made me, you know, i was just forced to be tougher. that's -- you know, isn't that sort of the secret. at least it was back then. we were constantly being underestimated as females. and so, you know, sometimes being underestimated is a good thing because you can add to the element of surprise. i remember a lot of my debates where the people i was debating didn't take me seriously until i got up there and then it was too late. the same thing happens when you are negotiating. >> in the weeks ahead we'll hear from pat schroeder, sue myrick, eva clayton, helen pentsley, barbara kennelly, nancy johnson and lynn woolsey. watch oral histories sunday at 10:00 a.m. east ownern on ameri history tv on c-span3. a hearing now on the impact of new rounds of tariffs on foreign goods announced by the trump administration. the senate foreign relations committees hearing chaired by senator bob corker of tennessee

is about 2 1/2 hours. >> thank you. foreign relations committee will come to order. ranking member menendez will be just a minute late and for us to go ahead and get started. we thank our witnesses and all of you for being here. we're going to consider the implications of recent trade actions by the administration including the implementation of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from canada, mexico and the european union. i do not think it will become as a big surprise to anyone here that i'm very concerned about the president's trade policy, and i think we all should be. from the imposition of tariffs on -- by abusing section 232 of the -- the 232 authorities to threats to withdraw from longstanding trade agreements such as nafta, these actions are

hurting our business and farm communities all around the country. they are damaging our international relationships that we have spent decades building, casting doubt on the united states and our role as a global leader and reliable partner. the tariffs imposed on imported steel and aluminum under section 232 are already disrupting and damaging supply chains and business plans of numerous american businesses. these artificial distortions will continue to have real world effects, including the possibility that many americans could and will lose their jobs. many of our companies risk losing markets, carefully developed and cultivated over years to their foreign competitors. and now we await the outcome of another 232 investigation initiated by the press when this president, this one to determine if foreign auto imports threaten our national security. don't get me wrong. we have significant trade

challenges twhen comes to china. and while we all agree on the need to ensure the international trade system is fair to american workers, companies and consumers, i believe we should focus on building coalitions to confront longstanding threats such as chinese theft of intellectual property instead of imposing 232 tariffs on our friends. instead these actions are alienating our close friends and allies, partners we rely upon for far more than just economic security. the president has said that trade wars are winnable. whether we win or lose, they're certain to be collateral damage to u.s. citizens and businesses along the way, as well as our place in the world. the administration needs to explain to congress where this is all headed. i know many members have been over to meet with the president to talk about where this is headed. to my knowledge, not a single person is able to articulate where this is headed. nor what the plans are.

more what the strategy is. it seems to be a wake up, ready, fire, aim strategy. so they need to explain where this is going. the disruptions and costs of these tariffs are clear. how and when it does end, will we be better off as a result? the constitution clearly establishes a power to collect duties and regulate foreign commerce with congress. we're holding this hearing today because of the vital need for congressional oversight on these actions. i've offered bipartisan legislation with senators flake, johnson, isaacson, shaheen and others on this committee for congress to reclaim its appropriate role and responsibility with respect to setting tariff policy. the bill has attracted wide ranging support from organizations representing business and agriculture across our country with an overwhelming vote of support for those efforts yesterday in the senate. we'll continue to push for a binding vote on this in the near

future. we thank our witnesses for being here today. let me introduce our witness. our first witness is monisha sing, assistant secretary of state for the economic and business -- for economic and business affairs. in this role she is responsible for advancing american prosperity, entrepreneurship, innovation worldwide. we thank you for being here. i would not want to be in your position today, but you're gladly here to do so. we look forward especially to our private panel that will come up after without some of the same relationships but with it -- with that, if you would give your testimony in about five minutes. any written documents you have without objection will be entered into the record. we thank you for your service. do you want to make an opening comment? why don't you get a cup of coffee and take a deep breath

and give an opening comment. >> these days, mr. president -- mr. president? i wish. mr. chairman. >> recently i've been feeling the same way. >> i hope that doesn't get you into any trouble. a deep breath is not enough these days. mr. chairman, thank you for calling a very timely hearing over the past few months we have watched the president pose a series of trade measures against our allies and adversaries alike seemingly without considering the impact of these actions could have on important strategic partnerships. i appreciate that your legislation as the chairman addresses this issue, and although you and i may have different views about some of our existing and proposed trade agreements the recent vote on the senate floor shows strong bipartisan support for pushing back on what i believe is the president's disruption action. we have witnessed more of this action on display as he's

meeting with our nato allies. arguably our most important partners in sustaining a critical agreement that keep our nation secure. his actions coupled with his den gra gra grating remarks do not inspire confidence. i believe decades of unfair trading practice have left american workers and businesses hard hit. it's critical we assess the real challenges and threats to american workers. recent economic analysis has again revealed how china's economic rise over the last generation has severely damaged some of america's hardest working people in their communities. china has driven overcapacity in steel and aluminum. we must go after their dumping on to the global market. it's put too manimey americans

of work. we must also aggressively go after china's expropriation and outright theft of our patents and copy rights. americans know the economic implications the actions are real. now following the section 301 investigation into china's policies on technology transfer and entek l-- intellectual properties, success will require more than a never ending escalation of tariffs. to support hard working americans we need a coordinated response from all countries that china's red tory practices disadvantage. the administration has begun a reckless campaign against our allies driving them into the arms of our adversaries instead of addressing china's economic policies. as the nato summit this week reminds us, the united states leadership in the world, our ability to meet the full-range

of global economic and health challenges we face requires sustainable, trustworthy partnerships. whether confronting russia's disruption of democratic institutions here among our european allies, working with our latin american neighbors or responding to china's aggressive moves we're stronger with the alliances built on shared history and values. remarkably, will chairman, the president saves his harshest words for our allies to who fight with us in the fields of afghanistan, alongside us in the fight for freedom in the aggression and on the front lines of economic imperialism in our own hemisphere. i look forward to our witnesses. i hope the hearing will help illuminate the administration's confusion, flurry of tariffs and trade restrictions. i hope we can agree on who our friends and adversaries are which are the right tools and the right priorities. with that, i look forward to the

hearing. >> thank you so much. mad m secretary, if you begin, we'd appreciate it. >> thank you. chairman corker, ranking member menendez, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. the department is grateful for the partnership we have with the members of this committee and with your staffs. the trump administration is committed to ensuring that american workers, farmers and companies have every opportunity to compete and succeed in the global arena. we look forward to continuing to work with you on this common goal. president trump's national security strategy declares that economic security is national security. we are working to safeguard both economic security and economic prosperity for the american

people. in addition to the dedicated officers here in washington, the state department has over 1500 economic officers posted in embassies and consulates around the world who explain our policies to foreign governments and enlist their support of our goals. our ambassadors and senior officials meet with foreign leaders to discuss our mutual priorities. they also advocate directly for u.s. companies. the department works in coordination with our colleagues at ustr, commerce, and other agencies to ensure that we are in close contact with our allies to explain the administration's trade and economic policies. we have heard some concerns and questions from our allies and trading partners and we have engaged with them proactively on a regular basis. we have made addressing their

concerns about our international trade policy a part of our larger conversation with them. the department is clear with our allies that we continue to have shared interest with countries around the world from counterterrorism to the denuclearization of north korea. we emphasize that our combined efforts are required to make the world a more just, safe, and prosperous place. a key area in which our allies and partners share our frustration is responding to the challenge of china's economic aggression. we are building an international coalition to address china's state-led policies which distort markets, discriminate against international competition, force technology transfer, and permit theft of sensitive intellectual property. the department is committed to

utilizing all available tools to increase economic security, promote greater opportunity, and build construct i global relationships. we are also working to attract foreign direct investment. greenfield investment which will benefit our workers. last month secretary pompeo joined four other cabinet secretaries and 15 of our ambassadors to welcome international businesses to the select usa summit, and emphasized the president's message that america is open for business. under the leadership of secretary pompeo, we are focussed on economic diplomacy in the interest of the american people. thank you again for holding this very important hearing. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> i think i might ask a few and then reserve the rest of my time. do you have any idea what the

strategy is relative to using 232 to put tariffs on our european partners and canada and mexico? can you ar tickulate how that helps us build a coalition to counterwhat you mentioned in the opening comments which is china's abuse and theft of intellectual property? >> thank you, senator corker. president trump has determined that the 232 actions are necessary to preserve the vitality of our domestic industries. i've received questions about why it is that we are focussed on china or the eu or other of our allies. however, the 232 initiative was not targeted at any particular country. it was instituted on a global basis to address steel and aluminum overcapacity. the 232 statute specifically indicates that the viability of our domestic industries to be

able to supply needs for our defense industrial base for our critical infrastructure do constitute national security threats under this legislation. >> so canada is a threat to us from a national security standpoint? don't we ship more steel to them than they ship to us? >> canada is not a national security threat however the global steel and aluminum overcapacity that currently exists in the marketplace is affecting our ability -- the ability of our domestic companies to adequately produce aluminum and steel. the viability of these industries does constitute a national security issue for us. >> i'm going to likely reserve my time for the second panel. go ahead, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you just said canada is not a national security threat. did i hear you right? >> yes, senator. >> well, section 232 is that the president has invoked, actually, has to sustain that canada is a

national security threat. so if it's not a national security threat, how is the president using section 232? >> well, thank you, senator, for that question. as i indicated previously, section 232, the language indicates that the competitive viability of our domestic industries is needed in order to maintain national security. in addition it states that a weakened economy inhibits our ability to maintain our defense -- our defense capabilities. and so, therefore, under 232 the president has determined that this global steel and aluminum overcapacity does impair our national security. >> really? does canada present a greater national security threat than china? >> senator, china is considered our largest threat. and to that end, the president has instituted very tough measures to protect our

intellectual property and innovation and to prevent the chinese from imposing unfair trade practices from distorting markets. >> does canada have a defense production sharing agreement with the united states? >> i'm not aware if we do or not. >> the answer is yes. it has a defense production sharing agreement with the united states yet, we say it's a national security threat. at the same time they're in the midst of producing defense elements with us. do you believe our allies are going to be more or less likely to join us in a coordinated action against china when they see the administration being tougher on allies like canada than china? >> senator, thank you for that question. our allies and partners share our frustration about china's economic coercion. and i personally have had many conversations with allies all over the world about cooperating against the chinese economic threat. they are as concerned about china as we are. >> yes.

the problem is that instead of building a coalition that was willing and wanting to confront china through the international farms that we could execute through, we attacked them. we attacked them. so what's the administration's strategy to respond to china's escalating retaliation? and bring them to the negotiating table to deal with underlying issues? more escalation? i mean, i don't understand what is the pathway here at the end of the day. so we slap a series of tariffs on them. they reciprocate and retaliate and add tariffs to us. where is the end game here? >> well, senator, thank you for that question. it's an important one. our end game is for china to change its behavior. we want to demonstrate to china that we are willing to take strong measures to force china to change its behavior which distorts markets which has contributed to --

