the meeting will come to order. i want to say good morning and welcome to everybody who is here today at this morning's hearing on current and proposed tariff actions administered by the department of commerce. naturally, i'd like to welcome secretary ross in particular. i want to tha you, mr. seetary, for joining us. i intend to focus this morning on three investigations self-initiated by the department of commerce under section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962. it should come as no surprise, many of us on the committee have concerns about the process, the effects and strategy behind these investigations and resulting actions. that includes the serious problems that senator wyden and i raised in april about the product exclusion process, a process that still needs significant improvement. in february, the department of

commerce completed two of its section 232 investigations. one on imports of steel and the other on aluminum products. as a result of those reports, the united states is currently imposing tariffs of 25% on steel products and assessing tariffs of 10% on aluminum products. combined, these tariffs directly affect almost $50 billion worth of goods. while also affecting many billions of dollars more in downstream goods. american manufacturers are already suffering the consequences of increased costs and decreased supply of steel and aluminum inputs. take, for example, steel fabrication. bishops makes custom industrial equipment in my hometown, salt lake city, utah, and sells to customers in the united states and around the globe.

bishs has been in business since 1945, but because of the tariffs, they're worried about their future. steel prices are going up, not just for foreign steel subject to tariffs, but also u.s. steel. as a consequence, bush's has lost its competitive edge against foreign manufacturers, and the company tells me that contracts for future work have all but dried up. in jack's ornamental iron, they saw steel costs jump 20% in less than two weeks since the steel tariffs were announced. these companies are small, mr. secretary, but they are important. they're important sources of jobs in our communities, and they are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the steel and aluminum tariffs. on the other end of the scale, multibillion dollar investments for new manufacturing plants that employed thousands of workers are also being put at

risk. as you are aware, mr. secretary, the shell pennsylvania chemical project is one of the largest economic development projects in the united states. i grew up in pittsburgh, and i know how important this development is for western pennsylvania. the project is expected to employ 6,000 construction workers, and 600 full-time employees once the facilities are operational. unfortunately, this project is being slowed down, and these new jobs are being delayed, because essential parts are being stopped by customs as a result of the steel quotas. these parts are individually customized under contracts concluded years ago, and are suddenly being stopped at the port of long beach, because they contain steel from brazil. i know delaying these construction and manufacturing jobs and even putting some of these jobs at risk is not the intent of the actions on steel.

but it is the inevitable result. the negative consequences of the steel and aluminum tariffs are not isolated to manufacturing. rather, the effects have spread throughout the economy. take, for example, american farmers who are burying the brunt of retaliation for these actions. as many of us know, mexico is the largest export market for american pork, including pig farmers in utah. recently, mexico announced it will impose tariffs of 20% on u.s. pork in retaliation for u.s. steel and aluminum tariffs. china, our second-largest overseas market for american pork, is increasing tariffs by 25%. i just don't see how the damage posed on all of these sectors could possibly advance our national security. the steel and aluminum tariffs distract from the real trade issue that must be addressed. the president has repeatedly

stated that chinese mercantilist policies arm u.s. companies and the u.s. economy, something with which i fully agree. however, these steel and aluminum tariffs utterly fail to address chinese overproduction of the steel and aluminum products targeted. only about 5% are from china. let me repeat that. only 5% are from china. in reality, these actions target our allies, particularly canada and the european union, with whom our trade and steel and aluminum products far exceeds our trade with china. this is not just my opinion. the u.s. department of defense has stated that it is concerned -- it is, quote, concerned about the negative impact on our key allies, unquote, of the steel and aluminum actions recommended by the department of commerce, particularly global tariffs in the use of quotas. the lessons of the steel and aluminum tariffs are clear.

these tariffs do not support u.s. national security. instead, they harm american manufacturers, damage our economy, hurt american consumers and disrupt our relationship with our long-term allies while giving china a free pass. that's why i was stunned to hear on may 23rd that the department of commerce has initiated another investigation under section 232. this time into the national security implications of imports of automobiles and auto parts. this investigation covers more than $200 billion worth of trade, four times larger than that under the steel and aluminum investigations combined. a car isn't a can of soup. it's not a can of soup, mr. secretary. for most american families, their car is the second-biggest purchase they make. and many require a car to get to

their jobs. it is a significant financial commitment for most families, often paid for with debt. and i'm shocked that anyone would consider making it more expensive. average price of an imported car is $23,200. if the department of commerce were to recommend a 25% tariff on cars, it would be recommending raising the cost of an average imported car for an american family by $5800. to put that in perspective, the median household income in the united states is just over $59,000. that means that roughly 10% of the median household income could be erased purely by the additional cost of a single car. that's why i call tariffs a tax on american families. and the tax foundation agrees. it estimates that auto tariffs could result in a $73 billion tax increase on american consumers and businesses,

erasing tax reform passed earlier this congress. not only would these tariffs cost american families, but would also put american jobs at risk. the peterson institute calculates that auto tariffs could cause 195,000 workers to lose their jobs. that's nearly 200,000 people out of work, before other countries retaliate against american auto manufacturers, which supports u.s. jobs by exporting $65 billion worth of autos per year. and once again, though supposedly pursued for national security reasons, tariffs on cars and trucks target our closest allies. namely europe, canada, mexico, japan, south korea, while allowing china to continue its predatory trade policies undeterred. mr. secretary, as you consider these tariffs, know that you are taxing american families.

you are putting american jobs at risk, and you are destroying markets, both foreign and domestic, for american businesses of all types, sorts and sizes. i hope you will consider that carefully as your department conducts its investigation into the national security threat from imported automobiles and auto parts. with that, senator wyden, please go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. if you follow the news on trade, you know that secretary ross is a key trump official, negotiating with china, determining who gets tariff exemptions, and potentially reshaping the american automobile industry for decades to come. in the last few days, news reports about secretary ross uncovered a short sale of stock in a kremlin-tied shipping firm. new developments show that while

secretary ross was negotiating on trade with china, he may have maintained financial ties with firms connected to the chinese government. a fund controlled by the ross family reportedly owns a major national manufacturer of auto parts. this, unfortunately, is not a one-off story. virtually every day in the news, you get whacked over the head with another report about trump officials violating ethics rules or coming into questionable windfalls. you don't need a thick government rule book to recognize flagrant conflicts of interest when they're brought into public view. and when it comes to trade, americans have a right to know it's their best interests trump administration officials are looking out for at the negotiating table. the stories that we have seen in

the last few days call that into question. now, here's why these issues are so important. i am on board with several of the administration's top trade priorities. first, tougher enforcement of our trade laws. long overdue, colleagues. second, cracking down on china, ripping off american technology and jobs. also long overdue. updating nafta. you know, nafta was written decades ago. clearly, it needs an update. those are challenges that demand action. but taking action gets harder when you're surrounded by the specter of conflict of interest. that undermines the credibility of our negotiators, it certainly makes it harder to work in a bipartisan way in the congress,

and it makes it less likely the american people will accept the end results. it is also frustrating to watch as the administration's trade moves seem more like knee-jerk impulses than any kind of carefully thought out strategy. its most obvious accomplishment on trade so far is sowing a lot of chaos. that is unless you rank that behind the rescue of zte, an action that, in my view, has compromised and sold out american security and gotten nothing in return. chaos has consequences. and you don't have to take it from me. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are in place, but the process of determining what imports will be excluded is in a state of disarray. businesses from sea to shining

sea who are filing for these exclusions are waiting for the commerce department to do its job. so i've heard from potato farmers in my home state of oregon who export nearly a third of what they grow and now will face tariffs in key markets like mexico. i've heard from pacific northwest cherry growers who got nearly 1.5 million boxes of cherries ready to ship to china. they're worried those cherries are going to end up stuck on the dock or rotting in a warehouse, due to china's retaliation. small brewers find their costs skyrocketing when they need new can lines and holding tanks, which, of course, are largely made of steel and aluminum. now, a strong, well-planned strategy on trade would bring the full economic might of the united states and our allies to bear on china's trade cheating. that would give confidence to american farmers, manufacturers and service firms, rather than

creating yet more bedlam and chaos. and i believe there would be bipartisan interest here in the senate in fresh policies that would strengthen trade enforcement and protect american workers. so today has to be a beginning of the end of the chaos. i hope that we'll see more from the administration in the days ahead. i think it is priority business to get a clear sense of what is going to be done to resolve these questions we hear about from our constituents every single day. and those will be the questions i'll pose to secretary ross. and i appreciate him being here and look forward to questions. >> thank you, senator. i would like to extend a warm welcome to secretary wilbur ross for coming here today. secretary ross was sworn in as the 39th secretary of commerce

on february 28th, 2017, and has been the principle voice of business in the trump administration. secretary ross, it's a pleasure too much you here today, and please proceed with your opening statement. >> chairman hatch, ranking member wyden, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the actions we have taken to assure the continued viability of our important steel and aluminum industries. the reports i submitted to the president this past january, pursuant to section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962 found that steel and aluminum imports threaten to impair our national security. the president determined that tariffs are the necessary means

to address these threats. as a result, the president signed proclamations on march 8th, imposing a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports. the tariff actions taken by the president are necessary to revive america's essential steel and aluminum industries. they have been harmed by imports to the point that allowing imports to continue unchecked threatens to impair our national security. the tariffs on steel and aluminum are anticipated to reduce imports to levels needed for these industries to achieve long-term viability. in the short-term, sense the imposition of the section 232 tariffs, industry already has

started taking actions to restart idled facility. idled steel and aluminum capacity is being restarted as we sit here in illinois, ohio, south carolina, missouri and kentucky. several other companies have also announced new investments in these industries in oklahoma, florida, missouri and texas. in addition, the president authorized the establishment of a mechanism for u.s. parties to apply for exclusions from the tariff for specific products based on demand that is unmet by domestic production or for a specific national security considerations. today we are announcing our first determinations on 98

