war. and followed by battle of gettysburg. and later 3:15 wilson green on the battle of the crater during the siege of petersburg. the ba crater. our coverage continues with at 9:00 p.m. eastern on desertion among african-american troops in the civil war. at 10:15 arizona state university's brooks simpson on president april hack lincoln and his relationship with his commanding generals, george mcclellan and ulysses s. grant and then elizabeth warron on a spy ring operated out of richmond. watch this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. commerce secretary wilbur ross defended the administration's tariffs actions at a hearing on capitol hill this week. secretary ross testified before the senate finance committee.

members from both parties voiced their concerns over tariffs and the potential impact on their constituents and the economy.

the committee 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 at ministered by the department of commerce. naturally i would like to welcome secretary ross in particular. i want to thank you, mr. secretary, for joining us. i intend to focus this morning on three investigations self-initiated by the department of commerce section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962. it should come as no surprise that many of us on the committee have concerns about the process, effects and strategy behind these investigations and

resulting actions. that includes a 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 current limb posing 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. they make custom industrial equipment in my hometown salt lake city, utah and sells to customers in the united states and around the globe. they have been in business since 1935 but because of the tariffs they are 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, they have lost their competitive edge against foreign manufacturers, and the company tells me that contracts for future work have all but dried up. jack's ornamental iron, another salt lake city manufacturer saw its 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 are 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, multi-billion dollar investments for new manufacturing plants that employ thousands of workers are also being put at risk. as you're 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

court of long peach because they contain steel from brazil. i know delaying these construction and manufacturing jobs and even put some of these jobs at risk was 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 bearing 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 announce it had limb pose tariffs of 20% on u.s. pork and retaliation for u.s. steel and lump nick tariffs. china, our second largest overseas market for u.s. 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 said chinese mercantile policies harm 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 in 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 and 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 driving -- 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 is not a can of soup, mr. secretary. for most american families, their car is the second biggest purchase they make. many require a car to get to their jobs. it is a significant financial commitment for most families often paid for with bent, and i'm shocked that anyone would consider making it more expensive. the 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 an average imported car for an american family by $5,800. to put that in perspective, the median household income in the united states is just over their 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 family, and the tax

foundation agrees. it estimates that auto tariffs could result in a $73 billion tax increase on american consumers and businesses, erasing many of the benefits of tax reform passed earl by 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. now, that's nearly 200,000 people out of work, and that's before other countries retaliate against american auto manufacturers which supports u.s. jobs by exporting $65 billion worth of autos per year. once again, though supposedly pursued by national security reasons, terrorists on cars and trucks target our closes allies, namely europe, canada, mexico,

japan and 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 international 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 the flagrant conflicts of interest when they are brought into public view, and when it comes to trade americans

have a right to know it's their best interest that 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'm 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. it most obvious accomplishment on trade so far is sowing a lot of chaos that has united allies and china against us. 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 determination 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 they will face tariffs in key markets like mexico. i've heard from pacific northwest cherry growers who have gotten nearly 1.5 million boxes of cherries ready to ship to china. they are 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 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 farms 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. 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 principal voice of business in the trump administration. secretary ross, it's a pleasure to have 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've submitted to the president this past january pursuant to section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962 found that steel and aluminum

imports threatened 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 it 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 sings the imposition of the section 232 tariffs, industry already has started taking actions to restart idle facilities. idled steel and aluminum capacity is being restarted as we sit here nor 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 specific national security considerations. today, we're 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 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 and for which no objections have been received during the public comment period. commerce is making an unprecedented effort to process the request 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've 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 add

verse effects of foreign competition on hour internal economy. the 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. >> thank you, mr. secretary. let me just start off with the section 232 statute requires that the secretary of commerce consider the domestic projection is needed. when you decided to initiate a section 232 investigation into automobiles and auto parts, what were the projected national defense requirements for these

products that you are 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. a product that's not available domestically and the quality or amount needed and when national security considerations warrant at exclusion. however, i understand that the commerce department is refusing to grant any exclusions from the quotas that mimic the volume of steel and aluminum products and 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 about 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 the 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 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 in their review contain inaccurate, incomplete or misleading claims, and they would like to rebut those claims. however, i understand that the commerce department has provided no formal channel for submitting rebutals on regulations.gov where all the rebuttals must be filed. will petitioners be able to submit their rebuttals through the regulations.gov web site? >> i would like to put up chart number 1 which will describe to you the 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 20,000 003 exclusion requests, and in the case of aluminum 2,503. there's 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've posted 1,328. we've rejected 420. we have pending 253 for a total of 2,503.

that comes to the same total, 22,506 of exclusion requests. terms of objections, we've posted 1,765 in the case of steel, 52 in the case of aluminum, a total 1,817. we've rejected 230 in the case of steel, 5 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 2.

