a live picture from capitol hill. you see the empty hearing room as the house ways and means room is on the floor of the house. we expect them to resume this hearing about the impact of agriculture tariffs. when the recess is over, we think it will be about another half hour or so. we'll show you an earlier portion of this hearing. good afternoon. sub committee will come to order. welcome the witnesses and the folks in the audience here today to listen to the testimony that we're anxious to hear. before we get started, let me

make a few comments. u.s. farmers, ranchers and growers are caught in the middle of an international cross fire. they are hurt because products they need to run lean operations have been included on the administration section 301 list. adding insult to injury they are the first to face tariffs from across the globe as countries react to u.s. trade policy decisions. i know the administration didn't intend for the u.s. agriculture to be hurt or harmed but the damage is entirely predictable.

what we're hearing in my home state of washington and many other states across the country is u.s. agriculture just isn't in a healthy place. that's putting it mildly. most of our agriculture producers rely heavily on export market. unfortunately, many of these farmers and producers are now facing the loss of not just one of their top international export markets. no not just their number one market, but number two, three, and number four market. all at once. they are facing severe and devastating uncertainly, and that goes right to their

profitability. now it's important to acknowledge that the president is absolutely correct that we need to stand up to china's unfair predatory trade practices including overcapacity in steel and aluminum. ip theft and other chinese policies that endanger the innovative technologies developed by u.s. companies. as we take on china, though, we must take into account the effects of u.s. agriculture like the examples we'll hear today. i've heard heart wrenching stories and some cases of farmers and families already scrambling to make ends meet who are forced to make difficult decisions caused by the uncertainty of the tariffs. they don't now ho plan. they are having trouble getting financing and are forced to put expansion plans on hold.

entire rural communities are affected when farmers are struggling. their supplies and workers and even banks, restaurants and school districts are struggling. as we learn about the challenges that many people in the ag sector are facing, it's critical to remember that many family farmers have invested everything that they have in their farms. their orchards, or their ranches and sometimes they've been in their families for generations. this is serious business. it is their livelihood. it is their life. and even worse, our small farmers and producers are suffering the most because they already are running on tight margins without the economy of scale that the producers can benefit from.

in washington state one winery has already lost a half million in export sales after china imposed retaliation for the tariffs. their shipments dropped by 50% in the second quarter alone. in another sector usda reported china cancelled nearly $140 million in soybean contracts at the end of june. as you will hear in a few minutes, cherry producers are really feeling the pinch during their short cherry season as they face an additional 25% tariff in china. this is their top export market. today we'll hear from a broad rang of american agricultural producers about the real world tariffs. i'm eager to hear from the witnesses today and learn how the tariffs are affecting their farms, families and communities. our hearing will focus on tariff increases related to section 232 action on steal and aluminum and the section 301 tariffs on china as well as retaliatory tariffs from around the world.

i look forward to learning from our excellent panel of witnesses today. some have travelled a long way to be here with us and will continue to engage with the president, with the members of the administration and how we reach a durable solution to the challenging trade agenda. and i for one have urged the president to restore the exemptions from steel and aluminum tariffs for mexico and canada. i have twice mentioned this to secretary ross. he's made a promise he would mention it to the president and seek an answer from him on this issue. these are two of america's most trusted allies that are also incredibly important markets for our agriculture exports. at the same time i am encouraging the president to push forward with our negotiations with our international trading partners including with china to find a solution that evens the playing field for american workers, manufacturers, service providers and farmers while at the same

time making sure that farmers don't welcome collateral damage. we also cannot lose sight of the cost of inaction when it comes to new markets. when our trading partners move forward and make other agreements and we're not included, our farmers, our workers, and our businesses fall behind. they lose their market. i will now yield to ranking member paskrel for the purposes of his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know the great affection i have for you. i have deep respect. i don't want you to any man er, shape or form to interpret what i'm about to say in a disrespectful way. if you think it is, i apologize. we're going to miss you. i want to welcome our witnesses.

on behalf of the committee democrats, we look forward to hearing from you. i read your testimonies about the impacts of the administration's tariffs on your communities. make no mistake about it, we are in a slippery slope. we don't know where it's going to end. and we don't really know all the consequences. it's a chaotic policy. so we've been asking this committee to hold more regular sub committee hearings. so our meeting today is welcome.

but i have to say we are deeply disappointed that the committee republicans did not call an administration witness to this hearing to explain the president's erratic trade actions. we get them in private meetings. in private consultations. nothing in public before any part of this committee. that is unacceptable. this is not transparent si. this is delusion. last week committee democrats sent chairman brady a letter requesting a full ways and means committee hearing with an administration witness so we could demand answers. the american people deserve answers more than the congress. answers about policies of trade. whether or not they're working. and that request stands. no one on the ways and means committee, no one in the administration can say that as the ranking member or the democrats on trade i have given everyone the benefit of the

doubt. mr. light houser and his staff. so i accepted some democratic criticism that i was not strong enough on the quote, unquote, other side. we don't know who the other side is, by the way. we are talking to diverse groups. because many on this committee chose a different path, and that's why you're here today. if the administration was running this hearing you wouldn't be here. i'll tell you that. so we're having a sub committee hearing and there's no administration witnesses.

so whether we're talking about soybeans and the price in the united states and brazil, we know what's happened there. or whether we're talking about steel, all boats must rise. i said that last year when i took the position. i say it now. there are too many losers right now, and we must do something about it. i'm all for fact-finding. but calling on agricultural secretary sonny perdue to receive today could shed some important light on the administration's tariff strategy respect to our farmers and mr. chairman, before i continue, i am considering -- considering not coming to any more private meetings. the administration is here and

open to the public. i'm considering that. i trust you, but i'm telling you what i think in terms of the overall picture. i'd like to return to regular order, but that's true in both parties. we've not had that opportunity. public meetings are important. administration must be here to defend the position. i had not a different policy when mr. obama was the president. the sub committee is scheduled for a hearing on 232 steel and aluminum exclusion prospect next week. wilbur ross should be here listening to our witnesses as well be held accountable for this administration's ir rational actions. for too long free trade has benefitted some industries and corporations over others often at the expense of american workers, particularly in manufacturing. trade enforcement is critical to defending the interests of those

left behind in globalization and free trade. i just -- may i be able to finish? >> i'm sure you're going to be talking later. i'll give you another -- >> i think you can bet on that. >> i think you can bet on that. >> i know i can. >> a few more seconds. >> tariffs are one tool that can be effective in enforcing fairer trade policies and bringing cheating actors like china to the table, but they also could be used as weapons, and i think they're being used as weapons against you. let me say that now. trade with china, my last sentence, whose unfair trade props up its own industries at our expense has eliminated or displaced millions of united states jobs and contributed to a reduction in american wages over the last 20 years. i thank you for your indulgence. >> gentleman's time has expired. we all have passionate feels around this issue.

it's become one that as you can see, we have a full committee here today. we are serious about this issue. that's why we have you here today. we want to know what you think. we want to know the impact from your mouth and from the people that you represent. although the ranking member is passionate and has described some actions or inactions that have occurred or not occurred over the past few months regarding trade, let me just make the record clearer on just a couple of points. earlier this spring we held two full committee hearings on -- i will not -- okay. i thought you were going to ask for me to yield. earlier we held two full

committee hearings on trade agenda. tariffs and trade agreements. one with ambassador lighthiezer, and one with secretary ross. we will continue to hold them accountable and ask for other hearings. we also held a full committee hearing with the private sector witnesses on tariffs. we are holding this hearing today on the impact of tariffs on agriculture to gather information about how the agriculture community has been affected. and it's important for us to engage with the stake holders. we will hold a hearing next tuesday as the ranking member mentioned on the broken product exclusion process, and again gathering evidence from stake holders about how the process is working or not working and how it can be improved. we also had community delegations at two of the nafta rounds where we met with ustr officials. one in montreal and one in mexico city.

every member was invited to attend. we've had countless staff consultations with the administration. and as mentioned, private meetings with secretary ross and ambassador lighthiezer. there may have been one with mr. navarro. these are steps that we're continuing to take, and we want to engage with the administration and with our friends on both sides of the aisle. because it's going to take all of us to resolve these issues to make sure that our ag producers are successful today and into the future, and that your farms that have been in your family for generations continue to remain in your family for generations to come. so today we want to welcome all of us on the panel want to welcome our six witnesses. first a special welcome to our first witness from washington state, mr. case gebbers. president and ceo of gebbers farm.

it's a great family farm that is the world's largest producer of cherries and tends to be one of the biggest apple orchards in the world in addition to raising cattle. our second witness is russell baning, owner of lomavista farms and president of the texas farm bureau. our third witness is kevin popcorn and soybean farmer and president of the minnesota farm bureau. i would yield to mr. paulson for additional comments of introduction? >> i'm proud to welcome kevin pap here along with his wife. he's a fourth generation farmer. he's going to provide the minnesota perspective on the negative impacts of tariffs. i welcome him.