exclusion requests for steel products, granting 42 and denying 56. commerce has received more than 20,000 steel and aluminum exclusion requests, including resubmissions, and has posted more than 9,200 for public review and comment. commerce also has received more than 2,300 objections to exclusion requests. review of exclusion requests and related objections is being conducted, as it must be, be on a case by case basis. but we have made some major progress in reforming and improving the process, and i'll describe a couple now. first of all, we'll be accelerating the processing of

exclusion requests by immediately granting those which are correctly submitted in full, which no objections have been received during the public comment period. commerce is making an unprecedented effort to process the requests expeditiously. we also are developing a list of downstream products that have been hurt by imports since the tariffs have been imposed, and we are incorporating as many of these as are logical to the list we are recommending for inclusion in the 301 tariff listing of 200 billion that will be released shortly. we have already found some 50 products that will be included in that list. the public comment period on the interim final rule for these decisions ended on may 18th, and

we're reviewing the comments received to assess whether any further revisions to the process are necessary. finally, on may 23rd, after a conversation with the president, i initiated a proceeding under section 232 to determine whether imports of automobiles and automotive parts into the united states threatened to impair the national security. this investigation will examine the united states production capabilities and the technologies needed for projected national defense requirements, as well as the adverse effects of foreign competition on our internal economy. in conclusion, this administration is standing up for american families, american

businesses and american workers by taking action to reduce imports that threaten our national security. i thank you, and i look forward to answering questions from the members of the committee. >> well, thank you, mr. secretary. let me just start off with section 232 statute. requires that the secretary of commerce consider the domestic production that is needed for projected national defense requirements. when you decided to self-initiate a section 232 investigation into automobiles and auto parts, what were the projected national defense requirements for these products that you had identified? >> well, as you know, the investigation, mr. chairman, has just begun. so we do not have the detailed answers to any of those

questions. what we have done, as required by section 232, i immediately sent a notification letter to general mattis as secretary of defense, asking for his inputs. just as we had under the steel and aluminum investigations. and as you're aware, in the case of steel and aluminum, general mattis wrote back to us that he accepts the proposition of the threat to national security arising from the imports of steel and aluminum. i have no idea at this early stage what his attitude will be on the automotive sector, but it is a factor that we definitely will consider as required by the statute, and even more as required by good common sense as we consider these automotive and

auto parts environment. >> okay, product-based exclusions from the steel and aluminum tariffs are available in two circumstances. when a product is not available, domestical domestically in the quality or amount needed and when national security considerations weren't an exclusion. however, i understand that the commerce department is refusing to grant any exclusions from the quotas that limit the volume of steel and aluminum products that americans may import from certain countries. what is the national security justification for refusing to grant exclusions from quotas where in the same circumstances the same product would be excluded from tariffs? >> thank you for that question, mr. chairman. the president's proclamation does not authorize us to grant exclusions from quotas. there are very few countries that have quotas in any event.

those are principally the most important one of which is south korea, and that does have a quota, which is equal to 70% of the average shipments, product by product, from 2015 through 2017. in addition, brazil and argentina have agreed to quotas. and so those three are fundamentally the quotas that exist. we are taking into consideration the requests that have been made for exclusions, based on quotas that have already been exceeded or shortly will. the problem is that a number of countries rammed in a huge amount of product prior to the president's decisions. and therefore have put in much more than they had in the prior

year. so there's an intellectual challenge as to whether or not to reward those countries that were trying to game the system. nonetheless, we are giving real consideration to requesting the president to consider whether these similar exclusions should be granted to those countries subject to quota, as opposed to the ones we are granting to those countries that are subject to tariff rates. >> the process that the commerce department is administering for benefits to request product-based exclusions from the steel and aluminum tariffs has had, in my opinion, many serious flaws. and problems continue to surface. for instance, some subject to objections that in their view contain inaccurate, incomplete or misleading claims. and they would like to rebut those claims.

however, i understand that the commerce department has provided no f chaormalel for submitting rebuttals on regulations.gov, where all of the requests and objections must be filed. we will the commerce department accept rebuttal comments, and if so will petitioners be able to submit through the regulations.gov website? >> i'd like to put up chart number one, which will describe to you some statistics on the section 232 processing. i hope it's large enough type that can be viewed. but on the off chance that your vision is as bad as mine, i'll also read you the information. by type of submission, in case of steel, we have received

20,000 oo-3 exclusion requests. and in the case of aluminum, 2,503, totalling 22,506. against those, there have been objections filed in the case of 3,939 items in steel and 98 items in aluminum. for a total of 4,037 exclusion objections to the filing. in terms of comments, we have received during the comment period 383 comments on steel, 51 comments on aluminum, for a total of 434. so the total submissions in the case of steel are 24,325. in the case of aluminum, 2,652,

for a grand total of 26,977. of the exclusion requests, we have posted 8,168 in the case of steel. we have -- of those, we have rejected 2,513. the rejections are in addition to the ones posted. we have pending 9,310 for a total of 20,003. in the case of aluminum, we have posted 1,828. we have rejected 420. we have pending 253, for a total of 2,503. that comes to the same total, 22,506, of exclusion requests. in terms of objections, we have posted 1,765 in the case of

steel, 52 in the case of aluminum, a total, 1,817. we have rejected 230 in the case of steel, five in the case of aluminum. total, 235. we have pending 1,944 in the case of steel. 41 in the case of aluminum. total, 1,985. so the grand totals, there were 3,939 objections filed in steel, and 98 in aluminum, for a total of 4,037. the timing is in chart two. these are the steel submissions by week. and you can see, or will be able to see in a moment, that there was a big peak realized on the

week of the 14th of may of this year. in that single week, we received 3,175 requests. those are the large blue bars that you see on the chart. those have now tapered off quite a bit. the exclusion requests received in the week ended 6/11 this year are only 1,481. in terms of the ones posted, those are the gray bars, and you can see that's starting to go down, as well, because we're eating through the backlog. the orange bars are the objections filed. and you'll see that bar is growing very rapidly. as the exclusion requests have become a little bit seasoned, the objections come in.

and then finally, the yellow very small bars are the objection filings posted. so we're pretty well catching up with the backlog that was created. a similar pattern in aluminum in chart three. in the case of aluminum, the request for exclusion peaked in the weekended the 7th of may at 769 that week. and has gone down to 210 in the most recent week. of exclusion requests posted, that's again the gray bar, and you can see how that's going up. we managed to post in the week of june 4th 602. the orange bar, again, is objection filings. and the yellow bar, the very, very small one, is objection

filings posted. so there is no huge backlog, because, as you know, there was a mandatory objection period prior to which we could not grant anything. so you will start seeing more or less every single day batches of exclusions being acted upon. based on what we have seen so far, though, there is a high probability that relatively few of those will be granted, because many of them have no substance and/or have some potential substance, but have objections that are well-grounded posted against them. so i hope that gives you a bit of a feel for both the magnitude of the chore in terms of the number of requests received and the fact that we are making very good progress in dealing with them.

it's also important to note that under the president's proclamation, whatever the date when an exclusion request is granted, it's granted retroactive to the date when that objection was posted. so even if it takes a few days longer for people to be granted an exclusion, they really won't suffer meaningful economic harm, because it will be made retroactive, whatever tariffs they've paid will be refunded to them quite promptly. i hope that helps to clarify that part of your question, sir. >> senator wyden, out of my times, could i just make an observation after hearing all that? it sounds to me like we've got a government-run mercantilist economy as opposed to a free market economy. >> senator wyden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, look, your charts

notwithstanding, america's small businesses believe they are being held hostage in a bureaucratic twilight zone, waiting to see if they're going to escape. and you don't have to take my word for it, mr. secretary. here's what one of the top officials in the commerce department said this morning in the newspaper. he is quoted as saying that the process on these tariff exclusion issues is, quote, going to be so unbelievably random, and some companies are going to get screwed. these people are making multibillion dollar, unbelievably uninformed decisions. mr. secretary, those are not my words. those are the words of a top official in your department as of this morning. now, the number of companies,

and every single member of this committee is hearing from small business. every one. the number is staggering. you planned on receiving 6,000 applications for exclusion. so far, you've gotten 21,000. now, we're going to review your math today, but as far as we can tell, what you've done is going to address something like 1% of the applications. and by the way, adding further concern is this top official who is quoted this morning, says you've only begun training staff on how to process the applications. so every week, it just seems to me, there is more and more bedlam. and i'd like to start with a question of whether you are satisfied with how the product exclusion process is working

now. that's a yes or no answer. are you satisfied? >> well, thank you for raising those questions. first of all, as to this unnamed, anonymous allegedly high-ranking commerce official, i don't take very seriously comments that are made by people who are probably disgruntled for some other reason when they are anonymous. i don't think that that's a very good basis for anything. but more importantly, on the substance of it, the person is totally incorrect in saying we've only begun to train people. what is correct is that it took a long time for the congress to give us, through the appropriations process, the right to add people that we had requested, and they have not given us the full amount that we requested. between it being delayed and

smaller than what we had requested, that's why the new people, the people that finally we got permission to hire, about $1 million worth of them, those are the people who are being trained. so it simply shows this anonymous source is not very well-informed as to what is actually going on. that is simply wrong. >> i can tell that you want to dismiss the criticisms. but what he said, mr. secretary, is consistent with what every single member of this committee is hearing from home. i have companies that employ hundreds of workers in our state, making steel pipe fittings, cutting blades for a sawmill industry. a wide variety of industrial products caught up in this process. i was just home. all i hear are these endless stories. and i've got to tell you, i think it is a real head-slapper,