>> i don't mean to interrupt you. my time is limited. we share the end game. the question is what's the strategy to get there? tariffs slapped in the action that the president has done gets retaliatory tariffs and then the president retaliates against those tariffs and china says they'll retaliate. tell me what is the strategy at the end of the day to achieve the goal that you just enunciated? >> senator, president trump has determined that tariffs are the most effective means to achieve this goal. for the last several decades we have been having many conversations with the chinese. you'll recall our economic dialogues in which we tried to make progress, and this problem has not been solved. so president trump has determined that tariffs are the way, tariffs are the right tool to be used in this situation to get the chinese to change their behavior. we need to see real action on

the part of the chinese, not just the ongoing conversations that they keep having with us. >> listen, madam secretary. i regret you were sent here because i don't think you're really in the mix here on this issue, and you're sent here as cannon fodder at the end of the day. it's really a challenge. so -- but the problem is i have heard no strategy whatsoever that suggests how this is going to end up. i don't know how we're using 232 to gain leverage on other issues. for example, july 8th, new york times article reported that the state department threatened ecuador with punitive trade measures if it refused to -- i ask the article be read into the record. how is it we're using section 232 on something like that? >> senator, i'm aware of the breast feeding resolution, and that media report was false. the department confirmed that was a false report. >> so you're not using 232 as it

relates to anything other th than -- >> the steel and aluminum producers the ability to regain their industries. we want the domestic industries to be able to have the capacity to supply needs for our critical infrastructure for our defense needs. 232 specifically states the viability of domestic industries is in the interest of national security. >> we're all for helping the steel industry and the united states, but the manner in which you're -- this administration is going about it is going to have huge consequences for middle america, for middle class families, for rising costs, for farmers in the country, and for lost jobs, and so at the end of the day, i think you're going to wreak more havoc than you are going to create the result you

want. thank you. >> thank you. i would just state that we produce 75% of the steel, i think, that we use in this nation. and our defense industry only uses 3%. i'm really saddened that you are the person that's up here today. i think we all like working with you. and i know that because you do a good job in the areas that you really spend most of your time, i would just ask the committee members that we do have a second panel that i think might ask -- might be able to answer questions in a little different way. you are going to be cannon fodder this morning, and i don't think you're really prepared to defend the policies in an appropriate manner. so what i would say to people is if you have a question, i know some of you do, let's ask them but maybe not use the entire five minutes so we can move on to the panel. anybody that wishes to do that is more than welcome to do so. senator johnson. >> quickly, basic data.

again, we want to increase the number of tons of steel we produce. are there goals in terms of number of tons we're looking for? are there goals in terms of number of jobs? >> well, senator, i don't know that there are specific numeric goals. i think that interagency -- >> you answered the question, then. back when president bush did this there was a study that showed for a few thousand steel jobs when he slapped steel tariffs we lost about 2000 jobs. is that a study in those types of considerations, have they been taken into account? >> well, i'm not aware of that study in particular. i know my colleagues at the department of commerce have done economic modelling and economic analysis to advise the president on their relations that the 232 -- >> are you track right now how steel prices increased in the u.s.?

what percent we've recognized? >> no, sir, i'm not tracking them. >> we're hearing somewhere between 30% and 40 %. you put on a 25% tariff and now domestic producers are realizing those gains. you realize how that makes them uncompetitive in the world markets. correct? >> yes, sir. >> earlier we heard there are 30,000 some waivers being requested to the commerce department. is that roughly the number of waivers you've received. >> i believe the number i saw was 20,000, something in that nature. >> okay. how are we going to possibly respond to that and does it make good economic sense to have people picking who is going to survive and who's not going to survive an industry. we had a woman build a business supplying trucking industries in three months she said she'll be out of business. i mean, are we really taking

into account -- i've heard the administration say some short-term pain for long-term gain. are we taking into account the permanent damage being done right now? >> senator, the goal of the commerce department and usdr in instituted the actions, again, is to increase the viability of our domestic industries. we would like -- >> steel. >> correct. of steel and aluminum. and we would like to see everyone succeed. we would like these industries to be at a level where they can start hiring people again, where they can create more american jobs. >> you have to look at the steel-using industry like in wisconsin a lot of them are worried. >> i yield my name. >> thank you. before i turn to the next senator, how are they deciding on the exclusions? are they looking at who made political contributions to the administration when they're running? i mean, this is pretty worry somethat you've got a couple folks deciding on who is going to be excluded from the

tariffs. there's no criteria that's been laid out. there's no transparency that's been given. how should we feel comfortable about how these -- there were 20,000 three weeks ago. i got to believe the number ron laid out is probably closer to where we are today. do you know anything about the process of how we're granting exclusions to people throughout our country, picking winners and losers? >> well, at the end of the day we would like to see all american workers come out as winners in this situation. secretary ross did testify before the senate finance committee last month, and he discussed extensively the process. he mentioned the transparent public hearing and comment period before the tariffs are instituted. and then he described the ek -- exclusion process through which american companies can apply. the commerce -- >> i watched the excerpts of the

hearing. i don't think he was that clear. >> i associate myself with a number of the comments colleagues have made. just talk about virginia. the effect in virginia of the aluminum and steel tariffs and the retaliation imposed as a result, i was at a farmer's market in halifax county, rural southern virginia over the weekend. soybean farmers were coming to me to complain about the significant damage that they are now suffering under because of retaliatory tariffs taken in response to president trump's actions. yesterday my poultry industry in the eastern shore came in to talk to me. i mentioned senator coons has had these conversations as well. they're being significantly affected by the retaliation by china and other nations. i got one right here. this is a rye whiskey. this is a tiny distillery in

loudoun county. they are small. 10 employees. they make rye whisky gin and brandy. they spent $100,000 to expand in europe the last five years. in europe american whisky is really popular. i'm sorry. they employ 20 people. they have had significant success in germany, italy, holland and the uk. but after the steel and aluminum tariffs went into the effect there were equivalent tariffs, additional 25% tariff. the founder said we're just launching into the european market and this is the worst possible timing. we're probably going to see all of our european sales come to a screeching halt. we come to a trade war. the question is who is it against? in virginia it seems it's against farmers and workers. the national stats would suggest this, and mr. chairman, i asked to put a version of this into

the record. this is just the effect of the steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliation of it. not other tariffs and trade wars that the administration is starting. projection is that over the next three years, 30,000 jobs would be gained in american industries because of the steel and aluminum tariffs. largely in industries that make steel and aluminum. and other jobs are lost. a net loss of 400,000 jobs to manufacturers and agricultural workers. this is just on the aluminum and steel tariffs. this morning there's an announcement about additional tariffs imposed on china and they'll retaliate in kind. this is hitting virginians and americans very hard. mr. chair, i appreciate you and others who position that vote

yesterday. it won't surprise anybody on this panel. i don't think we should ever be at war without a vote of congress and not a trade war without a vote of congress. congress has to approve deals. i think congress should have to approve trade wars, and i don't think the president should be able to unilaterally get us into a trade war that hits american and virginia workers to this degree. i have a question for you, and it really goes into the strategy question. what's the end game? in addition to all the effort that's being undertaken by an administration on the imposition of tariffs without explanation to us of a strategy, the administration is also acting in a significant way to undercut the world trade organization. there's an article in the wall street journal yesterday. trump puts the wto on the ropes. president sews crisis by invoking national security for tariffs and blocking trade judge appointments. that means american companies if

they want to challenge unfair trade practices of other nations may have a hard time being able to get an appeal heard. what possibly could be a justification for the administration trying to block appointments to the wto appeals panel? i view that as hurting american companies. what is the justification for it? >> well, thank you, senator, for that question. the administration isn't actually trying to block these appointments. what we're trying to do is make sure that these wto appellate judges are acting within their mandates, are held accountable. there is concern that these appointed judges are exceeding their responsibilities. there's no accountability for them. our united states trade representative wants to look at wto reform as part of the president's overall trade strategy. we would like to reform the multilateral trading system overall so that it works better for the american people and for american companies.

>> does it help american companies if they are not able to have their cases heard when they want to have -- when they want to allege an unfair trade practice by another nation? >> i think it's in the interest of all american companies that we reform the multilateral trading system in a manner so that it works best for american workers and american companies. >> i'll have followup questions for the record. thanks, mr. chair. >> thank you, chairman. thank you so much for being here. in your prepared statement you note beijing's use of intellectual property left, forced technology transfer, overproduction and thus market distortion on other anti-competitive behaviors by beijing. over two months ago i convened a senate foreign relations committee, sub committee hearing on predatory international economic practices. for those who are observing this hearing, i ask you to review the

testimony. there are a lot of answers there about particular tactics we might employ that we aren't employing to help bring china and others who engage in these practices into good behavior. it's clear to me that china is more of a threat comparatively to other countries engaging in the economic predatory practices because of the scope, the nature, and the consequences of their behavior. in your prepared remarks, you indicate you're building an international coalition along with other stake holders within government to address this economic aggression by china. do yagree an optimal response t unite allies and partners who have also suffered because of the predatory international economic practices? and thus allow us to leverage our collective weight against

beijing as opposed to sort of going it alone? >> yes, senator, i agree with that. we need to build support, and we are building support among our allies. >> well, winston churchill reportedly said there's only one thing worse than fighting with allies and it's fighting without them. i agree with you. would you agree that the international coalition that we need to assemble to address chi china's economic aggression should include at a minimum the g7 countrys? >> senator, we are trying to work with countries in all regions of the world. all regions including the western hemisphere, the eu, southeast asia. everyone is suffering the effects of china's economic aggression of their distortion of markets. i would say that we should look to allies all over the world including the g7. >> okay. there's a lot of questions as to whether or not we're doing that. we need a strategy. we've heard that time and again here. what are our objectives?

what's the end game? what are our threats to accomplishing those objectives? what means do we have at our disposal right now? what resources are at our disposal? what authorities in order to clear away those threats in order to advance those objectives? what new authorities or resources are required? that is a strategy. very methodically put together. it's not clear to me that one exists. now, do you believe that congress should be a fully informed partner in developing and implementing our nation's response to others? >> yes. that's one of the reasons i'm here. i was hoping to have a conversation that better informed the administration on congress's views and how we can better work together to combat china's economic aggression. >> you said earlier that the usdr commerce and others are sharing our policies with allies. i don't believe there's been sufficient sharing with

congress. in fact, i believe the administration needs to do a better job in explaining the stride strategy to congress. i don't know that a form like this is con tus deucive to eliciting a detailed strategy. i believe a response to beijing's economic aggression in order to be sustainable is going to require the buy in of congress and us the american people. i try to be productive over the weeks and months as this whole situation has played out and increasingly farmers from indiana, manufacturers, workers and others, their anxiety is heightened. i put out a solution. a strategy act of 2018. it has the support of several senators. it requires a economic strategy. will you take a look at this if

you haven't already? >> yes. your staff shared it with me. and we'll take a look at it. >> we would welcome the opportunity to work with the administration on teasing this out. the last thing i'd like to quickly turn to, and i do appreciate your presence here, is in the prepared testimony for the second panel that we're going to hear from, mr. bolton notes section 232 of the trade expansion act of '62 provides the president of the united states with broad authority to restrict foreign imports for national security purposes. mr. bolton asserts this has only been used twice. once to ban oil from iran and a second time to ban oil imports from bolivia. in your position, is it accurate that the authority under this act to restrict foreign imports for national security purposes has previously been used against iran and libya. >> i believe that's correct. >> and against which countries has the authority currently been

used? >> it's not being used against any particular country. it is being used in the case of domestic production. section 232 indicates that we should give consideration to domestic production needed for projected national defense ri m requirements and the kpsty to meet requirements. -- >> i'm sorry to interject. my time is over. i'll just say that we know it's been used for ayatollah khomeini. there's a nexus between allies like canada on one hand and this general threat that you point to with respect to the current use. from a foreign policy perspective, i see an important distinction between 1979, iran, and canada today. let me go on record.