>> thank you. our fourth witness is scott vander wall, secretary and treasurer of vanderwall farms. president of the south dakota farm bureau and vice president of the american farm bureau federation. and i would yield to representative gnome for any additional comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm proud to introduce my friend and fellow south dakotan paul vanderwall. it's imperative we have folks testifying that live the reality of the tariffs and the retaliation from other countries against our farmers and ranchers. scott has been a leader for agriculture across the country. his farm and ranch is just about 45 miles south of my ranch. i've known him for many years and appreciated his leadership not just at the state level but at the national level as well. him and his wife michelle have been active. they raise corn and soybeans.

they have a custom kalgt feeding operation. he's here to tell the story of what every south dakota farmer is going through during these difficult times. thank you, scott. >> our next witness is co-owner of goose neck cattle. representative farmers for free trade and national association of wheat growers. our sixth and last witness is jarod bernstein. before recognizing our first witness let me note that our time is limited to the witnesses and the members. let me please limit your testimony to five minutes and questions to five minutes and members, please i hope we can adhere to the five minute rule as closely as possible. mr. gebbers your written statement will be part of the record. you're recognized for five minutes. >> turn on your microphone,

please. >> thanks. thank you, chairman and ranking member of pascrell for the opportunity to testify on the impact of tariffs. in retaliation for the u.s. trade policies that are unrelated to agriculture the past few months. and the effect that it's having on growers such as myself and my family and really all those families of small farmers that we represent. i'm president and ceo of gebbers farms in washington. we farm next door to mr. rye kerts district. we're a multigenerational company in washington state. three of my siblings and i are the fourth generation with 15 of my kids, nieces and nephews from the fifth generation working around us every day. our roots go deep in farming of

tree fruits and cattle and timber. we grow fruit on approximately 13500 acres with about 10,000 of them being in apples and 3,000 in cherries and 500 in pears. our sales company represents another 21,000 acres of our neighbors. 400 small growers part of a local cooperative and a couple of independents. 30% of all of that fruit is exported. so we really are heavily reliant upon foreign markets. over 40 of those different countries we export to. those 400 families are employing between,000 and 9,000 people on a seasonal and daily basis. our farms also raises black angus cattle on about 120,000 acres. we also graze those lands and harvest timber. we have to compete against imported timber from those

lands, and it's closed almost all the mills in our south central. trade is huge in our neck of the woods. so in effect, we're all stewards of the environment where we carve out our existence caring for this great land. i'm going to focus my testimony today on the impact the tariffs are having on the tree farm portion of our business. the pacific northwest is home to many family-owned orchards that jointly supply three quarters of the fresh apples, 88% of the cherries, and 88% of the fresh pears and 81% of the cherries sold in the united states. we're heavily weighted toward the tree fruits. together these crops are valued at about 3.8 to $4 billion annual and create tens of thousands of jobs in our local communities. many of which are small. our growers lead the nation in exports with approximately

one-third of all the apples, pears and cherries grown in our region are exported out of the u.s. exporting fruit creates a huge layer of additional risk. we get laden with inconsistent clearance policies at foreign ports, hostile countries reject fruit. they'll hold the perishable fruit until it rots. sometimes under unjustified sanitary concerns to maybe protect their industries or to just be vindictive on

retaliating on another trade program. keep in mind that the further these delays go down the chain, the more we eat as growers and the more it punishes us as growers. we've already sunk the numbers into our crop. so when we have a load consumed in china through an inspection process or heavily taxed, that goes back to the grower, because there's no way to pass that back on. we've tried that. unfortunately in the past four months we have faced a multitude of additional and new trade barriers that have completely

been outside of our control. the consequences and i'll address perishable. we can't store this crop. i can't turn my cows out. i can turn my cows out for another six months and wait out the storm maybe or delay the fat cattle or starve some hay. i can't do that with cherries. they're rotten in 30 to 40 days. we need to move them. apples are perishable. once they're in a box, they have to be moved. china is number one on cherries, number five on apples and number nine on pears. we're paying up to 50% on tariffs and with the tax it's another 10%. >> your time is expired. >> that was quick. >> yeah. it does go fast, doesn't it? >> yep. >> we're going to come back to you and you'll have an opportunity to share additional information, so -- >> okay. >> thank you for your testimony. mr. boening. >> good afternoon. i appreciate this opportunity. i'm from texas. my family and i make our living by farming 'ranching. we grow wheat, cotton and water melons and operate a 500 cow dairy and have a beef cattle operation. i serve as president of the texas farm bureau. i chair the afbf trade advisory committee. international trade is a major driver of the texas agriculture economy. we rely on it to market the products we work hard to grow. about 25% of the u.s. farm income is derived from selling ag products internationally. we are concerned with the blowback from the administration's decision to place tariffs on our trading

partners. agriculture is bearing the brunt of retaliation at a time when farmers are already facing low commodity prices, high input costs and unpredictable weather. farm income as dropped making it extremely difficult for farmers to continue to operate. it comes at a time we can ill afford it. we're concerned many of the benefits of the tax reform helping many farmers and ranchers will be nullified due to the measures on u.s. ag products. on our own farm we just finished harvesting grain sor gum. we've seen a decline of market price of 25%. we're going to store most of the crop in hope that the prices will go back up. this will be an extra cost, but as true optimists, we're hopeful the market will improve. we'll begin cotton harvest in about six weeks against a backdrop of significant volatility in the market.

46 % of the cotton that's exported to china comes from texas. any potential loss of this important market would be very difficult for our cotton farmers. on our dairy we have already seen price of milk fall by more than 10% over the last month alone. these are just a few of my personal examples. there are many other farmers and ranchers facing the same challenges with all the uncertainty over trade policy. further more, placing tariffs on our closest trading partners, particularly canada and mexico is concerning. we must continue working toward a strong modernized free trade agreement. ideally it's wrapped up as soon

as possible while refraining doing anything that limits investment protections. now while agriculture is bearing the brunt of retaliation for things that have nothing to do with agriculture, this is not unfamiliar territory for us. for years the agriculture community has been highlighting their egregious tariff and nontariff trade barriers being erected by trading partners. while we do have serious concerns about the retaliation we're facing, we must commend president trump and his administration for working to address the problems that have existed for decades. i'll give you one example. in 2015 china's minimum support price for corn, rice, and wheat was estimated to be nearly $100 billion in excess of the levels china committed to when they joined the world trade organization. so let me be clear on this. for just three crops in one year, china legally -- illegally exceeded its pto limits by $100

