satellite provider. by yourought to you cable or satellite provider. >> congress secretariat wilbur ross defended the administration's hearings. he testified before the senate finance committee. members from both parties voiced their concerns over tariff and the potential impact on constituents and the economy. >> i want to say good morning

and welcome to everybody that is here today on current and proposed cut tariff actions administered by the department of commerce. i would like to welcome secretary ross in particular. i want to thank you mr. secretary for joining us. i intend to focus this morning on three investigations self initiated by the congress. -- by the department of

commerce. it should come as no surprise that many of us on the committee have concerns about the process, effects, and strategy behind these investigations and resultg tions. that includes the series problems that senator white and i raised about the product six -- product exclusion process, a process that still needs significant improvement. ary, the department of commerce completed two of its section 232 investigations. one on imports of steel and the other on illumina products. as a result on -- as a result of those, the united states is currently imposing tariffs and assessing tariffs 10% on aluminum products.

they make -- in southwest utah. they sell to customers around the globe. they have been in business since 1945. because of the section 232 tariffs, they are worried about their future. still prices are going up, not just for foreign steel subject to tariffs, but also u.s. steel. as a consequence, they have lost their competitive edge against foreign any fractures and the company tells me the contracts for future work have all but dried up. another salt lake city manufacturing saw steel dropped

20% in less than two weeks the tariffs were announced. small butanies are they are important sources of jobs in our communities and they are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the steel and aluminum tariffs. on the other end of the scale, multibillion-dollar invest that employ thousands of workers are also being put at risk. as you are aware, the pennsylvania chemical writer is one of the largest economic development projects in the states. i grew up in pittsburgh. i know how important this development is. the project is expected to employ 6000 construction workers and 600 full-time employees once the facilities are operational. unfortunately, this project is being slowed it down.

becauseing delayed essential parts are being stopped by customs as a result of the steel quotas. these parts are individually customized under contracts concluded years ago and they are suddenly being stopped. they contain steel from the sale. andying reconstruction manufacturing jobs and putting some of these at risk. inevitable -- not isolated to manufacturing, rather the effects have spread throughout the follow -- the economy. , the largestu know market for american pork. recently, mexico announced it u.s.pose terrace of 20% on

pork in retaliation for u.s. steel and aluminum tariffs. china, the second largest overseas market has increased cherubs by 25%. i just don't see how the damage posed on all of these set her's could possibly a dance our national security. the steel and aluminum tariffs distract from the real trade issues that must be addressed. the president has repeatedly dated that chinese mercantilist policies harmed the u.s. and the economy. something with which i agree. however, these steel and aluminum tariffs fail to address chinese overproduction. 5% are from china. let me repeat that. only 5% are from china. in reality, these actions target our allies, particularly canada and the european union, with

whom our trade in steel and aluminum products far exceeds our trade with china. this is not just my opinion, the u.s. department of defense has stated that it is concerned it is quote concerned about the negative impact on our allies unquote. particularly, mobile tariffs in the u.s. quotas. the lessons of the steel and aluminum tariffs are clear. supportriffs do not u.s. national security. instead they harm manufacturers, damage our economy, hurt american consumers, and disrupt our relationship with long-term allies, well giving china a free pass. hearis why i was done to on may 21 that the department of commerce have an issue date -- has initiated another investigation into the imports

of automobiles and auto parts. this investigation covers or than 200 -- $200 billion worth of trade. or times larger than that of the steel and aluminum investigations combined. a car is not a can of soup. for most american families, their car is the second biggest purchase a make. many require a car to get to their jobs. it is a significant financial commitment for most families, often paid for with debt. i'm shocked that anyone incident making it more expensive. the average price of imported car is $23,200. hartman of commerce were to recommend a 25 percent increase on cars it would increase by $5,800. to put that in perspective, the median household income in the united take is just over

$59,000. that means that roughly 10% of the median household income could be raised purely by the cost of a single car. that is why i call tariffs a tax on american families. tax foundation agrees. it estimates that auto tariffs could result in a $73 billion tax increase on american consumers and businesses, erasing many of the benefits of taxes passed earlier this congress. not only would these tariffs cost american emily's, -- american families. but also put american jobs at risk. the peterson institute calculates auto tariffs could cause 195,000 workers to lose their jobs. that is nearly 200,000 people out of work and that is he for other countries retaliate against american auto manufacturers which support jobs by exporting $65 billion worth

of autos per year. once again, supposedly pursuit for nationals surety reasons, tariffs on cars and trucks target our closest allies, namely europe, mexico, japan, and south korea. mr. secretary, as you consider these tariffs, know that you are taxing american amylase. you are putting american jobs at risk, and you are destroying markets, foreign and domestic for american businesses of all types, sorts, and sizes paired i hope you will consider that carefully as your department conducts its investigation of the national security threat of imported automobiles paired with that, senator wyden, go ahead. wyden: if you follow the