and it will be certainly baffling to these small businesses that check in with all of us on this committee for anybody to hear that this process is going well. it iswell. it is not going well. and i think i'd like to close with a very specific request, as you can see. the chairman and i have been working on these matters, and i don't think the improvements that you have talked about are going to be adequate. i would like to ask you this morning to commit to providing this committee on a bipartisan basis within a week a specific timetable and specific fixes so that the small businesses and the workers who are contacting us can really have a sense of what's going to happen. will you make a commitment to do that and get it to us within the next week, mr. secretary? >> i'd be happy to send to you within the second week our

program. but it is impossible to commit to a specific timetable when we don't know how many requests are yet to come in. so that's one big problem. as you can see, there are requests still coming in. but if you do the homework, you'll find that there are very, very few requests that have ended the comment period more than about a dozen days without response. >> mr. secretary, the reason i'm asking for this plan within a week is i don't think your department did a lot of homework at the front end, which is one of the reasons we're having the problems. y'all planned on receiving 6,000 applications for exclusion. so far you have gotten 21,000. so respectfully, i will tell you i don't think enough homework was done at the front end. i want to make it clear. i am expecting to see within a week to the chairman, myself and all of our colleagues on a

bipartisan basis an actual timetable on how we're going to get this fixed because i will tell you respectfully nothing i have heard this morning sounds like we're going to be on top of this any time soon. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i heard the question by our chairman about auto parts and this relates to it but it is a little more specific. section 232 announcement that the administration released may 24th states that it will apply to light duty autos and auto parts. >> now, many auto parts share the same product called in the automotive chapter in the u.s. har mow niced tariff schedule with other products such as heavy duty trucks, construction equipment, agricultural equipment and industrial engines. water pumps used in the cooling system of the construction equipment with classified as,

quote, fuel, lubricating or cooling medium pumps for internal combustion piston engines. the tariff schedule codeoes not differentiate between auto and construction equipment parts. is it the administration's intent to impose tariffs of up to 25% on all these parts for every country around the world even if they don't necessarily go into automobiles? >> at this early stage in the investigation, we do not have the data to make any of those decisions. but the intention is to deal with automotive parts, not to deal with parts throughout the economy. i can assure you of that. but there also has been no decision made as to whether to recommend tariffs at all.

we're at the early stages of the process. we have invited the various participants in the industry to make their submissions. they requested some extra time, so we gave them an extra week to do so. so we're trying to go about this in a very judicious and a very open, transparent and fair manner. >> okay. >> we will try our very best to avoid there being any unintended consequences, such as the ones few have described, and i have taken note of what you have said, and we will undertake to deal with that as we go through the process. >> i think that that would be a pretty satisfying answer to manufacturers oth than cars in my state. question two, you mentioned in your testimony that several u.s. steel plants are expected to come back online result of steel

and aluminum tariffs. i don't think do you think it will take for production from these facilities to impact and lower the price of steel here in the united states by increasing supply? >> it should be fairly quick. u.s. steel announced a couple of months ago their first restart, which was a million tons. they subsequently announced a second restart of a million and a half tons. that's two and a half million tons of steel. that's the better part of $2 billion worth of steel right there. so it's coming. exactly what length it will come, i don't know. but by around the end of the year, that problem should be really well addressed by most of these new restarts of facilities. what has been happening and is a very unsatisfactory thing, there has been a lot of speculative activity storing inventory,

withholding product from the market by various intermediary parties. so the price of steel and for a while the price of aluminum went up far more than is justified by the tariffs. and, so, we are starting an investigation into that, trying to find out whether there are people who illegitimately are profiteering out of the tariffs. there is no reason for tariffs to increase the price of steel by far more than the percentage of the tariff. and, yet, that's what has been happening that clearly is not a result of the tariff. that's clearly a result of anti-social behavior by participants in the industry. >> my last point is something you don't directly deal with, but i want to make this point anyway. it is not a question to you. it is just a message. i'd like to have the administration get. i realize that section 301,

intellectual property investigation is not in your jurisdiction, but since you are the person here representing the administration, icon v convey t point to you. the impact of the proposed tariff is getting very real. we watched the so ibean market start to collapse for a month. upper $9 range to a mid-8 range. yesterday down 40 cents, as an example losing $1.25 on national average soybeans equates to losing $61.25 an acre because of these movements. even if farmers don't have to sell their physical crop right now, the sudden volatility in the market can increase the cost of hedging and in some cases require margin calls for those who are long in the market. i would request you and others

in the administration and particularly peter navarro to be aware of the pros and cons of the statements to the press on these trade issues and be very diplomatic with comments. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> senator, i'd be happy to relay your comments to the parties you described. and, as you know, the president has directed the secretary of agriculture to use every power that is in his disposal to help the agriculture parties who are adversely affected by retaliation. but i will communicate what you have said to the white house. >> the president heard -- we heard the president say that to the secretary of agriculture. and in the process, all the senators around the table said we don't want money from the treasury. we want markets. thank you. >> just to follow up on chairman

grassly's question, what do you mean by that? what do you mean? what are you going to make available to our farmers and ranchers? what do you propose? when the secretary -- when ambassador was sitting there, he said your farmers and ranchers have my sympathy because they will be the first people that will -- that will suffer retribution if there is a trade war. i said they don't need your same pa t sa sympathy. what do you mean when you say the secretary of agriculture should do everything he can do who, by the way, i think opposes these policies. >> i am not familiar with all the tools the secretary -- >> how can you not be familiar with them? you have come here and testified that's how you are going to solve the issue. it is like describing the teal

prices going straight up like this as anti-social behavior and not a result of the tariffs. that is not true. >> i disagree with you, senator. >> anti-social behavior, even accepting that description, was provoked by the tariffs, wasn't it? >> no, sir. >> would it have existed with no tariffs? >> i think they viewed the ar tiffs as an opportunity for them to profiteer. >> thank you. they are related to the tariffs. so what do you propose the agriculture secretary should do? a policy opposed by my republican colleagues, but what they should do. >> well, it is up to the secretary of agriculture to come because each of the segments of agriculture is quite a different segment. i think he heard very clearly the comment from the farm state representatives that they don't want government aid. well, we have no control over what another country does in retaliation. but what the president just did

announce to try to discourage retaliation when the chinese on the 301 announced that they would match the $50 billion of product that we have put tariffs on with their $50 billion, the president put tariffs -- said he will put tariffs on $200 billion. that's a very significant number. >> it sounds like the beginning of a trade war to me, mr. secretary. and i think the sensitivity maybe on capitol hill might be that we're looking at a trillion dollar deficit next year, the largest deficit that we've seen outside of a recession or outside of a war because of this administration's policies. my point is i don't think you are going to have any backstop for our farmers or ranchers and to blindly pursue these policies without considering what happens to them i think is a huge mistake. i'd like to ask you following on the chairman's questions to you, mr. secretary, what is it about

the canadian steel industry that is a national security threat to the united states? >> well, the canadian steel industry is noteing accused of directly and individually being a security threat. >> what is our trade deficit in steel with canada? >> we don't have a trade deficit. >> we don't? >> no, sir. >> do we have a surplus with canada in steel. >> we have a surplus in dollars -- >> so does that -- >> may i finish? >> we have a surplus in dollars. we do not have a surplus in physical value. >> okay. so -- >> what happens is -- >> mr. secretary, what is the national security threat of the trade surplus that the united states has with canada in steel? >> the national security implication is in the aggregate all of the steel. >> but why would you put a tariff on -- what is the national security basis for the

tariff that you have placed on canada? i understand what we're supposed to be doing with china. i don't understand why the president is not focussed on it. i don't understand why he's excluding zte. i don't understand it. what is the national security rational for putting a tariff on the canadian steel industry, with whom we have a trade surplus? >> if you would let me finish the answer -- >> i will. >> -- i will try to do so. the reason the tariff is being put on essentially all countries, most of whom are friendly countries and have good relations with us and some others of which also have surpluses with us, the reason it has to be a global solution is, if you just looked at the raw data, you wouldn't think china is a problem for the u.s. because what they've been doing is masking their exports to us by shipping them through other

countries. so the raw data, if you just believe the raw numbers, china's shipping less to us than they did five years ago. the reality is quite to the contrary. they are disrupting global steel markets. they are causing both direct and indirect damage to it. so we have to do it on a global basis. the good news -- >> i'm -- >> i'm not quite finished. >> i'm sorry. >> the good news is that as a direct result of the 232s, suddenly europe is enacting safe guards against steel dumping into europe. they didn't do much before. canada is taking action. japan, for the first time, has created an enforcement body within mete to deal with the problem. the only way we're going to solve the global steel overproduction and overcapacity is by getting all the other

countries to play ball it was. and while they're complaining bit early about the tariffs, the fact is they're starting to take the kind of action, which if they had taken sooner, would have prevented this crisis. >> senator, your time is up. senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for coming today. i know you expect me to focus on tariffs as ably described by my colleague from colorado. and putting agriculture commodities in a retaliation bull's eye, that is an ongoing and very critical challenge for everybody in farm country. i'd like to start off my question by providing you with an update on the effects of the steel and aluminum name tariffs are having locally. first i want to let you know our

wheat harvest just started. the total will be the lowest in 40 years. we are in a rough patch. yesterday, here's the farm report. wheat was down 17 cents per bushel. corn down. by the way, i was in my office when the decision was made on the solar panels and the washing machines. i was in the white house when that happened. and the producers were there and they lost 80 cents on the dollar. you know, more problems with that as we continued. soy beans down about 20 cents. that would have been worse if it hadn't rebounded over the course of the day. we usually have our wheat exported to mexico. i'm talking about we -- we produce -- we have wheat on the ground from last year's crop.