i thank you for your appearance here today on your service. >> senator coons. >> i would love for you to use your time here in answering these questions to disabuse us, me, i don't want to put anybody else in the same boat with me. i believe the president is accusing his authorities. >> i think it is a massive abuse of his authorities. and the reason he's using 232 and abusing his authorities in this way is that 232 can be used with no basis. in other words, you don't have to go to the itc or the world trade commission or anything else and prove something out. you can just say that it's in our national security interest. again, we may move to autos, as

i understand it, and again, i have no idea how the making of automobiles by others is a national security threat to our nation. the president doesn't have to lay anything out using 232. we're trying to change that. so the second thing i'd like for you is there is no strategy. none whatsoever. and i think what's sad is there are people around this nation that are hurting, farmers are losing money as they harvest right now. the price is down and people lose money. and many of them, unfortunately, have faith that there is a plan. that there's a strategy. i know senators have been up there to meet with him a zillion times. i've not heard a single senator

come back with any earthly idea, any earthly idea. cannot articulate a sentence as to why we're doing this. so with the rest of the questions to the extent you can disabuse us and inform people across our country that are patiently waiting that there is a plan. i happen to believe there absolutely is no plan, and in the mornings people wake up and make this up as they go along. and if in some uncanny way they figure out a way out of this, that would be great for our nation, but i know today there is no end goal. and so again, i hope you will disabuse us of that. and you're welcome to do that now if you wish. >> senator, if i may, the senator is acting within his statutory authority. we have looked at section 232. there was a very robust interagency process in which the

state and treasury department participated. every department with equities in particular areas came together. we talked about this. we talked about the plan. we talked about a strategy. our goal was to act in the interest of the american economy. and as far as an overall economic strategy, i can lay it out for you right now. the president's strategy has five pillars to it. it's to support our national security. we want to strengthen the domestic u.s. economy. we want to negotiate better trade deals, free, fair, and reciprocal deals. we want to aggressively enforce u.s. trade laws in the interest of the american worker, and as i was indicating to senator cane earlier, we want to reform the multilateral trading system. the wto, if it works properly, can be a great resource for us and our global economic disputes. so the president has very carefully laid out an economic strategy.

it is contained within the national security strategy which is our blueprint for how this administration is operating. >> that enlightened us in no way. senator? >> thank you, chairman corker. thank you for calling this hearing and thank you for what you and the ranking member have done to lead us in what is a united effort. to say that madam assistant secretary, you have launched a war. president trump has launched a trade war. . >> i'm hearing from folks in delaware from port workers at the docks concerned that ship loads of steel that come to my state in the winter time from sweden and finland will not be coming. that the costs will be raised and their jobs will be harped. i'm hearing from soybean farmers they're facing the lowest price in a decade. folks are anxious and have a

concern. you've just heard it from us on a bipartisan basis that president trump has launched a trade war without a strategy, and without a plan for how to get through this. in your prepared remarks which you repeated, you said allies and partners share our frustration in responding to the challenge of china's economic aggression. we are building an international coalition to adjust china's state led policies which discrimination against national competition, and permit theft of sensitive intellectual property. if that's what you were doing, i'd be cheering. i'd be saying what a terrific plan. i only wish this were true, but it's not. in a trip that i just took with the chairman, we visited four of our vital allies in northern europe that included sweden. and in our meetings with national leaders in those four countries, countries that are fighting alongside us in afghanistan, they are puzzled. they are offended, and they are

distanced from us by these tariffs. swedish steel may soon be turned away by tariffs that are dividing us from a country that should be an ally in an appropriate trade contest with china. i just had a meeting yesterday with my good friend from georgia where we met with the trade minister of south africa, a country that has finally opened their markets to our poultry after years of effort that we undertook. it's clear they're going to slap reciprocal tariffs on us that hurt the poultry farmers. there is no strategy. frankly, i couldn't agree more with the point that republican senator young just made. the section 232 authority in the past has been used against the real enemies of the united states. against libya and iran. not against canada, germany,

sweden, south africa. so madam assistant secretary, with all due respect, the administration should be on notice that 88 senators yesterday voted to send a strong and clear signal to president trump that he is misusing his section 232 authority and that if you believe what you are accomplishing with these tariffs is supporting our national security, in recent meetings with ministers of foreign affairs, from sweden to south africa to canada, you are, in fact, harming our national security. if you believe we're going to negotiate better trade deals by picking fights with all of our best allies, that is not, in fact, the case. and if you think the outcome will be a reformed pto, i -- wto, i think instead it will be chaos. i wish the articulated delivery was what is happening but i see the opposite. please, madam secretary, in a minute or two, if you could give us some reassurance that

president trump sees as clearly as you do that our goal should be to unite our allies against china and is not what i see happening what which is a wildly swung bat that is hitting our closest allies in a way that harms our national security, harms our chances at better trade deals and harms folks in my home state that work at our port and in our farms. >> thank you, senator. i can tell you president trump is committed to working with our allies. secretary pompeo under the leadership of president trump as you know, has been traveling the world, seeking support from our allies in order to achieve our goal of a complete irreversible, verifiable, denuclearized north korea. we at all levels of the state department are discussing all of these issues of shared interest with our allies including the china threat. i have had many personal

conversations in the western hemisphere, in south america, in the european union in north asia, all over the world. everyone agrees that china is a big threat. we are working to combat that threat. turning back to the 232 issue, i would disagree with you, senator, that our weakened national economy, weakened steel and aluminum industries are a national security threat. i understand the point about 232 being used against iran who clearly which is still a problem. you know? iran is still an their we need to deal with, but at the end of the day, 232 is designed to also protect our domestic economic production. it's laid out clearly in the statute. president trump is acting within his statutory authority. there is a strategy. i laid out for you the five pillars of our economic strategy. in my opening statement i laid out for you the state department's role and the strategy in president trump's

agenda. >> thank you. i'm out of time and i appreciate your response, but as assistant secretary, i hope you will take back the message that while the president may be acting, his statutory authority, he is acting recklessly. he is acting dangerously in a way that's dividing us from our allies and is imposing consumer taxes on the folks in our country who we most wanted to help. if we don't see a strategy that lines up, i think congress will act to restrain his reckless use of this authority. thank you. >> senator isaacson. >> mr. chairman, i'll be brief. i want to say madam secretary that the last time you and i were together, i was speaking in favor of you to be confirmed in your current position. i'm glad you're in the position you're in. you're doing the best job you can. i would like to say one thing about what's being said. i'm reminded of the wendy's

commercial where the little old lady pulls up at mcdonald's and opens her burger and says where's the beef. mcdonald's changed their product line and increased the number of ounces in their hamburger because of that commercial. that's the power of a good point and a good plan. it is pretty apparent that we don't have a stated plan from a marketing or business standpoint, and this lady as the chairman, as the secretary for our country. tariffs are a big business and economic issue, and we're going to cause difficulties for our state department and secretary pompeo if we don't have a clear message to sell about our message and how to get there. notwithstanding what's said, and i appreciate the comments. i want to say what cain said.

i'm sitting next to a former trade rep. i was there when china was taken to the world trade organization and we got the run on textiles out of the south stopped. we're at that point now. we're going to get in a situation where we're going to have a terrible negotiating position because we don't have a plan. with ron johnson in our committee, i always talk about a plan. let's get one. when she goes to the drive in indi window and opens the wrapper around the beef, there's plenty of beef to sell on behalf of the american people, and it's people. >> thank you, senator. >> madam secretary, you said there are many countries around the world that you're visiting that share our concern about chi china's trade practice. that's understandable. can you list the countries that are prepared to join president trump's strategy as it relates to the tariff issues that he's

currently applied? >> i would have to look through all of my conversations specifically to determine -- >> can you name one country? >> well, there are many countries. >> can you name one publicly? >> probably russia, wouldn't you think? >> i would agree with the chairman. can you name a country that agrees with what president trump is doing? >> well, senator, i'm hesitant to speak for another country, but i can tell you confidently that i've had conversations with many different government officials who share our concerns about china and who agree that -- >> oh, no question about it. i've met with many representatives of countries that share the concern of what china is doing, but they don't agree with what president trump is doing. and it's amazing that we have a very strong case against china, but the way that the president pursued this, he's been able to give china a free pass because the rest of the world won't join

president trump. >> we're instituting very strong actions against china. >> universal community, we have friends with us. we'd be in a stronger position. let me just -- i was at that finance committee hearing with secretary ross, and i get a different opinion as the chairman mentioned as to how the process on the exemptions to the section 232 process is going on steel and aluminum. 20,000 plus cases. the administration won't let the industry represent small businesses. they have to follow each individual case on their own. do you imagine the burden on a small company trying to pursue a claim and they're trying to do business, the company, for example, that senator kaine was talking on the. they don't have a lot of employees that can pursue an exemption issue in order to deal with getting an exemption. so the process is a mess, isn't

it if you're trying to get an exemption? you're a small business owner, and your supply chain depends upon the product coming in without tariff? what do you say to that small business eaowner? >> senator, if you have any small business owners that are having problems, i'm happy to connect them to colleagues at the department of commerce who can hopefully help them. >> we have, of course, direct problems of supply chain with those who are subject to the direct tariffs that are imposed. then we have the retaliatory tariff issues. those are getting the retaliatory which is senator kaine's situation. chairman corker mentioned that the administration has announced they're also looking at section 232 from the point of view of autos, suvs, vans, trucks and auto parts. can you tell us how that interagency discussion is going as to the imposing security

tariffs in that industry? >> senator, commerce is still completing that investigation. so the inter -- >> you said you have robust interagency discussions. have they started? >> on the auto investigation, the commerce department is still completing its investigation. >> there hasn't been any interagency. how much after the commerce finished its investigation -- when -- how much time did it take with the interagency discussions before the aluminum tariffs were imposed? >> all the agencies have provided input to the -- >> how long after commerce did the initial investigation? when did you all start meeting? >> i don't recall the exact time. >> how much time was spent? >> i don't recall. >> are there other industries that commerce that you're aware of or looking at in addition to the auto industrieindustries? >> none that i'm aware of. >> let me point out, mr.