billion. putting this into context, we just finished a hard fought farm bill debate where some people questioned the need for support provided to our farmers but china's illegal subsidies for those three crop this is one year exceeded what we will spend on the entire farm safety net for every crop on every acre for the entire life of the farm bill this. yes, we must have ag trade in china and we appreciate their business. however, we must address this blatant abuse that extends beyond just china. if our president is success frlful, and we want him to be sooner rather than later, this could be a tremendous opportunity for agricultural trade. but absent a successful outcome, farm and ranch families like ours will suffer. no one wants the administration to be more successful in this effort than we do, but it's important to know that these decisions have the potential to

greatly damage our livelihoods. again, i thank you for the opportunity to be here. glad to answer any questions later. thank you, sir. >> thank you. mr. pap, you're recognized. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, my name is kevin paap. i along with my wife julie is here for corn and soybeans. minnesota farm bureau strongly believes with the current financial stress farmers and ranchers are facing we need to maintain and expand our market opportunities. we are truly blessed. we grow more than we need. the current tariffs continuing back and forth retaliatory actions and trade uncertainties are hitting american agriculture from all sides and are causing us to lose our markets. once you lose a market, it's really hard to get it back. agriculture is facing the perfect storm. trade uncertainties, decade lows

in farm income, agriculture labor shortages, and the uncompleted farm bill. it's quickly becoming more than we can handle. in trade wars agriculture has been and continues to be the tip of the spear. all commodities are being impacted but in minnesota we're hearing the most from our members that are growing soybeans and raising pigs. page three of my written testimony clearly shows what trade uncertainty has done to our prices. low prices are causing serious negative impacts on our farm income. bottom line? lost sales lead to lower prices. many decisions in farming are not made week to week. we have to make decisions a long time before our crops are planted much less harvested.

we understand that there are things out of our control like the weather. we can manage some of that risk through crop insurance and other risk management tools. what we didn't know was the level of trade tensions we would be experiencing. and the serious price impacts they have on our crops as we move closer to harvest. the impacts of tariffs on having on prices is what's keeping us up at night. clearly there are significant economic challenges not only in agriculture but also in our rural communities. agriculture exports are important economic drivers. if you lose the market, it's really hard to get it back. we cannot afford to lose our place at the table as a leader in the global marketplace. we need to be at the table. if we're not at the table, we will be on the menu. tariffs are severely impacting our three largest markets, canada, mexico, and china. canada, mexico and china accounted for 43% of our farm exports last year.

president trump often talks about our need to export things that we make. but from a rural america perspective, we also need to export more of the things we grow. we recognize that over 95% of the world's population does not live in the united states. we must work together to protect, modify, and modernize our current trade agreements. we must be at the table. we must expand our market opportunities through new trade agreements. minnesota farm bureau strongly believes we need to resolve the trade concerns before we sorting to tariffs. it is critical that we limit trade disruptions and resolve trade disputes through negotiations not tariffs. and not withdraws from other trade agreement discussions. we must be at the table. once you lose a market, it's really tough to get it back. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the sub committee

and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you and mr. vanderwall, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon. i am scott. i'm a farmer from south dakota. we have a family operation as representative mentions where my father is still involved at 82 years old and my son learning to manage probably earlier than he would have because i'm doing things like this. it's good for him as well. i currently serve as president of the south dakota farm bureau and have the honor of serving at the vice president of the national farm bureau cooperation. our farmers are facing a lot of challenges right now. since 2014 the american farmers' income has fallen 52 %. now farmers are dealing with big shift in the commodity markets because of trade and tariff threats. throughout history some farmers have survived by expanding their operations.

today that option is nearly untouchable because of the lack of qualified labor and access to land. the ingredients of this perfect storm trade threats, lower income, lack of labor and possibly no farm bill will be more than many farmers can handle. we need congress and the administration to remember that agriculture has traditionally been a bright spot in our nation's overall balance of trade. in 2017 we had a positive trade balance of $21 billion in regard to ag exports. we'll quickly lose our place as a leader in the global marketplace if we can't be trusted as a trading partner and our farmers no longer have access to markets they depend on. multiple rounds of u.s. tariff announcements and subsequent

retaliatory tariffs by china have led to large tariffs that price u.s. ag products out of foreign markets. similar negative effects are expected from the retaliatory tariffs imposed by canada, mexico and the european union because of the u.s.-imposed steel and aluminum tariffs. notice some specific impacts on south dakota. according to usda foreign ag service 95% of the exports from our state go to the top steel exports. 84% of our exports go to the top aluminum exporters. obviously these markets are very crucial to us, and the retaliatory tariffs hurt our state tremendously. i'm hearing more from farmers that they still trust with president trump is doing and he knows what he's doing and everything will be fine in the end. we understand that other countries, particularly china have not played fairly and we respect his desire to remedy the situations. the problem is those countries know just where to punch us back in a dispute situation and that's agriculture products. through no fault of our own and unintentionally, i believe, our industry ends up being used for

leverage. patience among farmers is running out as we get closer to the main selling season. as of yesterday since the end of day, soybean futures have dropped 20% and corn about $0.65 a bushel. the markets react daily. this issue will show up as a massive short fall in expected income on our financial statements. specifically for our small farm in south dakota this amounts to a negative impact of about $150,000 for corn and beans alone. farmers and ranchers are among the most patriotic people in the world but going bankrupt should not be a consequence of that dedication. i want to make it crystal clear that we appreciate most of president trump's efforts so far. such as reducing unnecessary regulations and taking a more conservative approach to issues that affect our industry the most. however, he does need to know

the ag industry has not participated in the current economic up trend we're seeing and reductions in income due to long-term trade disputes only make matters worse. we must ask what is the exact goal? what is the exit strategy? if we knew this would be over within a few months, we could hang in there and manage around it, but none of us know the time frame. ag lending is based on personal relationships. lenders work long term with their people. the last thing a lender wants to do is say i'm sorry but we can't renew your loan for this next year. you're out of business. i'm not exaggerating when i say that. that could become common place if trade wars don't end soon. a banker i talked to yesterday made an interesting comment. he said driving around the country side the crops look fantastic. it's too bad there's not a drop of black ink out there. we suggest a targeted approach.

mexico and canada deals done and then move to china. we urge our trade officials. we must get back to the table and get the issues worked out. if we can't do that, the consequences are dire. >> thank you. mrs. erickson jones. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is michelle erickson jones. i'm the co-owner of goose neck landing cattle from montana. i also currently serve as the president of the montana grain growers association. i'm on the board of the national association of the wheat grows and a member of farmers for free trade. i it is my honor to testify here today on the impacts of tariffs on our farm. my industry and most importantly my community that depends on trade for their livelihood. american agriculture is a tremendous global success story and the wheat industry is no

different. as such trade is critically important to the u.s. economy and our rural communities. farmers across the country depend heavily on our ability to sell our commodities to the foreign consumers. we're painfully aware of the unfair trading practices used by some countries and support the administration's interest in finding solutions to tariff and nontariff barriers that impede fair trade. but what i'd like to share with you today are some examples of the impact of tariffs imposed by our own administration and by the retaliatory tariffs levelled by our trading partners. these impacts felt by farmers such as myself throughout the supply chain from higher input cause to reduced exports and lower market prices. in may i testified at section 301 hearings at the international trade commission. as i said then and believe more strongly an ever now while many rural american families are optimistic about the economic growth under the current administration, there's mounting

concern about reducing export markets we depend on. there have been very few issues in my career as a farmer that have caused me to lose sleep, but these tariffs are one of them. i'd like to share some of the affects that have been directly impacted my farm and my family. the first wave started at the time the administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. for me and farmers across the country that translated into increased cost for capital investments. for example, earlier this year we priced a new 20 25,000 bushel grain bin. the bid expired and we sought a second bin. the secondary bid was 8% higher that. that amounted to a 20% increase from a bin we'd built a year before. the bin company attributed the difference to the significant increase in the cost of steel. i learned that their steel suppliered increased their price to match that of imported steel. as a result of that dramatic cost increase and volatility in the market we abandoned our grain storage expansion project. that harp harms our operation and also a construction company lost a project and a domestic steel company had one less thing to ship out.