this year's crop, as i said, was the lowest in 40 years. mexico is buying their wheat from argentina and their corn from brazil. that's the problem. we could be in a situation we would lose that market and our -- we wouldn't be a reliable supplier. once you do that, you are in a lot of trouble in the trade business. but i want to talk about recently the owner and operator of shield agriculture equipment, mike burkmeyer contacted me about the rising cost his business is experiencing due to steel tariffs. this is just one example. i guess he's an exclusion purgatory with one of the 42,000 you are trying to deal with. but it is a small business in kansas. it employs 42 people. the company designs and me

manufacturers tools and hardware. his company uses steel from canada to make their shields a key component of blade plows. farmers use this for conservation efforts all across the high plains. the steel is not available from any other mill in the united states and due to tariffs on steel, shield agos cost production for the single replacement blade is 85,000. shield ag submitted a request but is yet to see it on the website. i think every member here already mentioned that. it is a cumbersome and slow exclus pe exclusion process. i know you need people and i know you need funds to pay the people. they will have no choice but to pass the rising costs of production on their customers, primarily farmers and ranchers. he does not want to do that and

there are no situation to pay for it. what will be the impact of tariffs on steel and aluminum? well, mike knows. apparently mike knows, as do many small and medium sized enterprises seeing price increases now and have been for months. i think a case can be made these businesses are paying a price for the administration's negotiation strategy. it is imperative you and your department understand the current impact, not only with regard to farmers and ranchers and the entire ag industry, but also the small business community. the so-called little guy. so when mike called and talked to my staff, he asked who can i call? what can i do? i talked to him. i sympathized with him. but obviously you can only do so much as a senator. and also the chairman of the ag committee. i told him about the hearing today. and he made a request. and i made a request to you

earlier, and i appreciate your response. and that is you give mike burkmeier a call so you can hear the decisions they are making due to these tariffs. he gets up every morning at 5:30. that would be 6:30 our time. i know your time is extremely valuable. you have indicated you are going to give me a call. i gave you the card and little background sheet. i truly appreciate your willingness to give him a call because his example is a classic with regards to small businesses up and down main street in small town america. thank you. >> thank you, senator. from your description of his situation, it sounds like it's one for which the exclusion process was specifically designed. if it's the unique product, unique form of steel, not available from here and if there is no objection, which if there

is no u.s. manufacturer, it is hard to imagine there would be an objection filed, if none of that happens, there is no reason he wouldn't be granted an exclusion. as i promised you before, i promise you now on the record i'll call him no later than tomorrow morning. it may not be quite as early as 6:30, but i'll get him either today or quite early tomorrow. >> if you could move him to the top of the list, it would be great, but i'm not sure that's the way we ought to do business. >> do you know offhand, senator, when he filed the request for the exclusion? >> i do not know that. >> because if we -- >> i'll be happy to get back on you on that. >> there is a statutory waiting period that we have. we can't do anything until that clock has tolled. and, therefore, until we have received whatever objections there may be. so it could well be that he's in that period. if he's out of the period, we'll

do our best to accelerate. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, thank you for holding this. i'm going to have a different kind of a question for you. in january you were submitted a section 232 petition for relief from imports of foreign uranium that threaten our national security. according to the recent uranium marketing annual report for 2017 that was released by the u.s. energy information administration, domestic uranium comprised only 7% of the total uranium delivered to the civilian nuclear power reactors. our overreliance on uranium from foreign countries has created significant national security threat and ham strung our domestic uranium producers. the problem is particularly important in my home state of wyoming. will you initiate an

investigation based on this petition? when can we expect that investigation to begin? >> i'm quite familiar with that situation and have, among other things, been discussing it with secretary perry. because, as you know, energy comes directly under him. we will be making a decision very shortly as to whether to initiate a 232 investigation. it's complicated by some prior agreements that exist. but we're sorting through it. and we will come to a conclusion very, very quickly. i think your figures are quite accurate about the extreme dependance that our country has on foreigners that are not necessarily always our friends for the supply of aluminum. but we're going right now through the process of trying to come to a rational conclusion

about whether or not to self-initiate the 232 on aluminum. >> i appreciate that. and your answer. now, congress has enacted trade remedy laws such as the andy dumping duty remedies provided in title 7 of the tariff act in an effort to protect domestic industries. in the case of uncoded ground wood tariffs imposed to benefit, one million will result in significant harm to our rural newspapers. how should the commerce department approach cases where the protection of one portion of an industry can lead to significant harm of the same domestic industry given that congress did not enact the trade remedy laws in order to harm the overall economy. how does commerce ensure that commerce intent is achieved? >> right. well, among the data that we have requested from the newspaper industry, which,

frankly, has yesterdt to be forthcoming is how much per page for each of their publications does this mean. and the only ones we've gotten data for have been provided by the petitioner. and his figures show that it's a very trivial thing, both for major newspapers such as wall street journal and for small newspapers such as the one in the pacific northwest where he operates. so we have been seeking from the industry and some of the members of congress have been helpful in going back to their newspaper constituents and asking. please tell us who things -- three things. how many pages do you print a day? how much per page is the extra cost? and how does that compare to the price of the paper? then we could really put in

perspective and judge the extent to which it's compelling argument. so we are quite open to receiving that information. i have no idea what it will show. but we're desperately seeking input. so any newspapers in any of your areas who would be willing to submit that information would be very, very helpful. >> that information won't be very difficult from the big newspapers. it is the little newspapers that don't have the extra person to calculate what the per penny cost is on a sheet of paper. they do know the inserts they are putting in are also going up, which means advertisers are going to advertise less because they have a budget that they have to meet. and, so, it has a lot of different implications of which a lot of them are hard to calculate. but i can guarantee a lot of small newspapers are going to go out of business if that happens, and that one million may do well. on the other hand with less customers it may not.

thank you. >> there also, sir, are a number of parties who have told us that they are in the process of opening mills so that to the degree that the proves correct, there may very well be another solution, which are more domestic production. so we understand the dilemma. we understand the problem. to the degree you can get me that information, it would be very, very helpful because the only information on the record is what was put on by the petitioner. and his information is it's a fraction of a penny per -- not per page, but per issue, counting all the pages. so if he's right, that would say it's not a very big problem compared with some of the other problems the newspaper industry has. we already have gotten to a situation where he has withdrawn

his similar petition against the particular kind of paper used in directories. so that should also help alleviate the situation. so we're working on it. we're trying very hard to get a handle on just what these cost figures are. and, frankly, even with the small newspaper, i can't imagine they don't know what their paper cost is and the number of pages. so it can't be that hard a calculation for them to come up with. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, china has been stealing our intellectual property and using unfair trade practices for far too long. i'm glad the president is taking this problem seriously, unlike his predecessor. i am increasingly concerned that the tariffs will hurt american consumers and our domestic businesses, especially in the agricultural sec sor far more than they will persuade the

chinese to change their practices. with the president's announcement last night, it appears that this situation is escalating rapidly. my question is what is the administration's overall strategy to find an equitable solution in this case before the burden of these tariffs have an impact and drive down u.s. economic growth. >> well, the basic strategy is to try to bring enough pressure on parties who are not behaving appropriately so that they conclude that the alternative of continuing their present behavior is going to be more painful to them than seeding to the requests we've made that they honor intellectual property. as to the importance of intellectual property, the president is extremely committed, and so am i. and, in fact, yesterday, we had

a historic event that the president signed the 10 millionth patent issued by the united states. that's almost half of all the patents that have ever been issued in the entire world. and more than half of the ten million have been issued since 1985. so the pace of patents is growing very, very rapidly. and that's good. but it's only good if we can force other nations to honor them and not abuse them, not force technology transfers, not steal through cyber security, not do all of the horrible things that we're well aware are, in fact, being done. so the only method we could think of, we tried negotiation. i, myself, have been four or five times in china negotiating over the last year or so. and the president has concluded

that we need more than just negotiation. there have been years of talk with china about intellectual property. the president feels, and i agree, that now is the time for action. and unless we make it more painful for them to continue those practices than to do otherwise, unless we put that kind of pressure on them, it is unlikely we will succeed. >> we appreciate your focus on that. we all agree that they have been abusive. they cheated. and, again, i like the focus. but this thing seems to be escalating out of control fairly quickly. i want to come back to one other issue while i'm running out of time here. but the white's decision to impose tariffs under the section 301 investigation is also very concerning. this decision walks back an earlier announcement that the united states and china had reached a tentative deal that

would increase exports in china and put the implementation of tariffs on hold. threatens to severely damage the ag industry at a time when producers are already experiencing low prices in a down farm commodity. the current commodity markets are wildly dangerous, largely due to trade uncertainties. a recent one dollar drop in soy bean prices will cost producers in my state alone $225 million. corn, wheat, beef and pork are all suffering market price declined due to current trade policies. i would like to drive home that point, the point that with every passing day the united states loses market share in other countries competing with our ag product market. some of it unlikely to be recaptured. first with low and recently dropping crop and livestock

prices, producers are looking to the administration to create more opportunities for trade, not less. what is the administration doing to increase ag exports and promote jobs and how long will farmers, ranchers and the rest of rural america have to hold their breath until trade stabilizes, question number one. second, what new trade agreements are they working on? >> well, i met last friday with a delegation of farmers from north dakota. and they voiced similar concerns. but they amplified it in another direction as well. they felt that the market price, at least of soy beans, which was

the main product they discussed with me, that the market price decline has been exaggerated by speculative activity. their belief is that the price will level out at a better level than it is now. they also believe, and our own research tends to confirm, that it will be relatively difficult for china to fully implement their threat on soy beans. the fact is that brazil now ships to china around 55% of the soy bean imports it needs. we ship around 32, 33% from america. for brazil to replace us, and they're the only one which has remotely enough capacity to do it, they would have to increase their exports of soy beans to china by 60%. well, if they could do that, they'd be doing it already.