news on trade, you know that secretary ross is a key trump official, negotiating with china, determining who gets tariff exemptions, and potentially reshaping the american automobile agency for decades to come. in the last few days, news reports about secretary ross uncovered a short sale stock in a kremlin tied shipping firm. new developments show that while secretary ross was negotiating on trade with china, he may have maintained financial ties with firms connected to the chinese government. a fund controlled by the ross family reportedly owns a major international manufacturer of auto parts. this, unfortunately, is not a one-off story. virtually every day in the news, withet waxed over the head another report about trump officials violating ethics rules

or coming into questionable windfalls. sick government rulebook to record nice flagrant conflicts of interests when they are brought into public view. when it comes to trade, americans have a right to know it is there best interest the trump administration is looking out or. the stories we had seen in the last few days call that into question. here is why these issues are so important. i am on board with several of the administration's top trade priorities. first, tougher and horsemen of our trade laws. tougher enforcement of our trade laws. second, tracking down on china. ripping off american technology and jobs. also, long overdue.

updating next to. now -- updating nafta. it was written decades ago. clearly it needs a decade. those are challenges to demand action. taking action gets harder when you're surrounded the spec of conflict of interest. that undermines the credibility of our negotiators and certainly makes it harder to work in a bipartisan way in the congress. it takes it less like the american people will accept the end result. it is also frustrating to watch as the minister gratian -- the administration trade moves seem like knee-jerk reactions instead of thought out strategy. it's most obvious accomplishment on trade so far is selling a lot of chaos. unless you rank that he hind the

an action that in my view, has compromised and sold out american security and got nothing in return your it chaos has consequences. you don't have to take it from me. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are in place, but the process of determining what imports will be excluded is in a state of disarray. businesses from sea to shining the who are filing for these exclusions are waiting for the commerce department to do its job here and so, i have heard from potato farmers in my home eight of oregon. now, they will ace tariffs and see markets mexico. i have heard pacific northwest cherry growers who have nearly 1.5 million boxes of cherries ready to ship to china. they are worried those cherries will end up stuck on the dock or rotting in a warehouse due to china's retaliation.

small brewers find their cost guy rocketing when they need you lines. those are largely made of steel and aluminum. now, a strong, well planned strategy on trade would ring the low economic might of the united states and our allies to bear on china's trade cheating. that would give confidence to american armors, manufactures, and service firms, rather than yet more edlin and chaos. i believe there would be bipartisan interest here in this and it and fresh policies that would strengthen trade enforcement and protect american workers. so today, has to be a beginning of the end of the chaos. i hope that we will see more from the administration in the days ahead. i think it is priority business

to get a clear sense of what is going to be done to resolve these questions. we hear about from our constituents every single day. those will be the russians i will post to secretary ross. i appreciate him eating here. sen. hatch: thank you, senator. i would like to extend a warm welcome to secretary wilbur ross for being here today. secretary ross was sworn in as the 39th secretary of commerce. he has been the principal voice of business in the trump administration. a pleasureoss, it is to have you here today. please proceed with your opening statement. sec. ross: chairman hatch, ranking member wyden, and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me here today to discuss actions we have taken to assure the continued viability of our important steel

and aluminum industries. the reports i submitted to the president this past january pursuant to section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962 found that steel and aluminum imports threatened to impair our national security. the president determined the tariffs are the necessary means to address these threats. as a result, the president signed proclamations on march 8, imposing a 25% tariff on steel imports and 810% error on aluminum imports. 10% tariff on aluminum imports. america's essential steel and aluminum industries. they have been harmed by imports to the point that allowing imports to continue unchecked

threatens to impair our national security. the tariffs on steel and aluminum are anticipated to reduce imports to levels needed. for these industries to achieve long-term viability. term, since the imposition of the section 232 tariffs, industry already has started taking actions to restart idle facilities. idled steel and aluminum capacity is being restarted as ohio, here in illinois, south carolina, missouri, and kentucky. several other companies have also announced new investments in these industries in oklahoma, florida, missouri, and texas. in addition, the president

authorized the establishment of a mechanism for u.s. parties to apply for exclusions from the tariff for specific products, based on demand that is unmet by domestic reduction or for a specific national security considerations. today, we are announcing our first determinations on 90 86 lucian requests for steel products. denying 56.and thanrce has received more 20,000 steel and aluminum lucian requests including re-submissions. 9200ve posted more than for public review and comment. commerce also has received more than 2000 -- more than 2300 objections to exclusion

requests. review of exclusion requests and related objections is being conducted as it must be on a case-by-case basis. progressade some major in reforming and improving the process. i will describe a couple now. first of all, we will be accelerating the processing of exclusion requests by immediately granting those which are correctly submittednd for which no objections have been received during the public comment period. commerce is making an unprecedented effort to process the requests us expeditious way. also the downstream products that have been heard to import.