back in january we built kalgt guards for capital improvement projects we planned for later in the fall. the neighbor asked to buy several from us. we agreed because we thought we would be able to use the profits for other investments or to put away. last week the price of steel increased 38 %. that evaporated our profits. we'll rebuild the cattle guards at a loss now. these scenarios are playing out across the nation. particularly the states that depend on agriculture. as our profits evaporate, our other economies are negatively impacted as well. one example of a small sum of money in the big picture is not much, adding them up across the rural economy is a staggering sum. there are countless examples in montana where last summer large portions of the state were on fire. imagine the cost of replacing fencing with prices increasing by double digits. the impacts coupled with the volatility and lower farm gate prices have already reduced our slim margins.

allow me to illustrate the sales. in an industry that exports $440 million of wheat to china. china is the world's largest wheat consumer. in 2016 they were our fourth largest customer. when china placed the retaliatory tariff against our u.s. wheat, not one shipment of wheat has been purchased from the u.s. since march. the last shipment arrived last month. and now i see i'm running short on time. i'll wrap it up there and welcome questions. >> mr. bernstein. >> chairman, members of the sub committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on troubling developments in international trade. with no input the administration is actively engaged in escalating friday war by which the imposition of new tariffs by both the u.s. and retaliation our trading partners. the economic record shows expanded trade is a net positive for growth both here and abroad. the same record reveals people and places and industries hurt by the trade liberalization that's taken place since the

80s. china is often engaged in unfair trading practices including suppressing the value of their currency. they've dumped steel onto world markets. it increased the production by over 500% between 2000 and 2016 contributing to more than half. raising issues is not the same as effectively addressing them. and this administration is escalating trade wars is likely to do more harm than good than american production, prices investment growth and employment. the trump administration is not there's a lot of sympathy for it. sympathy may be the wrong word. empathy even. but here's the problem.

we are a democratic society have been urging action on china for years. against their manipulation of their currency. against their practices in terms of state owned enterprises and steel and other products. but we never had any help on the now maturity side. whether it ca when it came to currency, there was no effort to take action on china's manipulation of its currency. the same was in terms of using section 301 that's now being used. we urge it be used but it wasn't and we had no help from the maturity side virtually.

china makes ten times the amount of steel now. so when the president was a candidate he saw a vacuum. and he acted on it. the problem is now that we have an administration which responded to a gap but is now essentially saying just sweep the decks whether it's china, whether it is tpp which we opposed. and he now says he eliminated it. nafta which many of us opposed 25 years ago and he has now been holding back and forth as to where he's going. and what makes this problem further is that the maturity his tats to take on the president.

so we have a hearing where you come and present some strong testimony. but in terms of taking on the president directly, that hasn't happened. and so there is a very mixed picture. so, for example, you say i'm hearing more from farmers as time goes along that they trust -- still trust the president knows what he's doing and everything will be fine in the end. i mean, so we're having more or less silence in general it's too what the president is doing which creates important problems. but now has this helicopterter

policy. they don't stand up to it in general. they don't really speak strongly. and you kind of give a mixed message. and so i just want to urge people to stand up and be clear. because on the democratic side we have been clear for years and years. china presents with the state owned enterprises and it's hurting our exports and we made clear use 301. and, yet, nothing happened. and when one of you say let's negotiate. let's talk and not use tariffs, the problem is that we talked and talked and talked and now tariffs are being used i'm afraid beyond a wakeup call and

beyond an instrument alt. i want to make it clear where we're coming from. i think democrats will find your testimony pretty important. and we have some understanding of it. what you really need to do is help us shape a policy that responds to it. and unfortunately, for example, the farm bureau when we talked about china currency and we talked about the 301, you were getting the benefit at the time and you didn't help us. so now we all have to join together to help carve out a policy that makes sense. thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. mr. kelly, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman. thank you all for taking time out of your lives to come here. i'm sorry we get called out to vote. we control nothing in our lives. once you get leelected, everythg

is scheduled for you. when you talked about loss of market share, i think it was you, when you talk about loss of market share and try to get market share back, i think it's important that people that actually do what you do as opposed to people who get elected to represent you actually walk that walk so when they talk the talk they know what the walk is like. how do you capture market share back once you lose? with the trade imbalance, do we not have one right now? it certainly didn't start with this administration. it started many years ago. how would you turn it around? and what would you do? what would the levers than you would use to change it? >> thank you, mr. chairman. congressman, you know, we are fortunate. we've is him decades of trade surpluses and agriculture. we can grow more than we can use. with those relationships of the other countries, i've been fortunate to be involved not only through the farm bureau but

also through our minnesota governor's office on different trade missions, whether it is to south korea, china, vietnam, as well as other countries, cuba. and trade relationships are -- trade is all about relationships. getting to know your customer. making sure that you're a reliable customer. being there and as we have those discussions, in minnesota we like to think about trade negotiations like a minnesota pot luck dinner. everybody's kind of expected to bring something to the table. you know? you really have to have everybody that can come back with some advantages with some wins and things like that. and the best way to do that is through those relationships. so i guess we would urge anybody and everybody that's listening how important it is do we maintain the relationships because once we lose that market, it's really tough to get it back. and you think about that as you do business normally. if you don't get the service,

you don't get the product you want. you go to someone else, someone else takes good care of you. you really shouldn't have a reason to go back to that original place. and that's our worry. 60% of the soy beans that i planted last may are exported. i rely on that export market. so we're going to continue to hopefully build those relationships to be at that table. but really farm bill is important to all of us. but our true safety net in agriculture quite frankly is that international trade. that 95% of our customers that don't live in the united states. >> so anybody else have any opinions on how you would regain market share once you lose it? is there any disagreement that right now that there is a huge trade imbalance? not in ag. we get hit every time we put a tariff on it. the response it s. to do what we're doing well and want to hit

them where it hurts which is in the wallet. i watched the domestic automobile market shift tremendously. domestics no longer hold the percentage of market share they used to have. once you lose market, you don't get it back. it's good to talk about getting it back. once that horse is out of the barn, it's hard to get back in. what could you do right now today, if you were sitting where we are sitting and could talk to the administration, what you would tell them is the best way of regaining market share and holding people accountable that are not towing the line the right way? i appreciate the fact can you go to the wto and go through all the different things and win the battle. we already lost the war. that market is gone. so anybody else? something you would tell us if we were able to sit with us and talk either to mr. ross or to the president? >> i would say get the exchange rates right. this is something the administration gives lip service to. but when other countries manage or exchange rates to get an

advantage over us, it makes our manufacturers have ia much hardr time competing. >> i would just say there's, you know, we talked a lot today about china. we talked a lot today about mefrm he cou mexico and canada and talked about japan. let's work on new trade agreements. there is opportunities out there. someone mentioned earlier, mentioned japan. japan is a great market. we need -- whether we go back and work ourselves back into tpp or whether we have a bilateral, anything along those lines are things that can help american agriculture. that's what i would encourage. >> when we have the biggest market in the world and everybody in the world wants to compete and have a share of our market, there has to be a way this he with can look at what we're doing and how we're helping the people that actually form the market. that's you all. but in other ways, it plays around our markets now are looking at lost market share.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this is a very interesting discussion. i guess there is a great deal of fear that many of the individuals that i know who are in business have that they can't figure out how to get something back once it's lost if it's slipping. mr. bernstein, let me ask you. agriculture is the world's biggest industry. i don't think of anything as large. it is actually what built america and established what we call its greatness over time. if agriculture goes, so goes america. it is the heart and soul of our

nation. we spend 12% of our discretionary income on food. some countries spend 30% to 40% and even some more. some people are not able to own their own homes or have cars for transportation or afford other things in their lives to have a decent living because of the price of food. you pointed out that tariffs imposed by the administration is going to have little impact to certain industry sectors. but agriculture would suffer more where there could be a potential unnaturalization of the farming industry in terms of