chairman, what many committee members have said. in maryland i've heard from farmers that have already been impacted. soy crop, itself. we've heard from manufacturers. let me quote from one. maryland's independent can company is facing two bad choices according to the ceo. they can move production to china or raise prices and risk losing consumers. either way, it will cost jobs. that's just one company in my state. i could give you many, many more. and you're not giving us much of a comfort level of a process that's a deliver to process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. you mentioned that part of the justification was to have a strengthened economy and the rationale for imposing these tariffs. you mentioned a weakened economy affects our ability, basically, to provide for the national

security. i'm familiar with some of the literature surrounding the effects of imposing the tariffs, and correct me if i'm wrong, but the wealth of data out there suggests that there's far -- a far bigger impact negatively on our economy by imposing these tariffs because of the knock on effects in terms of other industries surrounding still that use steel and aluminum than we gain by -- whether it's 50 jobs saved versus 200 jobs lost. mag if ied multiple times. tell me what data you relied onto suggest that this will lead to a strengthened economy. >> senator, again, there i would refer you to secretary ross's presentation at the finance committee hearing. he talked in detail about the economic analysis of the 232

actions and the conclusions they arrived at. >> aside from his statement, the wealth of data, you're familiar with some of this data. the wealth of data, would you not concede, suggests that this has a detrimental effect on our overall economy. if you're using weakened economy as a rationale, putting aside whether or not can a -- canada represents a real threat given the defense arrangements that we have with canada, and the fact that they have never, ever, ever been in a position or wanted to be in a position where they would deny us the ability to mount a national defense, but just on the economy alone, can -- are you relying simply on the words of wilbur ross here?

a wealth of data suggests that this will weaken our economy, not strengthen it. >> well, senator, these were inner agency conversations. the recommendations of the united states trade representative, the commerce secretary, other officials all went to the president, and this is the president that -- this is the decision that the president has made. >> i understand. that's the decision, but i am saying what data does he rely on? interagency memos or actual economic figures, and historical data that we've accumulated for prior actions of this sort? the wealth of data suggests that this weakens our economy, not strengthens it. you dispute that? >> there are experts a@department of commerce who have been there for decades. they're not a political appointees. they're career folks who have look add this situation, and this is the information that they've provided. i mean, we have the treasury, the commerce, united states trade representatives.

hundreds of economists who have looked at this. and these are the recommendations they've provided based on the information and perhaps the same data you've looked at. >> i would suggest you really have to use tortured data to come to a con cushiclusion that is going to strengthen our overall economy. just the data out there affirms ma in spades this will lead to a weakened economy. we're seeing the effects with the announcements of companies moving offshore now to escape the tariffs. so i just -- i can't believe that with a straight face the administration tries to claim and tries to say simply ignore what we know about the economy and the effect of these kind of tariffs. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much.

the north koreans did not attend a meeting they were scheduled to have with the united states today. >> it continues to raise the question as to whether or not the north koreans are playing games with the united states. especially in light of the fact that reports indicate that even before the singapore summit that china had already increased trade with north korea, and after singapore china also said that they were going to increase trade with north korea. now, that clearly undermines our ability to be able to extract the concessions from the north

koreans which they had promised to the united states and to the rest of the world. so my question to you is looking at china right now, do you believe that china has increased trade with north korea over the last couple of months, and especially in the aftermath of the singapore summit? >> senator, thank you for that question. i don't have personal noknowled of personal trade with north korea and if it's increased. >> you don't know? >> i don't know. >> again, i think that whenever we listen to the administration when it comes to any subject that relates to china, that there's an ambiguity that, unfortunately, is presented from

the administration with regard to a lack of knowledge. but here it's clear that we're not going to get the result which we want from north korea if china is playing games with the trade sanctions which they are a part of committing to enforce. have you ever had a discussion internally within the state department or in a joint agency panel with regard to toughening the crude oil sanctions against the north koreans in order to ensure that they understand that there is a commitment that has been made to guarantee that north korea, in fact, has to fulfill its promises before it receives economic relief? >> senator, i'm not sure i'm

able to comment in an open forum on our sanctions deliberations, but i can tell you that secretary pompeo is personally committed to a process that leads to the complete irreversible and verifiable denuclearization of north korea. >> and that's why i'm asking you the question. if the chinese are loosening the trade sanctions against north korea, then complete and irreversible denuclearization becomes less likely, not more likely. so what's the conversation that is happening with the chinese about this increase in trade? >> we are talking to all nations about all nations within interest in the denuclearization of north korea, we are having conversations with the chinese, with others in asia, all over the world. this is in global interest to have a denuclear north korea. our secretary is committed to having conversations with

leaders around the world about making sure that this process works. >> exactly. and what i'm saying is there's no evidence that it's working. in fact, there's evidence that it's not working. it's pursuant to the kim family play book. they pocket the benefits. here it would be suspension of military maneuvers on the korean peninsula. but it's in return for concessions made by the north koreans, but we don't see any evidence of that yet. they didn't show up at the meeting today, and it's all part of a long-standing pattern of conduct by the north koreans going back generations. and if china is now playing into this, then ultimately the likelihood of them actually making the concessions are very

slim, and so i would ask you to report back to this committee with regard to whatever plan the administration has to ensure that china continues to honor its commitment to impose trade sanctions that are enforceable on the north korean government, and i would ask that request -- make that request to you, mr. chair, that we receive that information from the state department. >> senator, i can tell you that, you know, we are committed to engaging china on this issue. we are committed to making sure that they work on this issue, and as far as our posture on north korea, of course, as you know, the singapore summit was historic. a north korean leader has never met with a u.s. president, so we feel that we have made progress in at least having the conversation with north korea. >> i don't see -- think the meeting in and of itself c

signifies progress. i think it's a first step, but if there's nothing that follows on, and china uses the ambiguity of the agreement to increase its trade, then the pressure on north korea to comply with whatever promises they made is reduced. so, if you could report back to us, i would appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary sing, for being with here. appreciated the opportunity to meet with you at the shangrila dialogue. a chance to speak with you about my legislation, the asia reassurance initiative act that senator markey is a part of, senator koons. i want to follow up a little bit with what senator markey is talking about. in january of this year, at least in asia realm -- in january of this year, china suspended access to marriott's website for referring to taiwan as a country. it was lifted only after marriott's chief executive issued a public apology.

in april this year, according to the "chicago tribune," a letter was delivered demanding they stop referring to today juan wa as a part of china. including potential action against american airlines, delta airlines, and united airlines. these actions, there's articles yesterday about the iphone that if you had the taiwan flag in china, that your iphone would lock up if you used the taiwan flag. in fact, if you look at your iphone location settings, it doesn't say taipei, taiwan. it just says taipei. these actions are the latest from an aggressive chinese government. it calls into question thousand u.s. intends to respond to such threats to commerce in this new landscape. what have we been doing and what more can the united states do to counter this kind of pressure and bullying from china.

>> thank you, senator, for that question. we have been looking at the situation that you've indicated about how taiwan should be labeled. you may recall -- >> it's not just about taiwan being labeled. it's about overall inappropriate action. >> it's inappropriate behavior, absolutely. you'll recall that the administration put out a very strong statement regarding china's directive that airlines change their websites not to reflect taiwan as a separate country. we've told our airlines that they should do what they think is right, that they are under no obligation to comply with china's directive. we've made this clear to the chinese government as well, that our businesses will conduct policy -- conduct their business as they see fit and that the airline websites, the way that they've listed taiwan is completely in accordance with u.s. policy, so we've made very strong statements. there is a july 25th deadline, as you may know, for the airlines to comply. we are not sure what sort of

penalty will be imposed against any of our private sector for not complying, but we are prepared to respond appropriately if any damage is done to our u.s. enterprises. >> and to follow up on the lines of discussions on china, and china, recently brought to my attention a business in colorado that has an employee that moved to china from taiwan. they had a plant in taiwan. this employee was hired in taiwan. apparently or allegedly took some information, intellectual property with them to taiwan. they replicated the manufacturing process in taiwan -- in china from taiwan. they replicated the manufacturing process, stole the information, used the stolen information, allegedly, and then the -- now a court in china has accused the u.s. firm of violating copyrights and patents. and so this is just a sign of things that we have to work on. i don't like the tariff approach. i want to be clear there's a

letter i'd read to you that talked about 25% cost being passed on to people in agriculture buying, you know, sweeps and other equipments that they would use in cultivation practices because of the steel tariffs. we do have to do something about china but i hope that u.s. businesses don't succumb to the bullying pressure that china has pursued. thanks. >> thank you, senator, for that, and we in the u.s. government want to make sure that our businesses are not bullied and as an aside, you referred to your legislation. of course secretary mattis and secretary pompeo have sent a letter indicating that we welcome the legislation. it's completely in line with our indo pacific strategy which is also designed to demonstrate our commitment to the region and again counter china's influence there. thank you, senator. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. chairman, let me say that a group of us from the committee, four of us on this committee,

with senator flake headed up a bipartisan codell, three democrats, three republicans. we went over into the baltic region and met with leaders from four countries, four countries, and leaders at all level from presidents to prime ministers to parliamentarians, and i'm sure chairman corker's already mentioned this, but they were very, very concerned with where president trump is going on trade and then very specifically a lot of talking about tariffs, and the discussion wednesday along the lines of -- i mean, we've been your friends. now you're calling us under this 232 section enemies and the threat to national security. so, they really are -- they're not happy about this. they don't understand it. they don't -- they think that we're headed for a trade war. that this -- you know, you start and then you don't -- it starts

spiraling down and nobody has control of it, and so i don't see, from anything i've heard today from you, what the exit strategy is here, where the -- what's the end game. clearly, we have some things that we should be doing on trade, but i really don't see that the president's listening. do you have any evidence the president's listening to foreign leaders about what's going on? what they're recommending? because i think it's almost unanimous as far as the foreign leaders are telling him, you know, you're headed in the wrong direction. is he listening to foreign leaders? just a yes or no. >> well, senator, thank you for the question. i do think that there is an end game -- >> well, i'm not asking about the end game. i'm asking, is president trump listening to foreign leaders? >> president trump -- >> the answer is easy. just tell me no. >> president trump has regular conversations with foreign

leaders. >> yeah, he's not listening to them, ma'am. he's not listening to them. and let me -- under this piece of law here, the trade expansion act requires commerce to consult with the department of defense and other agencies making a determination under 232, right? well, i don't even think the president is listening to his own agencies. here -- here is a report where the consultation is going on. secretary mattis writes to secretary ross and says, "current domestic capacity" -- they're talking about the aluminum and the steel like that, that this is some big national security issue -- "is actually sufficient to meet national defense requirements and that d.o.d." and this is a direct quote from secretary mattis.