we are incorporating as many of these as our logical to the list. in the 301 tariff listing of 200 billion that will be released shortly. some ofalready found the products that will be included in that list. period endedmment on may 18 and we are reviewing the comments received to assess whether any further revisions to the process are necessary. , after aon may 23 conversation with the president, i initiated a proceeding under section 232 to determine whether imports of automobiles and automotive arts into the united states threatened to impair the

national security. this investigation will examine the united states production capabilities and the for ejected needed national defense requirements as well effects of foreign competition on our internal economy. in conclusion, this administration is standing up for american families, american businesses, and american workers by taking action to reduce imports that threaten our national security. i thank you and i look forward to answering questions from the members of committee. sen. hatch: thank you, mr. secretary. let me start off with the section 32 statute three fires that the secretary of commerce

-- when you decided to self initiate a section 232 investigation into automobiles, and auto parts, what were the projected national defense requirements for these products? sec. ross: as you know, the investigation has just begun. so, we do not have a detailed answers to any of those questions. what we have done, as required immediately sent a notification letter to general mattis as secretary of defense asking for his inputs, just as we had under the steel and aluminum investigations. as you are aware, in the case of still -- of steel and aluminum, general mattis wrote back to us that he accepts the proposition of the threat to national

security arising from the imports of steel and aluminum. i have no idea at this early stage what his attitude will be on the automotive sector, but it is a factor that we definitely will consider as required by the statute and even more, as required by good common sense as we consider these automotive and auto parts environment. product-based exclusions from the steel and aluminum tariffs are available into circumstances. when a product is not available domestically and the quality or amount needed, and when national security considerations warrant. however, i understand that the commerce department is refusing to grant any exclusions that limit the volume of steel and aluminum rod x in america's may import from certain countries.

what is the national security justification for refusing to grant exclusions from quotas where in the same circumstances the same product would be excluded from tarfs for that: thank y question, mr. chairman. the president's proclamation does not authorize us to grant exclusions from quotas. there are very few countries that have photos in any event, those are principally the most important one of which is south korea. that does have a quota which is equal to 70% of the average sit, toduct byproduct from 2015 2017. in addition, brazil and ,rgentina have agreed to quotas so those three are fundamentally the quotas that exist.

we are taking into consideration the request that has been made for exclusions based on quotas that have already been exceeded or shortly will. the problem is, a number of countries rammed in a huge amount of product prior to the president decision and therefore have put in much more than they had in the prior year. so, there is an intellectual challenge aso whether or not to reward those countries that were trying to game the system. nonetheless, we are giving real consideration to requesting the president to consider whether they similar exclusion should be as opposed to the ones we are granting to those countries.

process that the commerce department has been administering to request product based exclusions in the steel have manynum tariffs serious flaws and problems continue to surface. subject to objections contained in misleading claims, they would like to rebut those claims. i understand the commerce department has provided no formal channels for submitting regulations, were all of the requests and objections must be filed. petitioners, will they be able to submit to the website?

>> i would like to put out a chart which would talk about the statistics for processing. enough that large it can be viewed on the off chance revision is as bad as mine, i will also review the information. we have received explosion requests, and in the case of aluminum -- exclusion requests, and in the case of aluminum, totaling 5006. objections have been filed in 3000 items in steel and 98 items in aluminum for a

total of several exclusion objections, in terms of comments, we have received during comments, 383 comments on steel, 51 comments on aluminum, for a total of 434. the total of submissions in the case of steel are 24,325. case of aluminum, 26,652, 9377.grand total of of the exclusion requests, we have posted 8168 in the case of rejectedd we have 2513, in additions to the ones posted. ofhave 9310 for a total

20,003. in the case of aluminum, we have posted 1828, rejected for 20, and have pending two hundred 53. 253, which comes to 23,506 of exclusion requests. 230 in the case of steel, 530 in the case of aluminum, total, 235. 41 inse of steel, we have the case of aluminum, total,

1095. 3000 939 totals, objections filed in steel, for a total of 4037. these are the still submissions by week. you can see, or will be able to that this peak was realized on the week of the 14th of may of this year. receivedingle week, we 3000 175 requests. bars are the large blue you see on the chart. those have now tapered off quite exclusione the requests received this year are only 1481.