job loss, export market loss and lowering commodity prices internationally. if things are not corrected and our administration's gambles are found to not be correct, accurate, not pay off, what picture do you paint for domestic food prices to consumers and how would this affect our nation's economy? >> this has been a unique hearing for me on a positive side because often times the other members of the panel are other economists. here we have a bunch of people that actually do stuff. and so if you listen to my fellow panelists, what they're really not saying because it's embedded in the economics, is that these are very highly

productive producers. and that's why those shares that you mentioned in ermz it terms consumer spending are low because the productivity on the farm in america has grown so sharply. in many ways what i think i hear the fellow panelists saying is that the system that wasn't broken before the tariffs is being damaged by them. that doesn't mean that everything was perfect. we've heard the need for better trade deals from both myself and my colleagues here. but i would maintain and i think it's been a consistent message across the group today that terr tariffs are doing more harm than good. that's why i urged this subcommittee to reassert its constitutional privilege and i

might even call it an obligation to intervene and to take back the privilege and the role of regulating trade and of setting tariffs. i understand that measures 232 have security issues that are important. but canada is not a security threat. neither is mexico or the eu. i don't think that's a very courageous foreign policy statement on my planning. it's obvious. >> illinois being the tremendous agriculture state that we are when it comes to soy beans especially we're kind of shaking in our boots with china.

we trust we'll be able to reconcile the difficulties. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> this is a topic of great concern and i've been listening careful to your testimony. and you recognize that -- or you brought out that right now there's a 50% tariff on food in china and a 10% vat on top of that. and that vat existed before all these discussions came about. and mr. boning, you brought out that china has been cheating on agricultural subcy dsubsidies fr

$100 billion and that hurt the american farmer. who here thinks america has a fair trade arrangement before all the tariffs? before all the tariffs came about with china? who here thinks that is true? what about the eu? do you think we've got good reciprocal tariffs that everything is fair in agriculture? no. and certainly can dada can lumb and dairy we have problems, correct? and also i don't think anybody would argue that we've had problems with steel and aluminum although that's not your primary, right? you recognize that china has been treating us fairly and dumping on us. let me ask you this, we all recognize there is a problem. so here's the second issue. who here thinks the countries are going to say, you know what? i'll sign that off.

do you think they're going to do stha? >> no. >> i do not. >> does anybody here think that? >> no. >> and so what's it going to require to get them to give up this advantage? well, obviously some kind of pressure is going to have to be brought to bear. we can disagree about the type of pressure. i mean the pressure that's been brought here is tariffs. we have secretary ross and we have ambassador lighthouser who are certainly very experienced financial folks and very experienced in trade who are trying to get the best deal we can. you say we need to grab back our constitutional authority and i don't think we have given enough. we delegate to the administration. but who here thinks that 435 people including the senate, who thinks 535 people can sit in a room and effectively negotiate a

contract? that's right. nobody. we have to have -- >> i don't agree with that. >> you think 535 people that can't agree the sky is blue can come up with a complex contract? absolutely not. >> it doesn't have to be 535. it has to be majority. i believe there is a majority that would push back on the tariffs. >> we have to have pint person. that is just common tensense. now the steel tariffs came about this year. and then there's been follow up and follow up. because there's been talks and rounds of talks. and people have come to the table and walked away from the table. but they all came about this year. here we sit seven months of the year. who here thought that all this would get resolved in seven months? no, look, i am really -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, sir. if i had more than a minute i would. >> okay. >> but here's the thing. you guys are in the cross hairs.

and nobody wants new the cross hairs. and you're under pressure and nobody wants you under pressure. i want to do anything we can to get rid of the pressure that you're under. but we all have to understand the big pictures. and the tariff that's existed before all this went into place, you know, if john hchina has a tariff on ag and we're export 25g% of our ag products today as you pointed out, what do you think would happen if they drop their tariff? if they lowered it to 10%? obviously, our exports would go up. so the end result here is to try to get a better playing field for you guys. and i feel your pain. i want to do anything i can to make it speedy and gone. but we all have to understand that in order for any of this to happen, the administration is doing what i think they have to

do in bringing pressure to bear to bring the people to the table. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. higgins. >> mr. chairman, can i just yield 15 seconds to the ranking member? >> mr. chairman, this has to be said. because if we follow the logic that we just heard from the gentleman, we would have no checks and balances. and we might as well just hand over the whole process to the executive branch of government. what we should be doing is trying to get back what we deserve from the constitution of article 1 section 8. i yield back my time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all of you here own their own agriculture business or you represent people who do. so no one here seems to support the takriffs.

conditioningtial leade congressional leaders know president is wrong on thish u. and the constitution is very clear. congress and not the president was vested with the power to levy tariffs. you can't -- the impositions of tariffs are a race to the bottom. you impose tariffs, another country responds by imposing their own tariffs. in the end, consumer get hurt because it hurts demand. it hurts profits. you know this better than anybody else. if congress wants to stop tariffs, it has one option. pass a law with a veto proof majority that ends the tariffs or strips the president of his authority to impose tariffs. so while it's somewhat helpful that you are here, appealing to

your elective representatives so you can do what you do every day, we're not exercising our constitutional authority to help you. you should be indignant about that. what i heard from the introductions, you traveled quite a distance here. to appeal to congress about something that's hurting your business directly or the constituencies that you represent. and what kacongress is telling u is despite it has the constitutional authority to help you, they're not going to help you. they're not going to help you. so, you know, it was a law. it was the trade expansion act of 1962, 1962.

section 232 that allows a president to bypass congress and impose tariffs under circumstances that threatens the national security. so the president invokes that trade expansion act of 1962 to justify tariffs imposed on canada. on canada. canada has been with us in every single war. canada is a great trading partner f we're smart about trade, we would partner with them to give us greater leverage in negotiating a more favorable north american free trade agreement. everybody here whines about china. everybody. they cheat on their currency. they treat their environment poorly. they treat their workers poorly. you know what you ought to do with china?

stand up and compete with them. because they're bypassing because they're doing what we used to do to strengthen the american economy. you look at your smart phone, the internet, global positioning satellite, touch screen technology. guess who all that came from? the american taxpayers that financed research to make those products possible. guess where all the smart phones are made? they're made in china. you know we just need to be smarter about trade policy and economic policy. you can't tariff your way to economic strength and growth. what you can do and what we ought to be doing particularly of this body and this subcommittee is promoting investment in the growth of the american economy. i apologize to you for coming here and appealing to congress

that is constitutionally authorized to help you and is failing to help you. and a senate bill that's insulting. that the senate passes joifr wh -- overwhelmingly a bill that is a nonbinding recommendation on this stuff which it has the constitutional authority to do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here and sharing your personal stories. i'll start with you mr. pap. being from minnesota, you know you're the third largiest producers of soy beans in our country. they've been planting them well before china announced the 25% tariff on u.s. soy beans. so prices for soy beans are down. down half or more actually per bu bushel. they're continuing to drop. they're not going to have access to the foreign market they have

come to rely on. you shared your perspective on that. i think that uncertainty that our farmers are facing from the terre hauti tariffs, it is hurting the community. projects are being put on hold and hurting our economy. let me just ask you, as a fourth generation farmer, do you think that these takriffs will behindr future generations of farmers from a long time perspective and make it difficult for the family farm to be handed down putting us in a bad situation for the long term impact. >> mr. chairman, congressman paulsen, that's a great question. the driveway that julie and i drove down yesterday on the way to the airport was the same driveway our family used 119 years ago. you know, personally accept for college, in my lifetime, i've only ever lived in three houses on two farm yards a half mile