"d.o.d. is concerned that the negative impact on our key allies regarding the recommended options within the commerce report." so, even within the government, the trump administration, you have agencies speaking out and saying, oh, there are no national security issues here. i mean, this is very, very unusual, i think, what -- and unprecedented what this administration is doing. let me just say a quick word about nafta and i know the chairman wants to move on, so i'll stay within my time here. but free trade agreements that we've negotiated to the benefit of the world's largest corporations and their shareholders, i've consistently argued on these free trade agreements that they should do much more, guaranteed labor protection, secure commitments to environmental stewardship, and nafta is no exception. it entered into force 25 years ago, and i support the effort and i've talked to secretary

ross about making sure that we try to improve nafta. actually, secretary ross told me, he said, it's going to be done in 90 days, and he -- that was before he took over. he said, we've been working on this for years. it will be done in 90 days. here we are today, 17 months later, and there's no end game there. so, here's a specific example about what's happening with trades in new mexico and how it's hurting new mexico under nafta. there's a company called southwest steel coil. almost all of the exports are finished products from the united states, u.s. workers, then down to mexico. the response to the u.s. actions will be devastating to businesses like this that rely on a production process that moves back and forth across the border. companies will be forced out of business, and they will be required to pay a new tariff

every step of the way. you're going to put companies out of business in new mexico with these tariffs. thank you. >> thank you. senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. singh, on the heels to the nato summit, let me start by complimenting your boss. i thought that secretary pompeo's comments about the importance of the alliance, calling it perhaps the most successful and important military alliance in the history of the world was appropriate, and i appreciated his speaking out on that. with regard to the issue we have before us today, i think you've heard clearly from some of my colleagues already on the broader issue of concern about what will happen with both increased tariffs and higher costs to our consumers and our companies but also the impact on our exporters. let me say that i think in response to your questions,

respectfully, you should also talk about the vision the president laid out at the g7 summit in june, which was no tariffs. and maybe i was just listening for what i wanted to hear, but what i heard was that there is an ultimate vision here of getting us to a world where both tariff and non-tariff barriers are reduced substantially or even eliminated to the benefit of the economies of countries around the world, including ours. and i hope that's the ultimate objective here is to have the united states continue to play the leading role as the country that advocates more open markets, more transparency, less corruption, that's been our historic role over the decades. my concern is -- and this is from talking not just to our negotiators but also to people from some of these other countries, including china and including the eu and canada, that we have not laid out clear, realistic objectives as we take on these countries with regard to china, the 301, the 25%

tariffs on the $36 billion and other -- or $34 billion, another $16 billion at 25% and so the chinese are confused. they're not sure if it is because we want to see them buy more of our products, which was an objective, i think, which was raised with them, specifically with regard to soybeans and lng, li liquefied natural gas. they're not sure if it is the structural changes that you talk about in your testimony, including, as you say, stopping their discrimination against international competition, technology transfer, death to the sense of intellectual property. they're not sure if it's about steel overcapacity, which for me is a huge issue. ultimately, what we see around the world is partly a response to china now producing half of the world's steel when they produced probably 15% of it 15 years ago and therefore having

that steel come through trans-shipment to our country. they don't know. i think the same is true with the european union. recently there's been discussion with regard to the 232 case, again, different than the 301, that it's about autos. well, if it's about autos, we ought to be very clear, and i don't think that 232 is the right tool to use, but to the extent we have these tariffs in place, we need to be clear, and, again, realistic in terms of our objectives. senator isaacson talked about my being in this position to negotiate in the past and i think it's clear to all people who have been in that position that without having a clear and realistic negotiating objective, and as compared to that sending mixed messages, it's very difficult to get to a solution. so, i would -- i say this to you as the representative of the administration who's here, knowing you're not in direct negotiations, but maybe you could respond to that. do our trading partners know

what our objectives are with regard to these trade cases that we've initiated? >> well, thank you so much, senator. when it comes to the 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, we are having many bilateral conversations, as you may know. there are some countries with whom we've come to agreement on quotas. there are other countries where we had a conversation and we were not able to come to agreement. so we are talking to countries very individually and helping them understand what we would like to see achieved. >> yeah, and that's an interesting response, because it is true with regard to some countries. we have been able to negotiate something. with regard to others, some of our strongest allies, including canada, mexico, and the eu, we have not. and again, i'm not sure they know -- with canada, we've talked about their dairy program. by the way, that doesn't fit within the national security criteria, but if that's it, we should be clear. with regard to the eu, you know, we've talked about the auto issue. with regard to mexico, we've

talked about potatoes being able to be sold in the interior or state-owned enterprises but i'm not sure that they -- from what i'm hearing from them that they understand what the objective is. nafta is the broader issue but not a 232 issue. mr. chairman, i see my time is expiring. i would just like to submit for the record some thoughts about 232. i believe that the entity that is best capable of determining what's in our national security interest is the department of defense, and i believe the statute could be changed to do that. i believe that there ought to be a tightening of the criteria so we understand what national security is using the joint chiefs' definition, i believe that the disapproval which is already in the legislation could be brought into all products, not just oil. i think there are things we could do to ensure that going forward that we don't misuse 232, because my concern is we will lose the tool. we will lose it because one of two things will happen. either other countries will respond in kind as we're starting to see without showing injury, without showing any

unfair trade, or we'll go back to the wto as we have been in the past and then time we will find ourselves losing an article 21 case with regard to 232 because of the way we've used it so broadly. so, thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence, and appreciate your testimony today, ms. singh. >> when it comes to canada and mexico, as you recognized, we are having the broader nafta conversation with them, but i just want to assure you that we are having conversations with our allies. as i indicated at the outset, the state department in particular, it is our job, it is our mission to make sure that our allies understand the direction we're going in. >> senator. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for being here to talk with us today. i had a couple questions regarding 232, and you know, i'm concerned just as everyone is of the impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs on businesses and consumers but i do think that section 232 really still has an important role to play in shaping our trade policy, specifically with strengthening our national security and to

that end, i've been pushing the administration to launch a separate 232 investigation into uranium imports, because what we've been seeing for years is that uranium producers owned by the government in russia, in kazakhstan, they've unfairly flooded our american markets with cheap uranium to the point that today american producers fulfill less than 5% of our u.s. demand for uranium so our ability to produce uranium is, i believe, critical and crucial to our own energy security and it's not just energy. this is a national security issue in terms of the uranium in our nuclear power. so, i think it's important that the administration actually quickly initiates an investigation into the industries' 232 petition and that we've been await aing a response for about six months. to that end, instead of requiring congress to weigh in on all section 232 actions, are there some things that we can do to maybe improve the 232 process? because as senator portman

talked about, perhaps losing it completely. are there things we can do to improve the process that won't hamper an administration's ability to protect our national security with regard to trade and with regard to, you know, the issues of the energy and that i raise with the uranium. >> thank you, senator. i think we can take a look at that. i will take that back as far as improving the 232 process. >> do you know anything in terms of the process and the timing and things of how things are going with the concerns we've expressed with regard to the uranium and russia flooding the market and the national security implications of that. >> i can get back to you with information on that, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, ms. singh, for what you do and representing the administration here. i hope you'll take back the message that some of the difficulty that's been expressed here is not universally shared by every united states senator.

i hope that every member of this panel would go back and look at and study the five pillars that you suggested. there's been people saying they don't know where we're going here. we have a very, very clear description using those five pillars of where we do want to go here and we're following that. you know, there's a lot of criticism about the president arguing with our allies over trade. there's some examples out there that make him very angry and should make him angry. one of the -- it's already been referred to here. we have a partner in the nafta agreement called canada, and canada's beating their breast over these tariffs that have been put on steel. canada is a member of the north american free trade association. they are our ally. they are our friend. they will continue to be. but they put a 247% tariff on

dairy products that are produced. we're the third largest dairy producer in america behind wisconsin and california. and so our dairy farmers don't look at it the same way the canadians do and it's hard to explain to them how they can be in a free trade zone and wind up with a 247% tariff on their product. softwood lumber is the exact same problem, and it's hard to explain to them how we can be in this position, and these are our friends. these people claim they're our friend and our ally, and they are, but my point is, nafta needs some adjustment, and i commend the president for doing all he can to make the adjustments in nafta. and he has been very clear that he wants to get that done and we should all support him in that effort to try to do things better than what they are.

trade is complex. there's no question about it. using tariffs is complex. but i want to talk about, in the few minutes that i have left here, something that's going on with the chinese, and i think we're all in agreement that the chinese are something to be concerned about. anyone who hasn't studied china's made in china 2025 plan needs to look at that and actually drill down to see what their objectives are. we have a company called micron technology in idaho. micron technology is the second largest employer in the state of idaho. they are one of the world's largest producers of memory products. they had chinese nationals steal from them patents that they use to produce products. those people took those to china. they then patented the exact same thing in china. they then turned around and sued

micron in fujion province. that case is going on today. a couple weeks ago, a judge in the court used the stolen patents to put an injunction against micron technology from selling products in china. china is a huge producer, of course, of technology products, and it's absolutely critical that micron sell their products there, and if they don't, it's going to cause them serious problems. so, you have -- and who sued micron? a state-owned enterprise in a court in the province which is a state-owned enterprise, and headed by a judge who is employed by the chinese government. why would you -- why would micron think they had a chance under those circumstances? so, those of us from idaho are taking a very serious look at this and we're going to do some things that are probably pretty stringent as far as chinese --

as far as the chinese dpofr government's concerned and we have to. this company's very existence depends upon having a rule of law in countries where we are doing business, and we -- i applaud the president for his strong feelings about what the chinese are doing, what they claim is legally. for instance, requiring chinese ownership in companies that do business there, and getting into their secrets and their patents, but they're also doing things under the table, like i just described is happening to micron technology, and this has got to stop. if this doesn't stop, we are going to be in very difficult straits as we go down the pike trying to compete with china with their 2025 plan. mr. chairman, i see my time is up. >> thank you. >> senator risch, thank you for your comments, and i would like to associate myself with your remarks. >> thank you.

and this is on the president's radar screen, by the way. i know that personally. but it is something that we're all going to have to pay attention to. and this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what's coming. thank you. >> senator rubio. >> thanks for holding this hearing, mr. chairman. it's a complicated issue because it really involves two separate stories. let me back up and say that we have all -- i say there's been a general consensus in american politics and american debate about the value of the global economic order, the rules-based trading system and i do think while this is a committee that focuses on foreign policy, that it is difficult to ignore that while free and open global trade has incredible benefits, it does have downsides. there are losers to trade, even agreements that are great, and not enough attention has been paid to the fact that people have been displaced over 30 or 40 years and that has created some of the domestic blowback against some of the trade.

that said, by and large, america is generally a winner, particularly when we are interacting with countries who follow the rules and that's where these dispute resolution mechanisms exist and you have a hope that they would work. when these countries also happen to be geopolitical allies with whom we partner with on a host of other issues, including national security, i think that wisdom would say that particularly when we talk about the 232 actions and whether it's our partners in the eu, mexico, canada, and other places, these are ultimately allies and countries that we do have issues that need to be addressed. but we can work with them. we believe we can, because ultimately, none of these nations seek to displace the united states or undermine our position in the world. they do want to get better deals, but there's a mechanism in place to address it. which is why i would have strongly preferred for the president and the administration to kind of dealt with those issues second after first focusing on china, because many of those countries that we are allies with have deep concerns about china as well, which leads us to the 301 actions.

