you keep doing stuff, and to help your family keep doing stuff. thank you again for taking the time to be here today. thank you for the work that you do. thank you for what you do for this country. it is indeed a calling. i have relatives in montana and asada -- minnesota who armed our whole lives. i still have relatives in montana who are doing the same thing. i know some of you are in harvest season. mr. manning had to go back to
his farm. or, you are prepared for harvest season. thank you for taking the time for being here. please be advised members will have two weeks to submit written questions that will be answered later in writing. those questions and your answers will be a part of the remaining wrecker. our record will be open until august 1. and i urge interested parties to submit questions. with that, the committee stands adjourned.
span. here is what is live on the c-span network at tuesday. now suzanne 10 am eastern. legislative work begins at noon. they take a ministry that will eliminate the medical device tax. on c-span two, the senate debates a number of spending measures they are working on. on c-span three, the house oversight committee looks at u.s. election security, that is at 10 eastern. at noon eastern, president trump delivers remarks at the veterans of foreign wars convention in kansas city missouri. after that, officials with the u.s. olympic committee, usa gymnastics, and michigan state university testifies on changes the institution has made to try and protect amateur athletes from sexual abuse. at that begins at 2:30 eastern.