aeach other. we've got our fifth generation, our son andy who is farming a half mile down the road, living in a house that his great grandfather built. sleeping in the same bedroom that his grandfather was born in as the fiven generation. julie, we hope they're work ing on the sixth generation as well. what that safety net is trade to continue. as we have young farmers and ranchers wanting to get in, it's hard to get started in agriculture. even as an existing family. farmers and ranchers are all about sustainability. but the most important sustainability in agriculture with farm families is that generational sustainability. that ability to continue on the next 119 years. and i really worry that we don't have that ability as we're not taking advantages of markets that we've got. you know, we had great

opportunities in tpp. we've chose not to do that but that doesn't mean the other 11 countries aren't going on ahead without us. so we're really concerned about that. one way to do you know, that's animal caring for animals. that's the best way for that next generation to get in. we've looked at that. i've brought with me today a proposal to build a hog barn. okay? but where the prices are today, that's not going to cash flow. that's not going to work. and you'd be surprised how much steel and aluminum is in animal housing as we talk about the costs going up and up. so we really look at trade as that ability to not only survive this next year, but for the next generation to survive as well. what other industry would give up on 95% of their market share? would say i don't care about

that 95%? we really need to work together to see what we can do to keep that next generation involved in the farm if they wish to. >> maybe just to follow up on that because you said the safety net had been trade. some have said the united states doesn't need to worry about retaliation. you talk about it being the tip of the spear. some have said countries aren't going to want to increase their prices own decreasing supply. would you agree with that argument? >> we have got -- you know, we're blessed. we've got the ability to produce more than we need. we need those other countries. we hope we'll have those relationships where we'll continue to be able to trade with them. and again, everybody has to have something in that trade agreement. but we would still urge anybody that would listen that we need to be at the table. we need to have those negotiations. quite frankly, that not only is our future in the next few months, but it's that next

generation's future as well. >> you want to add anything in the last 20 seconds just to sum up? >> just that -- i mean, i can second everything kevin said. we're kind of in the same boat. we're multigenerational as well farming land that my grandfather started farming in 1930. i have one son there with us. but long-term, this is how we've progressed. this is how we've gone forward is because we've been blessed. kevin pointed it out so well. but we have to have those trade agreements. whether it's china or whether it's japan or whatever it is. we need them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess my question would be for mr. vanderwal. i'm going to call you scott because it seems weird to call you mr. vanderwal when i know you so well. here's what's frustrating for me. because i look at the reason that this is a crisis right now is because we've gone through four or five years of really low

commodity prices. and if we had perfect trade agreements and our ag products were able to get into every market across the globe and we were treated fairly, we probably wouldn't have had as low of markets? president trump correctly identified we needed to fight for better trade agreements. would you agree with that? >> mr. chairman, yes, i would agree with that. i think we've kind of been beat out historically in some of these trade agreements. and admittedly, there are higher tariffs on our products going the other way than they are coming this way. >> exactly. i agree wholeheartedly. that's why this coming at this time creates such a crisis. we've been living with unfair trade agreements. we've been paying the price and our farmers and ranchers have been dealing with that when previous administrations did not fight for the american farmer. this president's fighting for them. and china knew directly where we were the most vulnerable. they came after our farmers and ranchers. so it gets me upset when i talk about people indicating that

it's the president not defending our farmers and ranchers. because he was fighting for better trade agreements and china came after us. now our job is to tell the story about why we need a safety net. if we're going to fight for better trade agreements, we need the help of trump administration, usda, and congress to make sure our farmers and ranchers can supply to this country and the world and do what they do best. i've spent my whole life in agriculture, but it is very difficult for anybody who hasn't. they don't understand how highly lempbl e leveraged the industry is. when you get in a state like south dakota and you're borrowing money to buy land, buy machinery. then you borrow money to operate and hope there's something to harvest that fall, that's a highly leveraged industry. and the impact that this situation could have not just on those operations that have been in families for generations, but

the impact it has on those communities and those counties and those states. that's something that i think is very difficult for people on capitol hill to really grasp how important it is that we do something and we do it quickly. is there something -- no, i won't yield right now. i want mr. vanderwal to talk about the reality of the situation on the ground in south dakota and how tenuous this financial situation is. >> thank you. that's a great question and it really impacts our state. you know, we've got decreasing population in our rural areas already. and if we lose any more population in the state in these rural areas, not only does it take the young farmers and ranchers and as i mentioned the almost retiring people like my age and a little older. it also takes out the people that supply those farmers and ranchers. the feed store, the fertilizer dealer. all the people that supply the

things we need to raise the products that we do. so yes, it has a tremendously long tail. and it's not only the feed and seed suppliers. it's the hardware stores, food stores in these small towns. >> and everybody in this country relies on a safe and affordable supply. it doesn't matter if you live in new york, california. you care when you go to the grocery store you can afford to buy that loaf of bread and carton of eggs to feed your family. that's what's important about these rural areas continuing to grow our food. that's the message i've carried out here on capitol hill. we can't afford to let another country provide our food for us. if they do, they control us. it's incredibly important that not only do we fight and continue to fight for better trade agreements and market access, but we get through this situation which allows us to be victorious. i appreciate you being here. i know you're away from your operations and families to be here and advocate for good policy and good trade. it means the world to us and to

our country. so thank you for what you do. god bless you. >> thank you. >> mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, all, for taking time out of your busy schedule and being here. being a fourth generation owner of our family ranch, i relate to a lot of you. in these issues. mr. vanderwal, you spoke about several of the tariffs like the tariffs on soybeans. who put those tariffs on the soybeans? >> you mean -- >> was it the trump administration? or was it the chinese? >> the chinese have put the tariffs on the soybeans in retaliation for the tariffs that have been put on their products coming this way. >> that's the excuse that they said. but i want to point out that the trump administration did not put the 25% tariff on soybeans or

cotton or corn or the other ag products. it was the chinese. and we can't lose that direction. we have a president -- and i think it's an important distinction that needs to be made by those of us on this committee. because farmers, ranchers, and workers in southern missouri have been on an uneven playing field for quite some time. president trump knows this and that is why he's asked usdr to fight back against the trade practices. we know 95% of the world's consumers are outside of the united states. we all believe in free trade. free trade. and fair trade. countries shouldn't be putting tariffs on us. our president is winning policies where there's no tariffs on either side. we can compete with the world if it's fair. and if they're not leveraging tariffs on us. the problem is is for so long

we've had elected officials that said they're free traders but they're afraid to stand up to the chinese and other countries putting these tariffs on our ag products. we complain about low commodity prices. it's because we don't have these free trade agreements with other countries. because they want to protect their own industry. you know, ustr and secretary ross, they found several things after the president asked for it. the american dairy farmers face astronomical tariffs levied by canada. india's heavily subsidizing their rice industry. turkey is dumping cotton. and many other countries through blockades are harming our farmers and ranchers. that cannot be unnoticed. the 301 investigations into china found numerous trade violations and theft of shr intellectual operations.