and the threat from china is perhaps without precedent. senator risch just mentioned a moment ago, made in china 2025, that is a key piece of a broader flan to displace the united states on virtually every -- and at virtually every field that will define the 21st century and if they were going to displace us because they work harder, because they're more innovative, because they just out hustle us, that's one thing. that calls on us to work harder and do better. but the way they seek to displace us is through things like the theft of intellectual property. just yesterday or a couple days ago, a former employee of apple was arrested at the airport in california, headed to china with a bunch of secrets and intellectual property on apple's autonomous vehicle technology. every single day brings stories. we've all heard the horror stories of the forced transfers. you want to do business in china, here's your new partner and by the way, you need to teach him everything you do so in a few years when they can do it as well as you can, we can kick you out and be your

competitor backed by the chinese government. unfair practices of just outright denying market access, but demanding unfettered access to our own market. this needs to be addressed. and so there's a consensus or a belief in the business community, well, we recollect w told china what we were upset about. that's the story of the last 20 years. our relationship with china economically over the last 20 years man buihas been built on e that once they became richer, they would behave more like us and they've taken all the benefits of that global order but assumed none of its responsibilities. i guess my only question is, i wonder what role the is state department played or others in advising the administration on a path that would have said, why don't we partner with our allies first so we can all collectively confront china because we are all facing the same challenges and then secondarily, deal with these other issues, because of its geopolitical implications and i would be remiss if i didn't also ask related to that what role if any did the state

department play in advising the administration on its recent decisions regarding zte because while i would say to you that the penalties imposed on zte for violating sanctions are severe for purposes of sanctions violation, they extend well -- our issues with zte extend well beyond sanctions violations. any telecommunications company in china is control bdled by th chinese government and allowing them to embed themselves in the commercial infrastructure of the united states poses a significant national security threat. while we are imposing tariffs for national security on partner countries with whom we have national security arrangements, we are allowing a foreign telecommunications operator to stay in business with our parts, knowing the threat they pose to our national security. so, did the state department have any role in advising, from a geolittle perspectipolitical focusing on china first and what role did the state department play if any in the decision on zte? >> thank you, senator, for

those -- both of those are very important questions. the state department has played and continues to play a role in advising the president on working with our allies to counter china. i previously indicated that in all of my travels, the senior leadership of the state department, whether it's the deputy secretary, secretary pompeo himself, who as you may know is on a tour of several countries right now, we have explicitly provided input to the white house and said we need to work with our allies specifically to counter china. we need their buy-in because the only way to have success against china is to isolate them. china needs to be clear that it is a threat to the global economic community and if our allies agree with us, then we can isolate china and force it to change its behavior. on your question regarding zte, the state department did play a role and we advocated the stiffest penalties possible against zte. >> mr. chairman, i'd just like to add, i think it's hard to partner up with countries to

take on china and isolate china when we're in a trade war with the countries we seek to partner up with. that's why i think this is something i hope we can get worked out. >> i couldn't agree more. we've done a great job in unifying the world against us. senator booker. >> you can move to the next panel. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> yes. >> you can have my time. >> yeah. >> thank you so much for being here, and we appreciate your service, mostly in the other areas, and we'll move now to the second panel. >> thank you, chairman corker.

we'll now turn to our second panel and we have a very distinguished witnesses with us here. our first witness is joshua bolton, president and ceo of the business round table and an association of ceos of leading u.s. companies that employ more than 16 million people and generate more than $7 trillion in annual revenues. mr. bolton has had an extensive career serving our nation at the highest levels. he was chief of staff and director of office of omb to the president george w. bush and before that, served as general counsel to u.s. trade reps, so certainly has a lot of background in this area. our second witness is

mr. michael fuchs from the center for american progress. he is a senior fellow at focusing on u.s. foreign policy and priorities and u.s. policy towards the asia pacific region. mr. fuchs has previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for the east asian and pacific affairs. we thank you both very much for being here, your patience in waiting. and senator menendez, i don't know if you want to welcome them. if you could go ahead and summarize your comments in about five minutes. any written materials you have will be entered into the record and with that, if you'd begin, we'd appreciate it. thank you for being here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mike. >> thank you, chairman corker. senator menendez, other members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify on behalf of business round table. business round table is an association of chief executive officers of leading u.s.

companies. our ceos are, today, overwhelmingly bullish about the american economy. thanks in large part to tax reform and ongoing regulatory reform. our overriding concern now is that those gains will be entirely reversed by major missteps in u.s. trade policy. the trump administration is rightly focused on addressing unfair foreign trade practices that hurt american businesses and workers. however, business round table strongly disagrees with many of the administration's recent actions on trade, particularly invoking national security under section 232 to impose unilateral tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. we have four important reasons for opposing this action. first, the 232 tariffs increase costs on american consumers. this multibillion dollar tax increase on imported steel and aluminum is already driving up

the cost of many industrial and consumer products. second, by driving up the cost of inputs, these tariffs are also causing u.s.-made final products to be less competitive in both domestic and export markets. third, the 232 tariffs are inviting a cascade of retaliatory tariffs against america's most competitive exports. overall, a recent study diby th trade partnership worldwide found that the administration's steel and aluminum tariffs along with the resulting retaliation will cause 16 american jobs to be lost for every american steel or aluminum job saved. the round table's fourth reason for opposing the 232 tariffs is the misuse of the 232 statute itself. as several members of the committee have already noted, since its inception in 1962,

section 232 has been invoked only twice before, to ban oil imports from iran and libya. in both cases, the national security purpose was clear. the national security purpose of restricting steel and aluminum imports from our closest allies is not at all clear. the administration's improper use of section 232 twisting the definition of national security beyond reason invites other countries to do the same against a wide range of u.s. exports. despite these evident harms, the commerce department is now investigating whether to employ the same national security argument to restrict imports of autos and auto parts. there is no national security purpose for this, and the damage would be exponentially greater. for these reasons, business round table strongly supports chairman corker's bipartisan bill to require congressional approval of section 232 tariffs.

we would also enthusiastically support other legislative approaches that would similarly advance the goal of preventing the misuse of u.s. trade statutes inappropriately to restrict trade. the administration's deployment and threatened deployment of section 232 tariffs demonstrates clearly that the statute is susceptible to misuse. it is time for congress to assert its constitutional prerogative to prevent serious harm to the u.s. economy. a final, less direct but no substantial harm from the misuse of section 232 is that it risks alienating u.s. allies needed to address the real problem in international commerce, chinese policies and practices. most business round table companies have encountered at least one of these serious problems, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, unfair restrictions on access to and investment in chinese markets, and competing

with state subsidized chinese companies. business round table therefore welcomes the administration's focus on china's trade policies. however, the cycle of tariffs and countertariffs recently initiated by the administration is dangerously counterproductive. imposing section 301 tariffs without first pursuing serious negotiations, unnecessarily jeopardizes u.s. farmers, workers, and businesses. instead of starting negotiation by imposing punitive tariffs on tens or even hundreds of billions of chinese imports, thereby triggering commensurate retaliation against u.s. exports, the administration should first detail clearly to china how its practices must change. second, establish deadlines for china to adopt concrete reforms. and third, describe actions the u.s. will take in coordination with our allies if china fails to address our concerns.

finally, the administration should exempt u.s. allies from 232 tariffs to encourage them to join in this effort. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing and for encouraging a constructive trade policy that will truly benefit america's workers and businesses. >> thank you. >> i look forward to the committee's questions. >> thank you so much for your testimony. mr. fuchs. >> thank you, chairman corker and senator menendez, members of the committee. it's an honor to be here today. my written testimony contains my thoughts on this subject and so here i'd just like to highlight a few points for the committee. first, in order to tackle the global challenges that we face from russia to china to climate change and beyond, and to build a strong economy at home, america needs serious long-term strategies that use all the tools of american power. the current administration's approach to tariffs and trade is undermining u.s. national security. the decisions being made in the capitals of american allies

right now, how to cooperate on counterterrorism, whether to fight in afghanistan or syria, how to deter russia and compete with china, are being influenced by these tariffs. the leaders of these countries are asking themselves, can we trust america anymore? the world does not stand by when we act and our allies are looking elsewhere for trade deals and for partnerships. second, driven by a single-minded focus on tariffs and trade deficits, u.s. foreign policy is losing its moral compass right now. the current president has repeatedly berated south korea over trade while praising the north korean dictator, kim jong-un, and while the president ignores russia's efforts to undermine democracies and its invasion of ukraine he has imposed harsh tariffs on america's closest allies in europe, countries america relies on to help deter russian aggression and uphold the values that america holds dear. third, to build an economy that empowers and provides opportunities for all americans, we need a comprehensive strategy to level the economic playing field with china, but the recent

tariffs instead leave the u.s. economy more vulnerable by alienating friends and allies and creating opportunities for china to work with our own partners against us. these tariff decisions are the policy equivalent of coming to a gunfight and shooting your partners at the same time you take aim at your adversary. we need a targeted strategy crafted in concert with our friends and allies, many of whom are suffering from the same problems from china. fourth, the united states should see our trade relationships as one aspect of our larger efforts to achieve a strong economy at home and to achieve our national security objectives around the world. to do that, i believe the united states should take a number of steps, including strengthening alliances to counter our biggest national security threats, supporting democracy abroad, to push back against the rise of liberalism and autocracy, to develop a strategy in concert with our allies, to deal with china's unfair practices through bilateral and multilateral actions and build an economy at home that works for everyone by

investing in infrastructure and education. congress should also play an important role in holding the administration accountable and in reassuring our allies. thank you again for inviting me here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you both for that testimony. senator menendez. >> thank you both for your testimony. mr. bolton, i've been contacted by dozens of companies in new jersey that have been negatively impacted by the administration's tariff and quota policies. one such company, for example, uses a korean specialty steel product to manufacture a life-saving medical device, but the section 232 quota on korean steel could put this third generation family-owned company out of business. new jersey could lose over 400 good paying manufacturing jobs and hospital and surgery rooms could shut down for certain endo skopic procedures the supply chain for these medical devices is disrupted. ultimately, the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of patients nationwide could be at

risk. now, there is no u.s. source for this steel, and even if it were, it could take up to three years to gain fda approval for its use in medical devices. so, in cases where imports of steel are subject to the 232 tariff, american companies can obtain relief through exclusion requests when there is little or no u.s. production. however, there's not a similar process for steel products from countries with quotas, so this is one dimension of the challenges that we're having. given your previous experience at ustr, how would you compare the administration's implementation process to similar efforts of past administrations? >> well, senator, i think it compares poorly. the use of section 232 in this case was entirely inappropriate. in previous cases where administrations, including the one i served in, have sought to provide some protection to the

steel industry, it's been done through a different process that has typically narrowed the scope of the products protected, has required that the international trade commission make a finding of injury to that industry, and has typically put the tariffs on for a very limited period in an internationally accepted regime that has not triggered retaliation. all of those things have been absent from the way the administration has approached this in significant part because they used the wrong statute for it, badly undermining the rule of law that currently exists around the world, at least some understanding of the meaning of national security, because if we have used national security in this way to protect our steel and aluminum imports, not even mentioning autos at this point, but just even on steel and

aluminum, that's an open invitation to other countries to do the same when they want to protect themselves from our exports. >> let me ask you, the companies that you represent and the world of international business, how important are predictability, reliability, and consistency when it comes to making deals? >> that is business. to be able to plan in advance, most of the members of the business round table do their planning many years in advance, supply chains take 5, 10 years to develop, so the transparency and the ability to know what the rules are is critical to the success of business anywhere. you mentioned in your first question, senator, the use of quotas. and the administration witness treated that as though it were a benign success because we're not imposing tariffs, we bullied our trading partners into quotas. i know from talking to several of our member companies that

those quotas are even more damaging than the tariffs themselves, because in some cases, they'd be willing to pay the tariff just to get the product that they need in their supply chain to make things work. with the quota in place, they can't get it at all, so there are companies at the business round table that have products sitting on the dock that are desperately needed for -- as inputs to a big project, they can't get them because of the quotas. >> is the position of the round table that these tariffs are in the national interest? >> no. >> mr. fuchs, thank you. let me ask you one quick question. let me make it generic in nature. whether we're talking about the indo pacific region and how we try to promote a rule-based order or whether it's with critical allies like canada, our impact in europe, what damage does the administration's policy in this regard affect our

ability to pursue all of those and in a tit for tat process with china, what's your assessment of the internal politics in china when it comes to tolerating economic costs and who flinches first? >> thank you, senator. i think that that is an incredibly important question. the impacts of the administration's tariffs right now are widespread and i believe that if they continue, we are only seeing the very beginnings of them. so, first and foremost, for the main challenges that we face in our national security, the threats we face around the world, again, whether it's china in the indo pacific or it's russia, or it's anything else, our allies are our first line of defense. they are our key partners in tackling any of these challenges. but right now, instead of focusing on those challenges, we're making enemies of the very allies that we need to be with us to tackle any of these challenges, and we're seeing those impacts right now in a trade war, frankly, that we are starting with our own best friends around the world.