if they could do it at a competitive price. there is no evidence that brazil has been holding back just because we didn't put tariffs on china. so i think you're going to find that as this thing settles down, while there probably will be some problems, two things will happen. one, to the degree that china is able to pay a premium to brazil divert shipments from their other existing customers, that will open up the markets that were vacated by that product. whether that will be a full offset, i don't know. but i think that the current speculative activity in the ag futures market is due to anxiety, fear of the unknown, fear of what might come next. and i sympathize very much with that. but i heard from big farmers

directly they do think it is a little exaggerated. i don't know whether your constituents in south dakota feel the same or not. but the problem we have is if we're not going to fix the big problem, which is the unfair trade practices, the abuse of intellectual property now, when are we ever going to fix it? it's very, very difficult to do. it would have been a lot easier had prior administrations dealt with it before things got as far out of hand. but the president feels very committed that we've got to put maximum pressure on to have any hope of fixing the problems. >> well, and just to you know, there is a lot of consternation in farm country about that. i hope you're right. i hope things settle and stabilize. but in the long-run there is serious concerns about restricting access to markets,

rather than expanding. and obviously in farm country we've got to do everything we can to grow our markets. it doesn't seem -- at least right now we don't see any evidence that there is a lot of negotiation going on with respect to some of these countries that we missed out on with tpp. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you. >> if i could add one thing. you mentioned about the proposal the chinese had come up with about the $70 billion. i was the one who negotiated that. so that does show you that the administration is trying. it is just we were not able to accomplish enough to justify in the president's mind not going ahead with the tariffs. so i think there already are some signs that we may get some ultimate resolution. i don't think the chinese want a trade war anymore than we do.

and as you know, the president's general view is that the trade war was lost years ago. this is an effort to fix the outcomes that were unsatisfactory from it. >> senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have sent a letter with senators brown and portman regarding electrical steel. that was back in march. at that time, that letter asked the president to expand the scope of 232 to cover downstream electrical steel products. we followed up on that request with your office in the white house staff, as you know. we have only one electrical steel manufacturer left in the united states. they have been hammered by imports of electrical steel and minimally downstream products. the continued import of these dumped products in the u.s. not only endangers good paying jobs

in pennsylvania but also put at risk the last domestic producer of electrical steel, which is of significant national security importance. i was glad to see the trade representative included downstream electrical steel products on their 301 list. >> yes. >> could you provide an update on where things stand with regard to the inclusion of downstream electrical pructs? >> well, i believe there is no doubt that they will be included. there will be a big list forthcoming very, very shortly. and i believe that will cover the downstream products in the electrical steel, as well as in some other areas. and i don't know if you were here for my opening remarks, but we have also supplied a supplemental list to the u.s. trade of other industries we have become aware have the same problem where instead of it

coming in as raw steel or relatively low degree of processing, it's coming in as a little bit more sophisticated product. so we are working actively to deal with that because that's even worse than the steel itself coming in because now you're hitting another layer of value added, another layer of jobs just beyond the steel. so we are totally cognizant of that. and unlike some other considerations, that's something we believe we can very well deal with in the 301. >> thank you. and i was also going to ask you today about newsprint tariffs. as you know, in a state like mine, we've got a couple of major papers. not a lot of smaller papers. lots of jobs at stake when it comes to policy that affects those newspapers. >> yes. >> you and i have spoken about this. i appreciate you taking the time to talk about it.

after our conversation, i sent a letter to you regarding the initiation of a suspension agreement. i hope you're given that suspension agreement request in the accompanying data provided serious consideration and i hope you take the appropriate action to address those concerns. >> yeah. i just received your letter within the last couple of days. and i would make the same request to those papers. give us the per page. give us the information. i don't know if you were here when this question was raised before. but what we're seeking from the papers is how much paper did they use in a page? how many pages do they publish in each issue? and what is the subscription price or the price that they have? so that we could put it into perspective because, for sure,

any time you deal with products that have been dumped, for sure somebody is going to bear an increase. the question is is that really an important increase to them or is it just something which adds a little bit existing problems that they have from internet and from social media and stuff that's unrelated to papers? so to the degree you can get your newspaper constituents to give us those data, it would be a great help. >> we will work on that and provide an ample record. >> thank you, senator. >> thanks, mr. secretary. senator brown? >> thanks, mr. secretary. i'd like to ask if you would just, in interest of time, if you would -- i'm going to ask a series of question. i would like a yes or no, if you would answer that way, please. first of all we want the electrical steel issue revolved.

in your investigation, you identified steel mills that had closed because of imports. according to the steel workers since 2012, some 6,500 to 7,000 members have been layed off in my state alone due to steel plant closures, all in the northeast quadrant of the state. we know the culprit behind these layoffs is global steel over capacity which started as a chinese problem but affected the other market. you know all this. my question, first question, is based on your 232 analysis. will you expect more steel mills to close? and will you expect thousands more workers to be laid off in ohio and across the country if the u.s. took no trade enforcement action to address china's steel over capacity? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

i often say we don't address unfairly trade steel imports now. china and other countries will just move down the supply chain. today it's steel. tomorrow it is cars or some other finished product. do you agree china intends to use unfair practices to gain market share. not just in steel, which they have done, but other sectors down or up the supply chain? >> yes. >> given the role you have had in trade talks with china, do you believe it would undercut u.s. leverage in these negotiations if congress took action to weak b our trade enforcement tools, whether by undermining section 232 statute or our anti-dumping laws? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i thank ranking member widen for his outspoken especially recent defense of trade remedy laws. last question.

we know china is trying to gain u.s. market share by buying up our companies right now. if the investments fall outside the scope of the committee for foreign investment in the u.s. outside our national review scope, we don't review them at all. the bill that senator grassly and i have would give you, the secretary of commerce, the authority to review those investments and give us another tool to fight chinese unfair trade practices in their investments here. senator grassly and i want to get this bill signed into law. there is a lot of interest in both parties here. we'd like to get it into law, particularly as the administration considers investment restrictions against china. will you work with us to get this bill to the president's desk? >> well, we are happy to have -- to help you with anything that will make it easier to restrict the chinese investments here. as you know, we have been placed

right now some 446 trade actions against various countries for various infractions. of those, about half are against china. and about 40% of that half are on steel. so that means there is 60% in products other than steel already. to the degree that we could have the ability to pass on anything that the chinese were trying to acquire, it would be very useful power because it would right w now, it is somewhat constricted as to what can be done. firma will be helping in that regard. >> this is just to make clear for anybody listening. this is about chinese investment in the u.s. or other country's investment in the u.s. are you prepared to take a position in support of this bill

at this point? >> i am prepared to take a position in support of the objective so far. >> we want to get with you and yourtaff to get an endorsement from the administration and more than just an endorsement. we will do that. and thank you for all your answers. and my invitation for you as we talked about after your nomination to come to the steel plant still stands. i hope you can make it. >> thank you very much. as you know, it is one of the communities where facilities have been re-opened. >> well, we're working on it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thanks for joining us today. well, i'm very concerned about a number of aspects about these tariffs. not the least of which it does not seem to me that the administration has taken into account the fact that for every person who works in the steel production industry there is probably something on the order of 40 or more people who work in steel consuming industries. and, so, we're picking winners

and losers and probably resulting, in my view, in the risk of far more jobs lost than jobs are going to be gained. one company that comes to mind. by the way, i september the letter two months ago, and i have not yet received a response. i would appreciate it if i could get a response. >> it's en route to you as we sit here. >> okay. it's been almost two months. it was a list of many pennsylvania companies that have applied for exclusions, allegheny technologies is one, the steel producers. and because they have been able to import a particular type of teal that is not commercially available in the u.s., they bring it into a facility they have in pennsylvania where they recently brought back almost 100 workers. these workers have total compensation packages on average that exceed $100,000 per worker. these are good jobs. and every one of them is at risk if they don't get an exclusion. they haven't heard anything

since their submission in early april. and i certainly hope they will get a prompt response because these guys don't deserve to lose their jobs because we have decided to impose taxes on american consumers of steel. i hope that we will get a quick resolution to their situation. but i think other circumstances are more difficult. i recently had a conversation with an executive from craft heinz, iconic american company, co-headquartered in my state. it is a quintessential american product. i don't think i have had a day of my life that their ketsup hasn't been on the shelf in my kitchen. as a result of nafta and the free trade agreement we have with canada and mexico, they decided to resupply their supply chain and moved from canada to the united states. and all of the ketsup they sell to canada is manufactured in the

united states. well, unsurprisingly, canadians decided they will impose huge taxes on the sale of american ketsup. it is hard to imagine that doesn't dramatically erode their market share. there is a solution for kraft heinz. they haven't suggested this to me, but i wasn't born yesterday. the solution for them to be able to continue to sell their product in canada would be to move to canada. then they wouldn't be subject to these tariffs. so i am very, very concerned about the direct consequences for the downstream steel and aluminum users, and we're seeing the threat to their jobs. and i'm really concerned about the retaliation which hasn't even really started to hit us yet. but it's going to hit the people who headache kraft and heinz products. i would like to follow up on a question that senator bennett was pursuing. with respect to 232 tariffs on

canadian steel, i didn't hear a persuasive argument for why the importation of these modest amounts of steel from canada amounts to a national security threat to the u.s. let me pose the question differently. what policy change would the canadians have to make? what would they have to do so that the administration would stop taxing my constituents on the steel that they buy from canada? >> as i believe you know from testimony from ambassador lighthauser, the president -- and know from the media as well, we had initially exempted canada and mexico from the 232 pending negotiations of nafta. >> right. >> overall. unfortunately, those talks were not able to come to a

conclusion. the ambassador has indicated publically that he's optimistic that after the mexican election, which, i believe, the 1st of july of this year, that those talks could pick up steam again. our objective is to have a revitalized nafta, a nafta that helps america. and as part of that, the 232s would logically go away. both as it relates to canada and as to mexico. >> so i'm about to run out of time. so let me just respond to this. first of all, i'm very deeply concerned that the very provisions that trade representative is seeking would make nafta a much lesser agreement. it would weaken nafta. one is to have a sunset provision which basically causes nafta to expire in that kind of context. i think we can expect to see a departure of investment from the united states, which would be harmful.