there's two types of businesses in china. government-owned businesses and government-subsidized businesses. that's tough to compete as a farmer in southeast missouri. whenever the chinese two businesses are government-owned and government-subsidized. the entire world knows china is taking advantage of them, but it seems that president trump is the only one who wants to do something about it. he wants a better deal for missouri farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and families. so that's how our trade actions came about. lengthy investigations and specific responses to unfair trade practices. does anyone know how the european union decided to levy our tariffs on us? do you know how the european union decided to levy the tariffs on our ag products? >> i don't know the exact process, but i do know that they used several methods to -- >> let me read to you what the

european union said in a statement. here is the european union's trade chief. he just recently said, quote, it is well known that the agriculture constituency is one of the groups with political clout to bring change to washington. it is no coincidence all the trading partners have selected agriculture products for their rebalancing list. that is the trade chief of the eu openly saying they are targeting american farmers and rural communities for pure political reasons. does that sound like our friends and allies? targeting you all for political reasons. we need to have friends and neighbors that do want free trade. and i'm very supportive of president donald trump trying to make sure that my farmers in southeast missouri has the highest commodity prices possible. and it's going to be a roller

coaster. and it has been a roller coaster. and as a rancher myself who just sold 31 steers today. i understand how the market changes very quickly. and i'm telling you. i am very glad i have someone in the white house that i trust that's willing to stand up for our farmers. and we're going to get to a good agreement. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the panel for coming. i want to just echo that everything you've said rings true in my district in northern indiana. i want to give a shoutout to mr. bernstein for talking about the industry. when we talk about some of those issues, it's ringing even more clear. the folks in my district in northern indiana, the farmers, i have a friend of mine that summed it up with one word. when asked about what's happening right now with these tariffs in northern indiana and he said the results are

terrible. his gross income per acre dropped $100. he dropped some as a way to provide a buffer if one of those is having a bad year. the problem is right now everything is down. another family farm in my district grows 3200 acres of corn and 3,000 acres of soybeans estimates they've lost $700,000 because of the price drops in both. one thing i've heard commerce secretary wilbur ross repeatedly say is essentially this. quote, if china's buying more resilient soybeans, the u.s. can sell to wherever. brazil isn't selling anymore. basically he's saying that u.s. agriculture can fill the void wherever brazil and others are abandoning in order to sell china or the eu. subpoena it really that simple? is it really just one brush stroke away? if not, i don't care who rings in on it, but can i ask you about it? why is it not that simple? >> thank you for the question.

it is not that simple. there will be a certain amount of rebalance in the world supply. but there are two things you don't want to happen. we do not want to give up and be a regional supplier to china. they're the biggest consumer in the world. and they're also a huge opportunity for the wheat market. that is not something we want to give up. the other thing that makes that more difficult is there are sanitary regulations that mean -- and may not be necessarily possible to take u.s. soybeans, u.s. wheat, whatever it is and then automatically send it to brazil, argentina, whatever the void in the market is. it's not necessarily a straightforward we just ship it all to argentina and really it could go to china. those type of regulations could impede how that is -- how that plays out in the world market. >> anybody else want to comment? >> as simplistic as it seems,

these markets are not fundable as any means. they're very discerning. don't get me wrong. they understand the products they buy from us. they're willing to pay for those products. i've been an athlete my whole life. there's no handicaps in athletics. you have to have fundamentals and -- on a level playing field. that's why there's boundary lines on a court or a field. that's all we're asking is let's level this playing field. i get where we're headed. i'm patriotic. there's going to be some pain shared. make sure the pain is shared amongst all industries. the trillions of dollars of high-tech industry overseas make sure they're sharing. we're high profile.

we're easy. there's an apple grown in almost every state so it's easy to get under the skin of your ag producers and make a difference. it's why we're here. but these are not fundable so we can't just send an apple as an apple. it doesn't work that way. >> i appreciate it. i just wanted to pass along to you all what i tell my farmers every day. this matters so much to the majority of the farms in indiana that are family farms. you know, a lot of them a couple of weeks ago said, hey, we'll do the short-term pain for the long-term gain. but just last week when i had a little summit with a lot of my farmers, they're nervous. they're nervous that the long-term gain here may be much longer than what they thought and they can't ride this through. i want to thank you for what you do. there's very few productions i can say living in a rural area

that i honor you take so much risks. you've taken so much risk during the generations. to be responsible far -- for that. we want to roll forward with a lot of strength. thank you for what you do. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the panelists for giving us insight what the tariffs are doing to your businesses, production agriculture has been the focus. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. obviously there's a complex issue at play right now with our relationship with the rest of the world when it comes to trade policy and inevitably have to tee up more hearings as far as working with all of you. so that we don't mess up the economic recovery that's occurring right now. with all due respect, we haven't

heard anything new in the districts every day. i come from one of the largest -- one of the biggest dairy producing areas. and i hear from farmers every day. and the worries consumers are raising right now too. so this isn't much new news that we're getting hooer with your testimony. it's consistent, if that brings you any comfort. but i think the president's underappreciate whag the impact has been. just the pr war he's losing in my state and wisconsin. let me read a few media responses lately. >> trump's global trade war expected to inflict economic casualties in wisconsin across the nation. wisconsin construction seeing cost increases following steel and lumber tariffs. wisconsin cheese makers facing double whammy. tariffs, other costs, building prices, harley-davidson.

shifting some production overseas. in an article about how trump responded to the company in wisconsin. and hon and on and on. you're pond o wondering, where do we go from here. an official from the trump administration is to give us clear guidance of where the landing zone is, what the objectives are, what are we asking of china at the end of the day, what are we demanding of the eu at the end of the day. because we have very little to go on right now and that must frustrate all of you right now. unfortunately from my perspective, i don't see it ending very well soon or very safely. because we're in a tit for tat situation now where each side is escalating the retaliation. throwing out the global rules trading system that we helped create. since the end of the second world war.

and they've become addicted to tariffs, addicted to protectionism. and they don't believe in trying to go out and negotiate trade agreements that could solve a lot of these questions. hopefully there's app end glam in this and china has been cheating. when it comes to their own agriculture production, forced technology transfers, requirement of joint ventures. we all know that. the proper course of action is to bring that to the wto. not hit china which makes it easy for them to retaliate against us as they are doing. mr. vanderwal you were eloquent in saying they know how to do it and how to hurt us. the previous administration under president obama filed more wto complaints than any other

record. the current administration has filed just a few. a majority of them were previous obama administration complaints. that would have been the proper venue in order to take on china which we have done consistently and wto and won rather than taking this unilateral tariff action against them today. yet this administration is doing everything they can to undermine the effectiveness for dispute resolution. they refuse to appoint judges to the appellate panel. that whole organization will be shut down. they won't be able to do any business. then it is a dog eat dog world. that's what we have to look forward to. path forward. congress needs to reassert our authority. i just introduced legislation with mike gallagher that calls for the corker bill here on the house side. we hope to get support from the outside community about congress needing to have a greater voice in what's being done. i also introduced legislation

earlier this year that calls for a congressional review act. so there's a chance to disapprove of what the administration is doing. or the universal tariffs. it's going to have one willing to assert themselves. rather than just punting to this guy who is addicted to tariffs. i'm afraid that's going to end badly for all of us. i thank you all for testifying. we've got a lot of work to do here in the u.s. congress. >> thank you. mr. smith, you are recognized. >> thank you for allowing me to be here. i'm glad that it was pointed out that you are practitioners in agriculture and not just economists saying how things ought to be or could be. but how things really are.

and i think it's important. i think that this entire debate on trid has jenl rated more discussion across our country. and i think we can be better off for it. it makes a lot of us nervous especially as you reflect on that. crowne, meeting with some folks back at home. the kelly bean company, for example. they're buyers in their dry bean market and a great insight to their concern about their situation reflecting certainly the concerns of the producers that they work with. so mr. vanderwal, i appreciate your testimony. you pointed out how certainly appreciate president trump's efforts and part of the concern here is this is all in the context that agriculture has not enjoyed as you said, the economic uptrend that other parts of our economy have. and so in that entire context, i

think it is usually very important. because we have a lot of things to work on. in the trade arena, i think there is a greater understanding and appreciation of trade. i think there's a greater appreciation that trade. so again, mr. vanderwal, it looks from your bio, a strong competitor we have. certainly in soybeans. i was hoping you could elaborate as much as you can on what, you know, these trade issues mean to market share and perhaps what other countries might do particularly brazil in this context. >> thank you, congressman.