secondly, i think that what we're seeing here is -- and we're only seeing the beginning of it right now as it just starts, in capitals around the world of our allied and our friends, they are making decisions right now. they are planning just like companies what kinds of policies and positions that they are going to be taking in the coming months and years when it comes to national security threats, and they right now are asking themselves very clearly, can we trust the united states? i think it's very instructive right after the g7 summit debacle just a few weeks ago, the german foreign minister gave a speech in which he listed three main threats that concern him about the fate of europe. one is russia. second is china. and the third is president trump's america first foreign policy that he's pursuing right now. to me, that is incredibly concerning. >> do you have a -- just very quickly, do you have a view on the china question, who gets --

in a at this titit for tat, you blinks? how much are they willing to endure? >> well, i think that we have seen in recent years and we're seeing right now, i think that the chinese communist party, which, again, runs china and we have to remember how china operates here. they are not a democracy. it is a dictatorship run by the chinese communist party. they have one interest in mind, and that is maintaining stability and staying in power. and they do not want to lose face because that helps them, they believe, lose legitimacy, so i believe that the china's communist party is highly likely to try to weather any storm and go tit for tat with the united states going forward. >> thank you. >> thank you. before turning to senator young, mr. bolten, i'm sure you have high-level access to the white house and you represent some of the titans of industry. has anyone yet or ticklatarticu you the strategy behind using

232 in such a broad way against our allies? >> they have not, mr. chairman, and that's why we're concerned. i mean, we -- from the positions i've served in, i understand the politics. i understand the need of -- that leaders have of living up to commitments they make in campaign rhetoric, but what the administration has pursued here under 232 and in 301 with china has us deeply concerned, because there does not appear to be any strategy behind it that is designed to produce an outcome other than just tariffs. and what we would -- we are strongly encouraging the administration and are very glad to see many members of congress encouraging the administration is develop a strategy that can produce success, and success in this case means getting the international community aligned to put pressure on china to

reform their trade policies and practices. >> i agree. senator young. >> it's a great segue, mr. chairman. because i'm going to continue to hit the same note i did in the first panel and same note i've been hitting for a couple months now with respect to our response to predatory international economic practices. we need a strategy, and this is important to hoosiers. i really appreciated, mr. bolten, in your testimony, you referenced a indiana-based manufacturer, cummings, inc., and you note that they, on account of what you characterize as an escalating trade war, must now pay a 25% tariff on manufacturing components it imports from china for use in u.s. production. you go on to note that the company's absorbing a 25% u.s. tariff on finished products that it manufactures in china for

sale to off highway equipment manufacturers in the united states and if they were to pass this tariff-related cost increase to its off-highway customers, it would lose vital sales in the market to european and asian competitors so that brings it right close to home for the people i represent. mr. bolten, earlier this year, i introduced, along with various other senators on both sides of the aisle, some legislation i mentioned in our first panel, the bipartisan national economic security strategy act of 2018. that's 2757. it will create a statutory requirement for not just this administration but for future administrations to periodically produce and submit to congress a national economic security strategy just as we do a national security strategy, a very sensitive topic, but there's an unclassified version with a classified annex, members of congress respectfully engage back and forth, kick the tires

of the strategy, and then we sort of move forward together as a country. i just ask you, sir, are you aware of the legislation i just referenced, and if so, what are your initial or general impressions of it? >> senator young, the -- we are now aware of your legislation. we're taking a look at it, so i don't have an official business round table position for you. but i'll give a personal view now. it's a good idea. i served in administrations where the exercise that the national security council goes through on a regular basis to produce a national security strategy is hugely beneficial, both to forming priorities within the administration and then holding yourselves accountable for how are you doing against your priorities. and i'm inclined to agree with you that doing the same on the economic front would be enormously beneficial, not just for the trump administration but

any administration. >> mr. fuchs, you just earlier indicated the strategy is an effective component of making sure that we respond optimally to china in particular. their predatory economic practices, my words, not yours, but i'm going to allow you to explain to me and others why you believe a strategy is needed, sir. >> well, thank you, senator. i am aware of your legislation and am closely reviewing it as well, but to your question, i absolutely believe that this country needs a coherent and comprehensive strategy that sees the trade aspects in the broader picture. of how best we can grow the economy here at home in a way that works for all americans and that protects our international interests and our national security at the same time. so, i absolutely believe that a

strategy in this regard is necessary, and i am encouraged, frankly, by some of the efforts that i've seen in congress for congress to push the administration to develop such a strategy, especially in this case. >> thank you much. i would note that there's a real distinction that needs to be made between objectives on one hand and a more rigorous, more thorough and comprehensive strategy, developed across different departments of government, working with, say, the national economic council, national security council. some bullet points on a powerpoint slide with five pillars, frankly, is not a strategy. and you know that. to the extent i have any -- there's a lot of energy behind that comment, it's just conviction. so, thank you for your remarks about the importance of a strategy. so, indiana is not only a major producer of ag products as it's generally perceived to be. we're also the most

manufacturing intensive state in the country and home to major automobile producers. companies like toyota and subaru and nissan, they employ tens of thousands of hoosiers, these companies operate by making sure that their global supply chains go uninterrupted. and mr. bolten, in your prepared testimony, you say the administration is now investigating whether to employ the same national security argument to restrict imports of automobiles and auto parts under section 232. sir, can you describe in more detail what you think would be the consequences of this approach for companies producing automobiles in indiana and beyond and for american consumers. >> in a word, disastrous. the steel and aluminum tariffs are already having a really detrimental effect on a lot of downstream users of steel and aluminum.

that will ripple throughout the economy. now, take that and multiply it by ten, because the automobile trade in this country is much larger. it's in -- you know, we import close to $400 billion per year in autos and auto parts. now, if those supply chains are disrupted, you know, who knows how long it takes to reestablish them. they're probably -- there probably aren't ways for the companies to get the products they need to put into their autos. it just makes the entire industry less competitive. putting aside, even, the fact of a dramatic price increase, a tax on the american people, and the people who will end up paying that tax are the people who can least afford to do it. so, one of the reasons why we're here testifying so strongly, mr.

chairman, is not just because of the effect that the use of 232 has had on steel and aluminum tariffs, but the threat to broaden it to product like autos and auto parts would really be devastating to this economy. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. senator cardin. >> well, thank you both for your testimony. there's a common theme here about having a plan and strategy. we have not -- we don't understand what it is in regards to the trade policy -- trade actions taken by this administration. but we can say the same thing in regards to so many other areas under this committee's jurisdiction, including north korea. i've been asked the question, mr. chairman, as i go through the halls as to north korea questions, and i can respond pretty easily by saying, i don't know what the administration is doing, because they haven't briefed us. so we don't know their strategies. and that presents a problem, because, quite frankly, many of us think they don't have one.

it would be very comforting to understand that. the same thing with trade. we had several meetings with the ustr and finance and we couldn't yet figure out a strategy. either one can respond, can res want to go to mr. bolton statement that you gave which i thought laid out simplistically what needs to be done. the way you laid out china practices, i think every member would agree we want to see a change in china's trade policies. you start off by saying you need a detail how their current practices must change with re realistic time frame for being able to achieve that. the last point i'll get to in one minute, working with our allies. do we have a detailed understanding of where this

administration would like to see us end up with china in a time frame that's understandable to achieve that? has that been shared with either one you have? >> it's not been. that's why we're here speaking out about it. we have tried to have that dialogue with the administration and by in large the administration has been very receptive when our business community comes in to express concerns. and have always given up a good hearing. we have not broken through on the way the administration is going about it. on the china question, there's still time and i believe if ambassador lighthouser was here he would say we have a strategy and working on a negotiating position.

the anxiety throughout the business community, big and small is that that strategy is not one that's coherent and designed to produce success. success in this case is not having a tit for tat trade tariff in position between us and the chinese. success is some reform of chinese trade policies and practices. there's time for the administration doing that. >> let me have you focus on this, the complaints against china is global. we're not the only country that has major concern about the way china behaves. the question i asked the secretary in former panel is she can name even one country that agrees with the trump strategy to get china to change their practices and she couldn't even name one country.

do you know of any of our trading partners that believe america's moving in the right strategy direction to get china to change these policies? >> no, senator. i believe there's not one that i can think of. in fact, i can only think of countries that believe we're going in exactly the wrong direction for a few reasons. some of which have come up. first, i think the kinds of sanction, tariffs that we're imposing in an all out trade war are not going to solve the specific problems we have with china. second of all we need our allies and partners to pressure china here. we are making enemies of our partners and allies instead of enlisting them to help us with china. the third issue here is that i'd say fwhewe need to look beyond

trade space and see our broader national security interests as well. when we're going after china right now with over the top, across the board tariffs on everything that will be counter productive, we also undermine our own position north korea right now. we are not helping ourselves as we try to engage in diplomac to get north korea to change its behavior. we need china's help. right now we're taking away our own leverage with china when it comes to north korea. >> thank you. one more point. i'm in the going to ask for a response. the secretary testified about a robust interagency process in records to the 232 process. i challenged her on that. i understand there's members of the administration that are open for your meetings.

i question whether there was any input, meaningful input into this process by the decision maker before the tariffs were imposed. thank you. >> thank you. senator rubio. >> thank you both for being here. it's one point i would disagree with. your plan as i understand it and many have argued as well is we need to detail the problems we have with china and you've accurately out lined them. the ip theft, the transfer of technolo technology and computing trade. the second part is you detailed,

the second is giving them a deadline and telling them how we want to see the changes. the third is here is a list of things we want to do. the fourth is working with our allies and i would manage canada, mexico and the eu by giving them an exemption from the 232 tariffs. if we were working with canada, mexico and the eu. we heard the testimony from the state department in every meeting we raised, the china issue, i assure you i'm confident it's very difficult to get that message across when these other things are ongoing. the problem i have is with giving them the deadline and this is what we're going to do. the history of serious negotiations with china on matters such as this is not promising.