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, and 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 3. in the case of aluminum, the request for exclusion peaked in the week ended 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've 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're 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 will be 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 time, 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 are 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 multi-billion 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 stagger. 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 would 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 those 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 three 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's 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 the saw mill

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's a real head slapper and it will be certainly baffling to the small businesses to check in with all of us on this committee for anybody to hear that this process is going well. it is not going well, and i think i would 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've 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'll be happy to send to you within the next week our program, but it's 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. you all planned on receiving 6,000 applications for exclusion. so far you've 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 fix it the because i will tell you respectfully nothing i've heard this morning sounds like we're going to be on top of this any time soon. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator grassley. >> i heard the question by our chairman about auto parts and this relates a little bit to it, but it's 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 code in the automotive chapter of the u.s. harmonized tariff schedule with other similar products such as heavy duty trucks, buses,

construction equipment, agricultural equipment and industrial engines. for example, water pumps used in the cooling system of the construction equipment are classified as, quote, fuel, lubricating or cooling medium pumps for internal combustion piston engines, end quote. the harmonized tariffs schedule code does 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 so they requested some extra time and we're giving them an extra week to do so so we're trying to go about this in a very judicious, open and transparent fair manner. >> okay. >> we will try our very best to avoid there being any unintended consequences such is a the ones you've described, and i've taken note of what you 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 other than cars in my state. question two. you mentioned in your testimony that several u.s. steel plants are expected to come back online as a result of steel and aluminum tariffs. how long 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 1.5 million tons. that's 2.5 million tons of steel. that's the better part of $2 billion worth of steel right there, so it's coming. exactly what month it will come, i don't know, but by around the end of the year that problem should be fairly 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, 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's 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. this clearly is not a result of the tariff. it's clearly a result of anti-social behavior by participants in the industry. >> my last point is something

you don't directly deal, but i want to make this point anyway. it's not a question to you. it's just a question i would like to have the administration get. i realize that section 301 intellectual proper investigation is not in your jurisdiction, but since you're the person here representing the administration i convey this point to you from what i hear from my constituents. the impact of the proposed tariff is getting very real. we've watched the soybean markets start to collapse from an up around a $9 range to a mere mid-$8 range, yesterday down 40 cents i believe as an example lose $1.25 on a national average soybean yield of 49 bushel per acre equates to a farmer 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 brash statements to the press on these trade issues and be very diplomatic with comments. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> senator, i'll 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 at his disposal to help the agriculture parties who are adversary affected by retaliation, but i will communicate what you've 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, mr. chairman. >> senator bennett. >> just to follow up on chairman grassly's question. what do you mean by that i? what do you mean -- what are you going to make available to our farmers and ranchers? what do you propose? when -- when ambassadoring light heiser was sitting there he said my farmers -- he said your farms and ranchers have my sympathy because they will be the first people that will -- that will suffer retribution if there's a trade war, and i said they don't need your sympathy. they need you to act reasonably. what do you now propose for our farmers and ranchers? 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, but -- >> well, i'm not in detail

familiar with all of the tools the secretary -- >> how can you not be familiar with them? you've come here and testified that that's how you're going to solve the issue. it's like describing the steel prices that are going straight up like this as anti-social behavior and not a result of the tariffs. that is not true. >> well, i disagree with you, senator. >> the anti-social behavior even accepting that description was certainly provoked by the tariffs, wasn't it. >> narrator: >> no, sir. >> would it have existed with no tariffs? >> i think they viewed the tariffs as an opportunity for them to profitier. >> 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 should they do? >> it's 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 who 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 or 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 on capitol hill might be that we're looking at trillion dollar deficit outside of a recession or war because of this administration's policies. i don't think you're going to have any backstop for our farmers and ranchers and to