i wonder if i could respectfully yield my time to mr. bain because he has to leave. if he would be able to answer your question and then i could come back and address it? >> sure. >> thank you, scott. related to brazil and the -- as a competitor. there's no doubt they're a strong competitor. what was your question again? exactly what was the question? >> just reflecting on market share as was highlighted. >> if we lose those markets, a competitor like brazil will be in there right away. they are a very staumnch competitor. they'll pick up our market share readily. if they become the supplier that's most reliability. it will be hard to get these

back. to get those markets back will be severely difficult. >> anyone else wishing to reflect on that? >> i do need to leave. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i'm headed back to the farm tonight yet. thank you, sir. >> mr. vanderwal. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the question. i would elaborate more on that. thank you for letting him speak. i've been in brazil three times. it's very interesting the way they look at the united states. this goes back to 2001. and the statement was made by those people that we watch the yiet very carefully and every time you set aside some acres, we just expand that much. they look at these kind of things too. if we lose our markets with china or whoever else it is,

they will go after those markets. so they're hungry for our markets and they're not afraid to compete. this is why we need this level playing field. >> i do want to say that tariffs and their negative impact ultimately on consumers has me greatly concerned. certainly the impact on producers as well. also non-tariff trade barriers. we should not lose sight of the fact that we need to address trade agreements be -- that is good to address bad trade policies on the books. let's update nafta and get this moving as quickly as we can. let's bring these trarted wit-- >> thank you. >> thank you for allowing my

participation today and thank you to all the witnesses for being with us. i'm very sympathetic to many of the concerns you all have of the retaliatory tariffs. but i want to share similar concerns. small business owners in south florida have with u.s. tar rirs and the response. represent enormous economic value to florida and monroe county. next to tourism, commercial fishing is the second largest economic engine in the keys valleyed with turover at $9 hurngz million. $300 million of that amount is dire direct directly printable. that was sent to me from bill kelly from the florida missioners association. one of the key economic engines is at risk of being stalled as

they begin to retaliate on products from the united states. i would like to work into the record the letter sent yesterday regarding chinese retaliatory actions. i would also like to submit into the record the letter i sent to the president yesterday rathering the same a last season was hard for florida keys fishermen. they are still dealing with loss of income, rehairs, and replace ing traps. shortly after the administration's tariffs under section 301 went into effect, china retaliated with a 25% tariff on its own list of imimportants including spiney

lobsters and others in the hearing. florida key fisher men will have a negative effect on their livelihoods. and that they will never again be able to regain their market share in china even after a hiefl, successful negotiation negotiation to decrease tariffs. upped to 75% of their spiney lobsters to china. while i agree they should be held accountable, this retaliation is also a great source of harm to our fisher man and formers. to implement a more targeted approach and help restrain retaliation. with a level of certainty and helping our communities and your communities return to economic prosperity. so mr. chairman, i'm grateful

for all of the testimony we've heard here today. and i think when people think of american farmers, they think of more traditional farming like the ones that have been highlighted today. but there are a lot of other people throughout the country. fi fishermen and others who are already facing the consequences of this growing trade dispute. i just wanted to come here to add my voice to all of the voices we've heard today. and really encourage the administration to try to bring this plane in for a landing. because there are many americans and american families not just consumers. but people like these fishermen in the florida keys who are already being aggrieved. and especially at a time when my district is still trying to recover after the powerful storm, hurricane irma that hit

us last year. we can't take more pain at this time. so we really hope that working together, republicans and democrats with the administration with so many stake holders throughout the country, we can all figure this out as soon as possible. thank you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. thank you all for your testimony and for your patience in waiting for us to come back from our responsibilities in voting. i think you've heard from -- obviously from both sides. today there's a little frustration expressed. all of us i think wanting more communication with the administration. that is not you nie-- we were discussing trade issues and i was proud to be part of the president's export council and had the opportunity to participate in those discussions. but there -- you know, it

doesn't matter how many times we have mr. lighthizer here or mr. ross or mr. navarro or have opportunities to meet with the president and the vice president, et cetera, we're going to always want more. that's just what our responsibility is. to increase that between the administration and the members who represent our constituency. so the other thing i sort of caught was mr. bernstein's comment about his -- the honor of testifying with people that do stuff. and so part of our responsibility is not just trying to communicate with the white house and with the people that work there in making sure that this does have a smooth la landing. but the other part of our job even though mr. kind said we are recognizing these things from our districts. those of us who represent

districts in washington state are hearing those stories. but what's important is you're sharing those stories in washington, d.c. in an open hearing where people around a country and around the world can hear your -- hear our concerns and our questions. and most importantly, it's another way of communicating with the administration. because they also watched these hearings and they listen and they learn from what you said and what we've said and what our questions are. that also then gives us the opportunity to continue that dialogue and say, hey. by the way, did you catch the hearing on the trade subcommittee today? and we will continue to fight. both parties will continue to fight. because we want to see you succeed. we want to help the people that do stuff. and that's our job. the first is to listen to you and then have a solution to help

you keep doing stuff. so thank you again for taking the time to be here today. thank you so much for the work that you do as ms. nome said. thank you for what you do for this country. it is, indeed, a calling. i have relatives in montana and missouri. was born in detroit lakes, minnesota, by the way. who farmed their whole lives. i still have some relatives in montana doing that same thing. so i know that some of you are in harvest season. mr. banning had to go back to his farm. or you're preparing for harvest season. thank you for taking the time again to be here. please be advised that members will have two weeks to submit written questions to be answered later in writing. those questions and your answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. our record will remain open until august 1st. and i urge interested parties to

submit statements to inform the kmie's determination. with that, subcommittee stands adjourned.

earlier today jerome powell testified regarding monetary policy and the economy. you can see the entire hearing tonight starting at 10:00 eastern on espn2. and tomorrow the senate banking committee will hold a confirmation hearing for president trump's nominees to lead the consumer protection bureau and export import bank. you can listen with the free c-span radio app. tonight it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. >> mr. president, i am grateful to you and i'm humbled by your confidence in me. >> brett kavanaugh of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit is

president trump's nominee for the supreme court. >> and i'm pleased with the nominee that the president has chosen and after talking to him yesterday morning, i look forward to supporting his nomination and doing whatever i can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. >> if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, women's freedom to make decisions about their bodies, reformed to our health care system, the quality of our air and water, and much more will be at risk. >> frankly, i cannot think of anybody who's more qualified to serve as the next associate justice of the supreme court. >> follow the confirmation process on c-span through congress as judge kavanaugh meets with key senators, the senate confirmation hearings, and the vote. watch live on c-span. watch any time on wc-span.org. join us saturday and sunday

for alaska weekend. with featured programming on c-span, book tv, and american history tv. we'll explore alaska's natural beauty, history, culture, and public policy issues facing the state. saturday morning on c-span's washington journal, amy harder on the effect of climate change in alaska. and sunday morning jacqueline pata from national congress of american indians discusses native american and native alaskan issues. on the communicators, saturday, tina pigeon talks about how the company makes broadband possible for small villages across tundra, glaciers, and mountains. then the incoming president for the telemedicine and telehealth on providing remote care to

alaska. and then saturday at noon eastern, the cities tour explores the historical scene with dermott cole author of "amazing pipeline stories." rosita whirl with alaska natives. and stan jones author and former anchorage reporter. and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on after words, mark adams talks about his book "tip of the i icebe iceberg." on american history tv on c-span3, sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern the c-span cities tour visits the alaska state capital. the alaska native heritage center. and will take a look at preparing seafood for market. and at 4:00 on real america,

watch four documentaries on alaska. the 1936 film alaska silver millions. the 1949 film eskimo hunters. the 1967 film alaska centennial. and the 1944 film alaska highway. watch alaska weekend saturday and sunday on the c-span networks, c-span.org, or listen in on the free c-span radio app. matt walsh is the author of "the unholy trinity" blocking the left's assault on life, marriage, and gender. he was one of he the speakers in denver. we will also hear from a representative of israel's ministry of tourism. >> i want to teach you a hebrew word this morning. t-i-k-v-a. it means hope. say it with me.