here is the biggest problem. on two of these items which are the ones the president's m memorandum focused on, i think there's a strong argument to be made. what china is doing is a clear and national security threat to the yiet. -- united states. supplant us in the world as a dominant power. when you combine that, they are seeking to not talk about as much anymore but it's most clear the design they have in place. when you combine that with st statements that have been made about how there can only be two

suns in the universe and implying it can only be one great power and it's going to be us. this is not just a conflict we have with a nation that seeks to have a bigger economy, they want to supplant us in all these critical fields. any gains they make in 5g technology, if they develop supremacy which they're on the path to doing, all the technologies and industries of the 21st century will be built to chinese standards. meaning we will now be out of place in regards to that. it seems like the biggest issue you have with the administration's approach is we're not working with our allies on the 232, which i agree, we would be stronger. they took the actions first as

pose e opposed to giving them a moment. we couldn't do these things but first we should have given serious negotiations a chance to work. >> that's roughly it. i agree with everything you said. you would put at the top of the list the issues you mentioned on intellectual property theft and subsidies. i would put those at the top of the list and i would make clear what the consequences for the chinese would be if they don't change their policies or practices. i would also put on paper here's what we want you to do. here are the specific policies we want you to adopt. one thing that almost everybody in the business community that has interacted with the chinese government and imagine members of this committee have had a similar experience. finds when they talk to folks in the chinese government, the

chinese government says what do you want. tell us what you want. waving our hands and saying we want all of these problems fixed immediately, that's true and that would be great. we need to give the chinese a coherent and practical list of the stuff we want them to do. put it on paper. you don't have to show it to those of nus in the private sector. it ought to be shared with you so you know what's on the priority list of the administration. it ought to be possible to write it down and the administration ought to put that piece of paper on the table in front of the chinese before they jump off and announce huge retaliation. >> my last question. assuming they refuse to do anything, would the list of things we would threaten to do include the things that are being done now under the memorandum and the actions the president's taken? >> they could.

the wto does not provide adequate protection for intellectual property. it's not sanctioned by the wto but they ought to be last resort, not a first. >> i think would be unified around our efforts if we focused on what you and senator rubio laid out. it would be difficult to find a witness to counter an effort

focused on intellectual property theft. that's what's interesting about this. there is a problem that does need to be solved. if you dealt with it in a coherent way with your friends around the world, you could solve that problem. we've been getting some signals that your 232 effort, is there any way you guys would wait until after the election and then there's been other statements made by the administration about we're going to wait and deal with nafta after the election. i don't know what's driving this. it's so incoherent. it would be difficult to begin to understand what's driving the policy that is in place today.

let's say this policy is 100% about politics. this is really about the midterm elections and it really the nafta issue will be dealt with after the elections. the tariff issues will be dealt with after the elections. the auto car, the auto industry tariffs will be dealt with after the election. let's say this policy that cannot be articulated would be to stay in place between now and the first tuesday in november, what would be the effect on the business community and just our relationships around the world? >> a lot of daniel maged is bei caused every day. we're only a few weeks into the first phases of the steel and aluminum tariffs. we're only in first few days of the retaliation that's been put in place against those tariffs. there's more to come even on the

steam and aluminum side. significant damage is being done every day. i have heard people say it's going to get resolved. it will take a little time. everybody needs to absorb a little pain in the short run. the pain in the short run is not small to begin with. it's getting larger by the day. the additional measures thad the administration is threatening threaten to increase that. harley davidson is faced with a choice of either stopping st

selling in europe because they're the subject of retaliation or building that are harleys for europe some place else in order to send them into europe without a 25% tariff. that's a terrible choice for harley davidson to make. i think they are making the right one by going someplace else to sell into europe because once they stop selling harleys in europe even for a few months they may be knocked out of that market permanently. the damage is incremental day by day. no one should assume that damage doesn't last a whole lot longer than the trade dispute does. >> thank you. >> i would say without a doubt the longer this goes on, the worse it is. anticipation of a china eu summit that's happening next

week. china has been pitching our european allies on forging an anti-u.s. trade alliance. for a moment it sounds like the europeans are not gain for it, if this continues to go on, i wonder how long they will hold out. >> wonder what we would be discussing today if we continued on the path of negotiating tpp, continued on the path of negotiating t tip. we'd be having a different kind of conversation and be in a much different place to counter the real threat which is what china is doing. >> if i might, it's terrific to have you clear and forceful testimony today. let me just take a few minutes and make sure i've understood it correctly. you've testified that trump's tariffs are a tax hike on

american businesses and con sierm -- son sumers, is that right? >> correct. >> it leads to lower revenue, loss profits and fewer jobs. >> correct. >> you say it invites harmful retaliatory tariffs from many of our allies. i think you called it a cascade that could cost us 16 jobs for every job that we might protect and that's just with this early round of tariffs for steel and aluminum. >> correct. >> you anticipate a dramatically greater impact if the administration does go ahead with another 200 billion in tariffs, correct? >> correct. >> last, you view this as a misuse of president's statutory authority under section 232 and urge congressional action? >> yes. >> you're a republican in. >> yes i am. >> the head of an organization known for leftist and radical

v views. >> we're a bipartisan organization that advocate in support of a strong u.s. economy. we try to work with both parties. >> all joking aside, i think it's striking that someone of your experience and pedigree is so forceful in asking for congressional action. i can't remember when a brt president came before us and urged congressional action against a sitting republican president. how does this end? how does this end? you were here for the previous round of questions where we had the current assistant secretary from the administration and questioners, republicans and democrats demanded a strategy. where's the off ramp? when does this hearing from docn delaware who know that ship loads of steel from sweden and

finland may not be coming this way. may face a loss of revenue and employment in our wilmington dock yards. our soybean farmers who were pretty strong supporters of the the trump agenda are concerned they are facing the lowest pr e prices for their commodity in a decade. this is the first round. if i understand your testimony, it's going to be very difficult to reverse, it's americans who will pay increased taxes whether it's an increased tariff burden as consumers or products or employees of companies less competitive. in your view, how urgent is it that we take action and how does this end? >> we're here speaking out so strongly because we're concerned about things you mentioned. it's not a comfortable thing for the head of the business round

table to come forward and speak out against an administration that's been so effective for american business on issues like taxes and regulation and work force training and skilling. i think the results are showing up in a strong economy and very strong business optimism. it's a difficult thing for the head of this organization to come forward and speak out so strongly against the administration's trade policies. we believe they are headed in a very dangerous direction. as i said in the response to questions about china, i think there is time to put it on a constructive path. the administration may be in the process of pulling together a serious negotiating agenda with the china that will produce,

that could easily at this moment produce significant reforms in china. the question is are they prepared to do so and are they prepared to move some of the impediments that they put in place of having all of our friends and allies support us. the likelihood of success with china is dramatically improved if we get the rest of the world, which basically agrees with us, behind our negotiating strategy. i don't know hold w it ends. the story can have a good ending but there's relatively little time to point it in that direction. >> what i hear you saying is it's urgent that the trump administration reverse course. instead focus on building on building team of allies to

confront china's real aggressive actions that have undermined global trade and if we don't act soon the consequences will be large, lasting and undermine our alliances and harm american competitiveness and jobs. that strikes me as a urgent call to action. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you for being with us still. i wanted to follow up on some ocht questions i asked to secretary about china's actions and basic tifftiactivities.ocht

secretary about china's actions and activities.focht questions secretary about china's actions and activities.of ocht questions i asked to secretary about china's actions and activities.tocht questions secretary about china's actions and activities.hocht questions secretary about china's actions and activities.eocht questions secretary about china's actions and activities. questions i ask secretary about china's actions and activities. this blockage was lifted after a public apology was issued. i worry about what they're trying to do to u.s. companies. when i met with the foreign minister in taiwan, they say china is doing more and more of this. they are hiring people from taiwan, trying to brain drain taiwan, take their intellectual property with this, if they can get away with it, to china. in this case, this individual gave a lot of information to

china. they set up a facility and plant replicating what micron had done. they went to court and got a court injunction. now a u.s. idea is being stopped by china claiming it's their own completely stolen information. as a company in my state of colorado that sold a product to china that sent the product to china. a couple of weeks later it got the schematics back from china. reverse engineered the product. this company in china that they sold equipment to had a couple of questions for the company in colorado that manufactured it. the name of the new company was the exact same name of the company in colorado. with this airline activity, with the marriott activity, what should we be doing to help make sure that american airlines,

american hotels, american businesses aren't falling for the bullying of chinese sort of public diplomatic berating. >> countering the chinese bullying of american companies is one of the most difficult problems. those are happening throughout the member companies, the 200 member companies of the business round table. they wisely don't talk about it publicly very much because the bullying will get worse if they raise their heads. almost everybody that deals in high-technology and is either trying to do business in or competing with chinese entities has faced some similar serious kinds of problems. that's what needs to be at the top of a serious negotiating agenda. we ought to be able to write

down what specifically it is that we are demanding that the chinese do and have that negotiation. not a easy negotiation. the chinese are not easy to deal with. they will stretch us out as senator rubio is suggesting over long periods and give partial concessions. that's the road that has to be traveled. that's the tough work of trade diplo diplomacy. we're here to call on the administration to do it. >> i hope to these companies that are being bullied, they won't fall it. that these airlines won't fall for it. they have allowed that kind of

corruption, that kind of bullying, that kind of lawlessness to occur when it comes to intellectual property rights. thank you both for the opportunity to be here today and have your testimony. thank you. >> we thank you both for being here and for your patience. for some reason have a protocol in this committee where we have administration witnesses come in and panelists like yourself. unfortunately, by the time it gets to the real intellect, if you will, most people are gone. we thank you both for spending time to be here. there will be some questions after. we're going to ask for questions to come in before the close of business friday and to extent you could get to those fairly

quickly, we would appreciate it. you've added a lot to the record but also to people's thinking. we thank you both for what you do in your respective roles to help shape policy and we look forward to seeing you again. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> meeting's adjourned.

the house judiciary committee held a hearing in south dakota. the court ruled that states can charge sales taxes on online pr purchases from retailers. in the hearing lawmakers focused on the impact on states s and small businesses. you can watch this tonight at 8:00 eastern or listen with free c-span radio app. saturday at 10:00 a.m., live

confederate icons conference. kevin walker, carolyn janney and james robertson. watch the confederate icons conference saturday morning starting at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. sunday at 10:00 a.m., former republican congresswoman susan molinari. >> it also made me a fighter and i was just forced to be tougher.

that's sort of the cigarette sometimes being underestimated in a good thing. i remember a lot of my debates with the people i was debating didn't take me seriously and i got out there and it was too late. i think the same thing happens when you're negotiating. rjts ni nikki haley talks about president trumped decision to withdraw from u.n. human rights council. the heritage foundatio