i wish we would stop invoking national security because that's not what this is about. this is about an economic policy of managing trade. when south korea is exempted from 232 securities because they agreed to lift quota on american car exports, which we weren't hitting anyway and they agreed we would punish our own consumers of south korean light trucks and that got them exempted, that has nothing to do with national security. my time is out, but i want to urge the commerce secretary, please do not impose these taxes on my consumers with respect to automobiles. and since we are witnessing what i think is a wholly inappropriate use of the 232 tariffs, i would urge my colleagues to support the legislation that the senator and i have, which would restore to congress the authority to make the final decisions about the imposition of those tariffs. >> thank the senator. a couple of other questions, mr. secretary, and we'll see if other colleagues are coming in.

so commerce department made a deal with zte. and i was struck by the fact that during all of this the trump administration had a nominee, mr. william evenena, so let an important and new counter intelligence post. this is an open hearing in the intelligence committee. we don't have very many. and i ask him if he thought zte. there has been a bipartisan report on this in the past. and he said yes. so the commerce department has now entered into a deal with zte. so my question is, does the commerce department believe that the espionage threat that the counter intelligence nominee was concerned about, does the department believe that the

espionage threat has gone away? >> i think it is a little more complicated question and a little more complicated answer. when the only powers that commerce has relate to enforcement of export controls, zte violated those provisions by breaking the sanctions both to north korea and to iran. that's why in early 2017 we forced them into a settlement agreement that was approved in court. and that agreement provided for them to pay between escrows and actual cash over a billion dollars and to agree that in the event they have further violations of the agreement that we could take one of two courses of action.

one was to confiscate the 300 billion that had been suspended as part of the original deal and two was to shut them down. the staff at bis, which is bureau of industry and security, and that's the relevant part of commerce, they recommended that in punishment for the second thing that came up just recently, namely march of this year, which was not further sanctioned violations but rather proof that zte had lied to us during the negotiation process and after it. they recommended that we grab the 300 billion -- 300 million. i felt that that was not enough of a penalty and, therefore, initiated the action with the support ultimately of bis that we not do the 300, that we

instead shut them down. when president trump made the request that we reconsider and see if there was some other way to deal with the behavior that's within our domain, which is not espionage, it's simply violation of export controls, we came with the new solution of fining them a billion dollars more and $400 million in escrow. but more importantly, the right to put in a monitor of our choosing, a group of people of our choosing who would have unfettered access to zte. there has never been an enforcement case of either an american company or a foreign company where we have gotten that power. so i believe, and i believe most people agree, that from a

strictly enforcement point of view, which is all that commerce is empowered to deal with, from the strictly enforcement point of view, i think if this had been our original solution, everybody would have applauded it. it is only with this other revolution about espionage if that is outside -- >> whoa, whoa, whoa. please, mr. secretary. i have let you go on for white a while. recent revelation about espionage? when he came, i pointed out that the house on a bipartisan basis has been talking about the fact they think zte is an espionage threat for years. now, you certainly have a right to basically take the full five minutes to take me through this explanation. but i still haven't gotten an answer as to whether you and

this administration agrees with him, who said in an open hearing that it was an espionage threat. so what i would like to do is hold the record open and have you give us in writing and consult with your colleagues whether you all feel that zte -- zte is still an espionage threat. because what i see in the trade area and certainly we need not go in to differences you have had with mr. navarro and mr. lightheiser, one of the big challenges for bipartisan support for the president's trade policies where there is lots of opportunity to come together on enforcement and on china and on upgrading nafta is it is virtually impossible to sort out how different voices

within the administration speak on trade and in my view seemingly contradict each other. because when i asked him in an open intelligence hearing thoug espionage threat he did not have a three and a half minute answer. he had one word, yes, i consider zte an espionage threat. so let me ask you about one other matter, and we will await to have a written response, could we have that within a week with respect to zte as a current espionage threat with you and your associates and the administration. is that acceptable to you? >> we will respond to all of the requests for written answers as promptly as possible, sir. >> well, i would like that, again, in a week because, as you know, we are continuing the debate here in the congress with respect to zte, so i hope that

we will get this within a week. one other question with respect to how you all intend to proceed in some of these areas. when there was discussion with respect to the tariffs on steel and aluminum and how you were going to look at this going forward, and i think your prepared statement touched on this, you said you would evaluate it on the basis of what constitutes good management and then you had other criteria. so are you all going to be in the business of trying to create measures for what constitutes good management for these areas of the economy that are so important to american businesses? >> no, what i was referring to

was that our objectives in the steel and aluminum tariffs was to get the volume levels and the facility utilization levels to a point where with decent management they should be able to be self-sufficient, able to support the necessary r & d, i believe to support the necessary capital expenditures and therefore be viable as long-term entities. it's not that we're going to pick and choose winners and losers in that regard, it simply was what was our target, which is to get the operating rates up to where decent management could survive. >> one last question, and we understand you have to go here at around 11:15. there are colleagues that are coming back because of the vote schedule. on the autos investigation, i'm curious who you talked with in

connection with putting this all together. for example, did you talk to the united automobile workers? was this something that you all did as you tried to reach out? and same thing with respect to business and, by the way, i didn't hear about it as the ranking democrat on the senate finance committee, which troubles a lot of the members because there are consultation requirements, as you know, embedded in the law. so when you took on this auto investigation, who did you consult with? >> well, we took it on, as you know, at the request of the president. the period for comment from unions from members of the industry, from foreign companies, from interested parties in the public is just now beginning. i believe we've issued the public register notice about

hearings and comment periods and at the recent request of the american automotive industry we have extended the deadline for that by a week so that they can provide the full breadth of information that they wish us to consider. we obviously have not talked to all the participants because the investigation is just beginning. >> well, as you know, 232 is different with respect to consultation and it's one of the concerns i have is that there ought to be more consultation with the congress and as far as i can tell the way this process unfolded on 232 is you pretty much had one conversation, you had a conversation with the president and to me when we are talking about something with such sweeping implications for the american economy, we're

going to have to do better with 232 and with consultation. i hope my colleague from missouri made the second vote. >> i did. >> so i think we can hand the gavel off to her. th there may be other colleagues coming. >> i believe there are. there are a number on the floor that have not yet questioned the secretary. >> it would be good if, senator mccaskill, you can handle the remainder of the hearing because i will have to take off. >> thank you. secretary, thank you for being here. you know, as someone who has listened to my colleagues across the aisle bang the podium for free markets and less regulatory burden, i feel like i've gone down the rabbit hole as it relates to the issues that we're discussing today. it appears to me that in a chaotic and frankly incompetent manner, you are picking winners and losers on very technical basis according to all the

reporting we have without a great deal of training and the regulatory burden is so extreme on small businesses, for example, if someone gets a waiver for a very specific product, and i don't need to tell you with what kind of specificity many of these companies are filing dozens of waivers based on having to file a different one for every slightly different product. a waiver for a very specific product for one business does not even result in a waiver for another business with the exact same product. you are requiring that these waivers be filed every year and many of these are small businesses and i want to tell you the story of one. the majority of nails that are manufactured in this country come from a company called mid continent nail corporation in popular bluff, missouri. it's about an hour down the road from the aluminum smelter that you referenced in your opening

statement. it is the only large scale producer of steel nails in the united states. they produce over 50% of the nails made in america. the company has 500 workers in a town of only 17,000. they are the second largest employer in poplar bluff. so far in response to the tariff they have lost almost half of their business in one month due to price. they went from an average of 9,000 tons of nails sold every month, in june that dropped to 5,500. in july the company will sell fewer than 4,000 tons. the customers can easily source nails manufactured in other countries. so they've now laid off 60 of their 500 employees, they have idled their most sophisticated

production facility in poplar bluff and they are expected to cut 200 more jobs by the end of july and the company that has visited with us at length believes they will be out of business by labor day. they absorbed the duties for inputs because the inputs were, in fact, so much cheaper. they have filed 24 separate exclusion requests but there will not be enough time for them to potentially save their business. now, down the road the smelter has indeed added jobs, but at the end of the day we're going to lose more jobs an hour down the road at the nail company than we may gain in the smelter. so this is what is happening and all of us have talked about this and frankly, i don't want -- i mean, i would love to save this company. i want to save this company but there's something very wrong

that people on this committee are able to jump the line with individual companies and have you call someone in kansas or have you go back and figure out how you can help this nail company when there are thousands of employees across this country that are potentially going to lose their jobs because on the day you announce the tariffs you had not done the homework about what exclusions would be appropriate. and that could have been done. that's what george w. bush did when he announced steel tariffs on the very day he announced the tariffs they announced exclusions. that's why it feels like what's going on over there, training people in three-hour sessions with something so complex really feels chaotic and incompetent. >> well, let me address the several remarks. first of all, mid continent only filed their exclusion request two days ago. so for whatever reason they did not file it on a very prompt basis. >> they filed it last week. >> yeah, two days ago.