blindly pursue these policies without considering what happens to them i think is a huge mistake. i would like to ask you following on to the chairman's questions of you, mr. secretary. what is it about the canadian steel industry that is a national security interest -- threat to the united states? >> the canadian steel industry is not being 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 of note. >> we don't. >> no, sir. >> do we have a surplus in steel? >> yes. we have a surplus in dollars -- may i finish my answer. >> sure, of course. >> we have a surplus in dollars. we do not have a surplus in physical value. >> okay. >> what happens is steel -- >> 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. >> why would you put a tariff -- what is the national security base 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 focused on it. i don't understand why he's excluding zte. i don't understand it. what is the national security rationale for putting a tariff on the canadian steel industry with whom we have a trade surplus? >> yeah. if you would let me finish the answer, i'll try to do so. >> i will. >> 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 is has to be a global solution is if you just looked at the raw data, you wouldn't

think china as a problem for the u.s. because what they have 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 the 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 not quite finished, sir. >> i'm sorry. >> the good news is that as a direct result of the 232s, suddenly europe is enacting safeguards 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 meti 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 with us, and while they are complaining bitterly about the tariffs, the fact is they are 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 bullseye. that is an ongoing and very critical challenge for everybody in farm country, but i would

like to start off my question by providing you with an update on the effects of the steel and aluminum tariffs in kansas and locally. first, i want to let you know our wheat harvest has just started. the expected total will be the lowest in 40 years. we are in a rough patch. yesterday the closing employs in dodge city, here's the farm report, for wheat was down about 70 cents per bushel, corn down about three cents, sorghum four cents. by the way, i was in my office when the decision was made on the solar panels and the washing machines. i wasn't in my of course, i was at the white house when that happened, and the sorghum producers were there, and they lost 80 cents on the dollar, and -- and, you know, more -- you know, more problems with that as we continued. soybeans 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, the wheat producers in kansas. 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's buying their wheat from argentina, and their corn from brazil. that's the problem. we could be in a situation where we would lose that market, and -- or we wouldn't be a reliable supplier. once you do that you're 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 bergmeyer contacted me about the rising costs his business is experiencing due to steel tariffs. this is just one example. i guess he's in exclusion purgatory with one of the 42,000

you're trying to deal with, but shield ag is a small business in south hutchison, kansas and employs 42 people. the company designs and manufactures and distributes tools and hardware. his company uses steel from manitoba, canada, to make their shields v-blades, a key component of blade pours, farmers use this equipment 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 ag's cost to production for the single replacement blade is $85,000. shield ag has submitted a steel exemption request but has yet to see it posted on the regulation website. i think every member here has already mentioned that. it is a cumbersome and very slow exclusion process, and i know you need people, and i know you need funds to pay the people.

in the absence of an exemption steel ag will have no choice to passion the rising cost of production on to 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 bergmire knows. i think a case can be made that businesses are paying the price for the administration's negotiating strategy. secretary ross, i think it's imperative that you and your department understand the current impact not only with regards 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 did 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 so you can hear first habd the tough choices that businesses are making due u to these tariffs. he gets up ef morning at 5:30. i gave you can card and background sheet. i appreciate your willingness because his example is is a classic with regards to up and down main street. >> thank you, senator. it sounds like it's one for

which the exclusion process was specifical specifical specific designed. if there's no objection, if there's no u.s. manufacturer, it's hard to imagine there would be an objection filed. i promise you i'll call him no later than morimotomorrow morni. may not be 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 yet 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 products? >> 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 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 your staff 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 was an espionage threat. 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 about whether he thought zte was an espionage threat, he did not have a three and a half minute answer. he had one word. yes. i consider zte an espionage threat. let me ask you about another matter. we'll wait for a written response with you and your associates and the administration. is that ak cemecceptabacceptabl? >> we'll respond to all requests

for written answers as promptly as possible. i'd like that in a week because we are continuing to debate, so i hope we will get this. within a week. one other question to respect to how you all intend to proceed. when there was discussion and how you were going to look at this going forward, i think you're prepared statement touched on this. you said you would evaluate it on the basis of good management and other ctier area. so are you all going to be in the business of trying to create measures for what constituteds

good mogt? for these areas of the economy so important to american siness? >> what i was referring to was that our objectives in the steel and allum anymore tariffs was t get level to a point where it will decent management they should be able to be self-sufficient, able to support the necessary rnd, able to support the necessary capital expenditures and therefore be viable as long-term entities. it's not as if we're going to pick winners and losers. it 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 around