we received it two days ago. i don't understand and i'm not belittling their situation at all, but given the importance of it to them it's very unfortunate that they waited all these weeks to file the request because under the authority we were granted, there is a process which we have to follow. >> you could have excluded them on day one, mr. secretary. you had the ability to list exclusions on the same day you announced the tariffs. that would have just been a matter of homework. it took you a year to figure out the 232, why couldn't the experts at commerce figured out exclusions that would obviously lie. >> all i can tell you is we can only deal with exclusions of which we are aware and they just filed theirs very recently. but more substantively than that, i don't think you were here earlier when i described

the process -- >> no, i heard -- and, by the way, it would be really helpful if you're going to bring charts like that if you would give us all copies. >> sure. >> that would also be something that you would think would be normal that you would distribute the charts that you would put up that frankly i can't read from over here. >> we would be very happy to. we just completed the charts last night. >> well, then you could use a copy machine. there is not that many copies on the committee, mr. secretary. >> we will be happy to provide you -- >> that will be good. senator cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary ross, we have had many conversations about washington state and trade writ large. i guess i would say this, that we kind of look at trade wars as they 1980s retro policy because one in four jobs are related to trade, so whether it's aerospace or agriculture or now seafood that's going to be impacted, when we had trade wars it impacts the washington economy in a major way.

so many of our businesses have fought these same fights that you are trying to fight, but they have tried to avoid the trade war because in the end what happens is somebody pays the price and in this case we're very, very concerned about agriculture. not only do we have $10 billion plus revenue from ag in our state, we pushed through our ports about $182 billi worth of ag products. so anything that affects ag affects our state writ large. anything obviously on the steel tariffs impacts aerospace and now we're faced with this seafood issue. so i guess what i'm really trying to understand is how do you think this end game is going to support people who are in a sector that is paying the price in the short term for as many of my colleagues have said this area of job recovery in one

area, but means tremendous risk and failure in other areas if these tariffs continue. >> well, the president's objective is not to end up with high tariffs and his objective is not to end up with the trade war. he has made that pretty clear. >> do you think we are in a trade war right now because i do? >> well, i d finish. his objective is to get to a lowering of trade barriers, both tariff and nontariff ones, and to protect intellectual property. the problem we have is that because of constrictions imposed by the wto rules, there are relatively few tools we have to accomplish those objectives. the main tool seems to be one of trying to put pressure on china and on other parties who are

doing what we view as untoward practices because the only way we're going to get them to change and protect another big industry in washington, namely one very dependent on high tech and very dependent on intellectual property, that's those in the industries a lot of the future as well as the industries of the present is to put pressure on them. the purpose of this is to get to an end game that's much closer to free trade than anything the world has seen before. the tragic fact is that historically we are the least protectionist country in the world and we have the deficits to show for it. it would have been much easier to solve these problems sooner. they were neglected, the president has decided to take decisive action to deal with those problems now. that's what is our purpose.

>> mr. secretary, i just want to be clear. do you think we are at a trade war right now? because that's where i see us. >> as the president has often said, we've been at a trade war forever, the difference is that now our troops are coming to the ramparts. >> mr. secretary, i want you to hear me. apples and cherries are getting hurt. >> i understand. >> people who are farmers who are small businesses, small business, individual businesses, who fight every day to get access to asian markets, to india, to canada, to mexico, they believe in a trade policy that keeps moving forward. why? because they gain access and there is a growing middle class around the globe. they get that we can grow things and be competitive at growing things even if they are more value added products. american agriculture can still

win, but what they can't win at is if you push them off a shelf space in a huge tariff and they are not coming back. that person doesn't refinance their company and just come back, they might be out of business forever. so i just -- i don't think you are empathetic enough to the plight of agriculture, now seafood, which, again, is also on short margin will be in the same spot. these people might go out of business while you're creating this trade war. i would say, mr. secretary, trade wars are not good, they're very damaging and for the state of washington they are very damaging. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much, secretary ross, i'm over here in this corner. i'd like to try to get whatever information we can that either your department or the treasury department has about what the administration's expectations

are for how this plays out. we know what tariffs the administration is planning to impose, you know that because they're your tariffs. so that's a known. correct? >> yes. >> yes. >> ours and usgr. >> and we probably have some pretty solid intelligence and estimates and conclusions about if we do x the chinese do y, the canadians do y so we have some ability to project what the trade measures are likely going to be. given, then, what we know about our own tariffs and given what we predict about trade countermeasures, presumably someone at commerce or treasury is thinking through how those inputs cascade into different industries and what different

industries have to look forward to. now, if you're senator cantwell and you have boeing in your state, that's a very big company that can pretty well take care of itself and try to figure this out as best it can, but if you are a rhode island parts manufacturer with 30 employees who are providing things to boeing, it's really hard to know how this apparently unplanned or only simply planned or partly planned cascade of tariff consequences are going to come down and hit you. so i guess my question is what does the commerce represent have and to the extent that you know it what does the treasury department have by way of predictions as to how these trade conflicts will cascade

into the american economy and who needs to worry the most? i assume that you looked at that kind of stuff before you embarked on this and i'd like to see whatever it is that you've gone. >> okay. as to the 232s, we have testified before about research we've done into the direct impact of the 232s on various segments of the economy. i think you are aware that we've testified that it's a fraction of a penny on a can of campbell's soup, it's a fraction on a can of budweiser, fraction on a can of coke. that it's less than 1% on the cost of an automobile. e de those kinds of -- >> can we see those studies? can we see those studies? would you let us have a look at them? can we make that a question for the record? >> they are not very difficult to figure out. >> they're difficult for a rhode

island manufacturer are 30 employees to figure out. if the government has that information it would be great if you can share it so we can have a sense of what to expect. >> the best proof that they are accurate is with all the complaints that have been voiced about the 232s, no one has refuted the percentages that i have quoted. >> i'm not trying to refute them, i'm trying to get access to them. i'm trying to get that information to us. >> we're happy to do that. >> sometimes a question for the record goes in and nobody ever answers it. so i want to have -- be able to call up your legislative staff later on and say, actually, the secretary agreed to give us this in the hearing and maybe that will help them get the information to us. >> yeah. what we also did was we looked overall at the economy and the total amount of tariffs is a small fraction of 1% of the gdp. so it's not physically possible for the tariffs as such to have

more of an impact than that on the overall economy. >> my time is running out i'm down to 30 seconds. i want to make sure my request also includes whatever planning or projections were done for the president's announcement that he was going to jack up the china tariffs $200 billion. so specific to that particular trade threat i'd like to see what the economic projections are as to how that plays through. >> well, that one is not commerce, that relates to the u.s. trade rep. >> but i've got you here so i assume you have access to that material, right? you are the secretary of commerce. they are not going to tell you, no, you can't see that. >> i really think your proper party to ask that to -- we are not 301, we are the 232s. i would be happy to relay the request to the u.s. trade rep. >> so you are truly telling me

that you are not going to answer this question. i should go knock in a different door in the same administration? >> no, there are different doors because we have different responsibilities and different functions. >> but you do have access to the u.s. trade representative's materials, do you not? you talk to each other, you exchange documents, you are operating as a team, are you not? >> everyone has access. if you would like to submit that as a written request. >> that's what i would like to do. >> senator portman. >> thank you. >> senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you having the hearing today and secretary ross, good to have you back. you guys have been busy clearly. as you know, i'm suprtive of cracking down on china. i think it's necessary. i think we've tried in the past, it's not been successful and my hope is we will have more success, we have to be careful about an escalation there. i also support what we're doing with regard to a better nafta accord. we need nafta. we need it badly, but we have to be sure that it's updated. i also believe in leveling the

playing field generally, and i'm in the leveling the playing field act with senator brown. my concern is 232 and you and i have talked about this. >> yes, sir. >> it's a very extraordinary remedy that ought to be used very carefully and very collectively and it ought to be used for national security reasons which is why it was drafted. frankly my concern is the way we are using it now is misusing it and having negative economic impacts in certain sectors but it risked us not having this tool in the future. although the wto has not adjudicated this case if we're pushing the envelope beyond national security i think we lose a tool that could be important for us in a true national security situation. deeply concerned about its application to canada, as an example. our number one export market from ohio. the country's number one export

market. mexico, the eu, i don't see a national security perspective there. i've looked back, trying to figure out what did we mean back in the '60s when we came up with this bill. it's only been use add few times. it hasn't been used in over 30 years. >>ght. >> george bush tried to use it and his secretary of commerce said it's not a national security concern with regard to steel so he had to use another measure. it doesn't require any surgery. it doesn't require any showing of material injury. so it's very unusual in terms of our trade laws and ought to be used for national security concerns. when you look back at the then chairman of the ways and means committee he talked about this needs to be used to be sure we are helping our allies not hurting them. he said any modification of a duty on imports would inevitably result in a burden on exports. it would also be a disadvantage to national security. that was the thought here, this would be very narrow. speaking of damages, ohio, as you know, is disproportionately

hit, hit harder than any other state by the canadian retaliatory tariffs as an exame bse of 232. i get your argument that we have a global glut of steel. i agree with that. china is the reason. 15 years ago they had 15% of production, now they have about 50% of the world's production. they don't need t they're sending it out below its costs that's dumping. that's why we are winning these cases includes a 300% tariff on some of the rolled from china today. i believe that the enforce act ought to be used much more effectively. it's in law to top these shipments where china sends its product to one country and ends upcoming to us. we are not enforcing it in the way we should. i think with regard to canada and mexico there is a solution that we ought to be looking to, one the enforce act, if you see a problem, two, let's measure train shipment. my understanding is we don't know to the extent there is any trans shipment.

we are not accusing them of that. if that's true let's have a trigger in place where should that happen we can react. it seems like that would be an appropriate part of the nafta negotiations. how would you feel about such an approach where we could measure trans shipments and have it trigger nafta as opposed to using 232, this blunt instrument? >> at present there is no measurement being conducted because customs and border aren't they interested in things that are shipped between two countries that have no tariff between each other. we do not have definitive data as to what's going on in the way of trans shipment from china through canada. we have seen all kinds of trans shipment with or without slight modification of product going on to get around the existing enforcement actions we've taken. you are well aware we have some