11:15. colleagues coming back. on the autos investigation, i'm curious who you talked with. did you talk to the united automobile workers? was this something you did as you try today reach out? same thing with respect to business and i didn't hear about it as the ranking democrat which troubles a lot of members because there are consultation requirements as you know embedded. >> we took it on as you know at the request of the president. the period for comment from unions, from the members of the

industry, from foreign companies, from the interested parties in the public. is just now beginning. i believe we've issued the public registered notice 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 they wish us to consider. we have not talked to all the participants because the investigation is just beginning. >> 232 is different with respect to consultation. there ought to be more with the congress and as far as i can tell, the process unfolded, to

me, when you're talking about something with such sweeping implications, we're going to have to do better with 232 and with consultation. i hope my cloeg from missouri made the second vote. >> i did. >> so i think we can hand the gavel off to her. >> i believe there are. >> it would be good if you could handle the remainder of the hearing because i have to take off. >> thank you for being here.

it appears to me in a chaotic and frankly incompetent manner. on a technical bases according to the report iing we have witht a great deal of training and the burden is so extreme on and if someone gets a waiver for a specific product, many of these companies are filing dozens. of waivers based on having to f file a different one for every slightly different product. a waiver for a different product for one business doesn't result in a waiver for another business with the exact same product. you're requiring these be filed every year and many are small businesses. the majority of nails that are

manufactured come from mid continent corporation in popular bluff, missouri. it's about an hour down the road from the alum numb smelter you referenced in your opening statement. it is the only large scale producer of steel nails 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 second largest employer in popular bluff. so far, they have lost almost half of their business in one month. they went from 9,000 tons. in june, that dropped to 5500.

they can easily source nails manufactured in other countries. so they now laid off 60 of their 500 employees. they have idled their most sophisticated production facility in popular bluff and are expected to cut 200 more jobs by the end of july they believe they'll be out of business by labor day. they absorbed the duties because the inputs were so much cheaper. they have filed 54 request, u but there won't be enough time to save their business. the smelter has indeed added jobs, but at the end of the day, we're going to lose more jobs than we may gain in the smelter.

so this is what is happening. frankly, i would love to say this company. there's something very wrong that people on this committee are able to jump the line. have you called someone this kansas or go back and figure out how to help this company when there are thousand of f employees across this country that are possiblily going 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. training people in three-hour sessions with something so complex really feels chaotic and incompetent. >> 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. last week. >> two days ago. it's very unfortunate they wait ed 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 wasn't a matter of homework. it took you year to figure out the 232. why couldn't is experts at commerce figured out the exclusions they would obviously

lie? >> we can only deal with exclusions of which we're 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 we -- >> no, i heard and by the way, it would be helpful if you're going to bring charts like that, if you would give us all copies. >> sure. >> that would be something you would think would be normal that you would distribute. the charts that i couldn't read from over here. z >> would be very happy to. just completed them last night! you could use a copy machine. not that many members on the committee. >> we'll be happen p pi. >> that would be great. >> senator cantwell. >> conversations ab about washington state and trade writ large. i guess i would say this. we ckind of look at trade wars s very 1980s retro policy because one in four jobs are relateded

to trade, so whether it's aerospace or agriculture or now seafood that's going to be impacted, when we have trade wars, it impacted the washington economy in a major way and so many of our businesses have fought these same fights that you're trying to fight, but they have tried to avoid the trade war. in this case, we're very, very concerned about agricultural. not only do we have ten billion plus revenue from ag in our state, we push through our ports about $182 billion worth of f ag products. so anything that affects a grg affect as our state writ large. anything on the state affects aerospace and now, we're faced with this seafood issue, so i guess what i'm really trying to understand is 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 cloegs have said, this area of job recovery in one area. >> the president's objective is to not end up with a trade war. >> do you think we're in a trade war because i do? >> well, if i could finish. his objective is to get to a loring of trade barriers. because of restrictions, there are 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, namely one dependent on high-tech and very dependent on intellectual property, the industries a lot of the future. as well as the zrindustries of e present is to put pressure on them. the purpose 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 action to deal with those problems now. that's what is our purpose. >> mr. secretary, so i just want to be clear. do you think we're at a trade war you? >> as the person that's often said we've been at a trade war forever. the difference is that now our troops are coming to the ramparts. >> no, mr. sec tarik i want you to hear me. apples and cherries are getting hurt. 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's a growing middle class

around the globe. they get that we can grow things and be competitive at growing things, even if they're more value added products. american agricultural can still win. but what they can't win at is if you push them off a shell space and they go out of business, they're not coming back. once you get whatever you think you're going get later, that person doesn't refinance the company and just come back. they might be out of business forever. so i just, i don't think you're effort thetic enough to the plight of now seafood, is going to be in the same spot. and these people might go out of business while you're creating this trade war. so i would just 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. over here in this corner. i'd like the try to get what