440 trade actions in force, including the one we just put in on the welded large diameter pipe mostly against china. but what happens it the wto rules as you are well aware as a former u.s. trade rep require great specificity as to product and origin. if they make a small modification a steel bar like this if they put a little tiny flange on it we have to start all over. >> i would just say, mr. secretary, and i appreciate your response. that's why we wrote the enforce act precisely to be able to get at those kinds of situations. i understand you are saying that customs and border protection doesn't prioritize this issue as much as you would like them to apparently. we agree. that's why we wrote the law. so it seems to me before we take these extraordinary actions and really risk the possibility of using 232 in the future in my view, because i think the next

time it's before the wto it's going to be problematic for us given the way we are using it without any national security connection. let me go into another one which is automobiles. what's the basis for a national security concern with regard to automobiles? >> well, we are at the early stages of the investigation on the auto industry so we clearly don't have conclusions. there are a few things that, however, that we are very concerned about, one of which is the automotive trade deficit that we have been experiencing. the overall trade give sit and we will put up a chart to show you why we think it is so important and so dramatic. the blue bars, the vertical ones, are the amount of trade deficit each year and you will see that starting about 1985 we

had small trade deficits in autos, now we have quite huge one pushing $140 billion a year. we have a similar one in auto parts. >> let me just say because i'm over my time and i apologize, i wish we had more time, maybe we can do a second round. i know you have to leave also, but my point is not that we don't have a need to balance trade, it is what tools we use. and if you use 232, which i looked back at the legislative history has only been used three times since the 1960s when it was written, it hasn't been used in over 30 years because other commerce departments have said this is not a national security concern. i do think that you risk not only these huge retaliatory tariffs that will be upheld. by the way, our auto industry now is the number one exporter in america, cars and auto parts, number one exporter.

so losing those export markets is a big deal to the auto companies as well. it's also a highly integrated industry as you well know given your background. so the supply chains are complicated but they're international. so they're very concerned. i just hope that, mr. secretary, that we continue to make progress on level that playing field, reciprocity, but doing it with the tools we have at our disposal that deal with unfair trade, deal with surges, that deal with countries that dump, deal with countries that subsidize and be very, very cautious in terms of how we extend beyond that because i think that will end up hurting our workers and our economy. i thank you for being here today. i look forward to continuing to work with you on this. >> thank you very much, senator. >> the witness' time he was supposed to leave here at 11:15 or he has an appointment at the white house. senator isakson has a short statement and then there's a quick question from senator cardin, if we can finish up that way. >> i will be very quick. i respect your time and i

appreciate you staying here this morning and i know who you speak for and represent and who i speak for which is the voters of the state of georgia. in your first press conference on the steel and aluminum tariffs at the end of that press conference you held up an aluminum can and made a reference the tariffs would only add pennies to the cost of that can. the largest producer of soft drinks in the united states of america and in the world is the coca-cola company which is headquarters in atlanta. that pennies a can is a pennies times a billion for the billions of cans of coca-cola and other products they produce and that are sold every single day by their borrowers and retail outlets. same is true with automobile companies and everybody's. although a couple pennies on a can is not much. a couple pennies times a billion is lots. we need to be careful to follow the admonition of senator portman and make sure we know where we're going before we find out we got there and it's the wrong place to be. >> senator cardin.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i was listening to your exchange with senator portman. a lot of what i agree on, our enforcement rules we strongly support and want the en forcement rules used. the problem is that the way this administration is using 232, it's unprecedented and not what was anticipated and that authority being given by congress. you also have as you pointed out the framework for international trade on their wto does not cover a lot of things we like to see it cover. i haven't seen the administration work within the wto to try to make that more favorable towards the u.s. as you point out we have open markets. lastly, in our bilateral and regional trade agreements we have elevated the standards and they have workt to help american companies and you don't seem to be sensitive to try to deal with some of these issues on that level. so i share senator cantwell's concern that we are getting into a trade war.

i don't understand -- i don't quite understand the administration's strategy. certainly as you talked to some of our key partners some of which we have trade balances, favorable trade balances with that are scratching their heads as to why we take action against one of our nato allies. it raises significant concern in the manner in which the administration is carrying out the trade policy. my quick question deals with some of the issues that have already been raised in regards to smaller companies. i'm the ranking democrat on the small business committee. i heard your exchange on this issue before but i just point out small companies do not have an army of lawyers that can help deal with exemption of products and they can't deal with the way that the original process was set up for exemptions. it just doesn't work for small companies. we need to have some sensitivity for them to be able to get the help they need in order to make an appropriate case to you for an exemption of product line. i would just urge you to work

with us and the small business community so we can find a streamlined process perhaps through their industry representatives so that they can pursue properly exemptions to these rules. >> i think you were perhaps not here earlier when i described some of the changes that we have, in fact, made. one of them is -- >> i heard that exchange. i was not here, but i heard it. but it's not working yet. >> well, i honestly don't agree with that. it's working, but there are these time periods that are required, like the one that senator mccaskill mentioned, complaining that we hadn't glanted an exclusion to a request that was filed a few days ago after weeks and weeks and weeks during which it could have been filed. so it's not our fault that people file late. and i put up a chart before the number of filings that are still

coming in is quite considerable. so we can't deal with an exclusion request that hasn't been filed. >> and my point is that the process that you've set up makes it extremely challenging for a small company to be able to pursue a product line exemption. >> but the only way that we can deal with it is very specific products. the harmonized code, because that's the only way the customs and border patrol can deal with things and implement them. we have no choice. >> but would you let a trade organization file the claim on behalf of a business? >> no, the reason that's -- >> so how do they have the capacity to do this? >> here is the reason that that doesn't work, sir. the only way the trade association will know the harmonized code numbers which are up to ten-digit numbers, the only way they would know them is to get them from the individual

members. so adding another step to the process not only wouldn't accelerate it, it would slow it down. so we decided that it's better and essential to have the individual companies file the individual request and 29d,000 or some such number have already been filed. so the process is under way. >> and you and i will have to disagree on this. i'm telling you from our perspective from the small business role that i play, it's not working for a lot of small companies. they effectively cannot pursue this because they don't have the capacity to do this. >> i don't mean to be argumentati argumentative, but i find it hard to imagine that even a small company doesn't know the harmonized code number of the products they buy. i really have a great deal of difficulty with that. >> and i have a hard time understanding why a trade association couldn't do that on behalf of a small company.

>> okay. this has been good. i want to thank you all for your attendance and participation today. i want to thank you again, secretary ross, for your patience and for your being here today and answering the questions, your willingness to appear and answer our questions today. i ask that in i member who wishes to submit questions for the record do so by noon on friday, june 27th. so with that, we are going to get you going so you can meet your schedule. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> yes, sir.

commerce secretary on his way over to the white house for a meeting with president trump and reaction to those u.s. tariffs. the hill reporting that the european union on friday will slap billions in additional tariffs on u.s. exports in reaction to president trump's steel and aluminum tariffs. they write the eu said today that it will impose a 25% tariff on $3.2 billion in american goods ranging from

harley-davidson motorcycles to jeans and bourbon. the european commission in brussels announcing today. that's from the hill. read more at thehill.com. we will be showing that hearing, today's hearing, before the commerce committee, all of it in its entirety tonight at 9:00 eastern over on c-span. more live programming coming your way shortly here on c-span 3. the house budget committee has the first of two scheduled days of meetings to craft legislation for the 2019 federal budget. our live coverage starting again at 12:30 eastern here on c-span 3. both the house and senate are in, the house as you can see the middle of a vote, they've been working all week, last week and this week on opioid legislation, as work continues off the floor on a pair of immigration and border security bills, one is offered by virginia republican bob goodlatte, the other comes from a group of so-called moderate republicans, both measures providing relief for

daca recipients and funding for border wall or border wall system. president trump has indicated that he will support either measure. immigration debate on thursday will also address the issue of migrant children being separated by their parents. speaker ryan telling reporters that tomorrow the house will vote on legislation to keep families together. this as the associated press reporting at this hour that homeland security secretary is drafting an order to end family separation at the border, unclear if trump will sign it. that's from the a.p. read more at ap.com and follow the house over on c-span. and the u.s. senate in today, lawmakers continuing work on 2019 federal spending. mike lee of utah on the floor now. a focus on energy and water projects, the legislative branch and military construction and veterans programs. as always you can watch the senate over on c-span 2. the c-span bus is in alaska

this week for the 38th stop of our 50 capitals tour. we are in juno with the help of our cable partner gci. >> we are thrilled that c-span has chosen to visit alaska for the first time in 22 years. as part of its 50 capital and cities tour. big shoutout to c-span. so for decades gci has offered c-span to our customers because we believe in the network mission to open to unfiltered trusted media resource and gci proudly supports c-span's effort to inform and educate the nation on policy, politics, history and current events. now, gci and the cable companies around the nation make c-span possible. there's no government mandate, there is no public funding, there is no advertising. c-span is truly a public service who is wholly funded by fees paid by gci and other companies.

c-span kindly calls itself cable's gift to america. and now thanks to our long standing special partnership with c-span's buses nationwide 50 capitals tour, we get to showcase our state, the largest in the nation, by the way, to the rest of the country via c-span. well, they're here, finally, thank goodness. >> we are ecstatic. it is a huge deal for us, it gives us a chance to showcase our city nationwide and just to have the idea that somebody wants to come in and sample what we have to offer here and hopefully take it back and we're open for business and we like the idea that you're here. it's like having visitors in the summertime. >> be sure to join us july 21st and 22nd when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span,

c-span.org or