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 are thepla impose. you know that because they're your tariffs. that's a known, correct? >> ours and usgr. >> we probably have some pretty solid intelligence and estimates and conclusions about if we do x, the chinese do y. the ycanadians do y. we have some capacity to predict what the trade countermeasures are likely to be, so given then what we know about our own tariffs and given then what we predict b about trade countermeasures, presumably

somebody 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're a rhode island parts manufacturer with 30 employees who are providing things to boeing, it's really hard the know how this this apparently unplanned or only simply planned or partly planned cascade of tariff consequences were to come down and hit you. so i guess my question is what does the commerce department have and to the extent that you know it, what does the treasury

department have by way of predictions as the to how these trade conflicts will. >> casey: kate into the american economy and who needs to worry the most. what do you have for information? i assume you looked at that stuff before you embarked on this and i'd like o sew whatever it is you've got. >> as for the 232s, we have testified before about research we've done into the direct impact of the 232s on a various segments of the economy. i think you're aware that we testified that it's a fraction of a penny on a can of campbe campbell's soup. on a can of budweiser. on a can of coke. it's less than 1% on the cost of an automobile. we've done those kinds of research.

>> can we see those studies? can we see those studies? can we make that a question for the record? >> they're not very difficult to figure out. >> they're difficult for a rhode island 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 supportive 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. >> right. >> 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 example because 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 enforcement 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 worked 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 granted 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 29,000 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 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.

this language of attack, of harm, of damage that by expressing an opinion, that people don't like, is you have.

>> inflicted an injury and quite emblematic of the way that the left is now responding. any sort of disseptember. that trenches on identity grievance politics, which of course is everywhere and has infected everything. >> university of pennsylvania law school professor amy wax. on the limits of free expression on college campuses in the united states. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. we're used to having a lot of

oil money come in and as a result of lower oil prices, we aren't getting that revenue that we're used to. so there are other revenue streams that need to happen. but it doesn't seem to be happening very fast and i think there's political reasons why people are afraid who are worried about implementing taxes. but without an additional revenue coming in, the alaskans are facing a lot of crisis and a lot of areas and one is the opioid and substance abuse crisis. the more our economy goes down, the more and more people get upset and aren't living their lives in a way that they're happy with and so they end up getting kind of destitute and turning to self-medicating and that's a big crisis too. >> i think the most important issue is child hunger and taking care of children. it's all linked to poverty. we were at 40% of child hunger, food insecurity for children in the state a few years ago. we went down and now we're going

way back up. we have to stop giving all our money to the oil companies and start spending it on children for the future. >> one of our big issues here in the state is the tourism industry. it is a huge chunk of our economy and it's growing by leaps and bounds. we're very concerned about the ability to. >> promote the state at a nationwide level. especially since tourism is such a bright spot in our economy. >> as far as i can see from when i've been here a week in alaska, and one of the big social service issues that i see here in alaska is homelessness. and combatted, trying to combat it seems to be a real issue with the city. since a lot of them aren't actively seeking help. the ones that are seem to be moving from place to place looking for the different type aid that they can get. but it seems like one of the big issues is that homelessness and

how we can combat it and fight it here in the state. >> i am the executive director of alaska council of school administrators from our perspective the most important thing in alaska is to get a long-term sustainable fiscal plan in place for our state, which has ongoing revenue, outside of our nonrenewable resources and really primarily because we need to stabilize education across the state. our educators need to feel that they're funding, which is a constitutional duty in alaska, is stable. so that they can stabilize their schools and most important, i think for all of us, is to educate our students and the best way to do that is, a stable school.

>> in 179 c span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the 2018 medicare trustees' report released last week warns that without congressional action, the entitlement program is projected to be insolvent in 2026. the chief actuary for the centers for medicare and medicaid services outlined the report and projections during remarks at the american enterprise institute.