posted, of the ones those are the gray bars. you can see that is starting to go down as well because we are eating through the backlog. the large bars are the objections filed. you can see that far is growing very rapidly. as the exclusion requests have come a little bit seasoned, the objections come in. yellowed, very smart bars, -- small bars, are the objections being filed. we are catching up with the backlog that was created. there is a similar pattern in aluminum. , thee case of aluminum request for exclusion peaked the week of the seventh of may at

the 769 that week and has gone down to about 210 in the most recent week. posted wason request the gray bar. you can see how that is going up. we managed to post in the week of june 4, 602. is objection filings, and the other is objection filings posted. there is no huge backlog. a mandatory objection, which we could not print anything. you will start seeing more or less every single day batches of exclusions being enacted. based on what we have seen so probabilitys a high , that relatively few of those

will be granted. i hope this gives you a bit of a field for both magnitude of the chore in terms of the number of rets received, and the fact we are making good progress in dealing with them. even if it takes a few days , they reallyople won't suffer meaningful economic harm.

whatever tariffs they paid will be refunded to them quite promptly. >> could i make an observation? have ads like we government run, mercantile economy, as opposed to a free market economy. chairman.ou, mr. your cart -- chart, --withstanding, america american small businesses believe they are being held hostage in a bureaucratic twilight zone waiting to see if they are going to escape. you don't have to take my word for it, here is what one of the top officials in the commerce department said this morning in the newspaper. saying thed as

process on these terrorist exclusion issues are -- is so unbelievably random and some companies are going to get screwed. these people are making multibillion-dollar, unbelievably, uninformed decisions. those are not my words. those are the words of a top official in the war department as of this morning. the number of companies and every single member of this committee's hearing from small businesses, the number is staggering. you planned on receiving 6000 applications for exclusion, and is so far, you've gotten 21,000. tell, which you have done is going to address something like 1% of the applications. adding further concern is the

top official quoted this have onlyaying you begun training staff on how to process the application. it seems to me there is more and more bedlam. i would like to start with the question of whether you are with how the product exclusion process is working now. are you satisfied? >> thank you for raising those questions. i don't take very seriously peoples that are made by who are probably disgruntled for some other reason when they are anonymous. i don't think that is a very good basis.

importantly, the person who they arey incorrect -- saying, we have only begun to train people. for thea long time congress to give us through the appropriations process the right to add people we have requested and they have not given us the full amount we have requested. between this being delayed and is smaller than what we have requested, that is why the new people, the people we finally got permission to higher, those people are being trained. shows this anonymous source is not very well informed as to what is actually going on. that is simply wrong. tell you want to

dismiss the criticisms, but what consistent with what every single member of this committee's hearing. employcompanies that hundreds of workers in our state, making pipe fittings, cutting blades for the sawmill and all i hear are these endless stories, i have to tell you, i think it is a real head scratcher. be baffling toly the small businesses to check in with all of us on the committee for anyone who hears this process is going well. well.not going the chairman and i have been working on these matters and i don't think the improvements you have talked about are going to be adequate.

i would like to ask you this morning to commit to providing this committee on a bipartisan basis within a week a specific soetable and specific fixes that small businesses and the workers were contacting us can really have a sense of what is going to happen. we make a commitment to do that and get it within the next week next >> -- within the week. >> it is impossible to commit to a specific timetable, when we don't know how many requests we have. that is one problem. there are requests still coming in. if you do homework, you will find there are few requests that have ended the comments more than about a dozen days without response.

>> the reason i am asking for yourplan is i don't think departments have done a lot of homework at the front end, which is one of the reasons we are having a problem. 6000lan on receiving applications for exclusion and so far you've gotten 21,000. i don't think enough homework was done at the front-end. i am expecting to see within a chairman, myself, and all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis and actual timetable on how we are going to get this fixed. nothing i have heard this morning sounds like we are going to be on top of this anytime soon. >> i heard the question about auto-parts by her chairman. it is a little more specific. section 232, there was the announcement that the administration released, light

duty autos and auto parts. many auto-parts share the same product in the automotive chapter of the u.s. with other, , such asroducts construction equipment, agricultural equipment, and industrial engines. water pumps used in the cooling fuelm are classified as lubricating, for internal combustion piston engines. the harmonized tariff schedule code does not differentiate between auto and construction equipment parts. isn't the administrative intent to impose tariffs of up to 25% on all these parts, even if they don't necessarily go into

automobiles? >> in the early stage in the investigation, we do not have the data to make any of those decisions. there has been no decision made as to whether to recommend tariffs at all. we are at the early stages of the process. we have invited the various participants in the industry to make their submissions. they requested some extra time, so we gave them one extra week to do so. we tried to go about this may very open, transparent, and fair manner. be no for there to

unintended consequences, such as the ones you have described, and have taken note of what you have said and we will deal with that as we go through the process. >> think that would be a very satisfying answer. you mentioned in your testimony tariffseral u.s. steel are expected to come back online. how long do you think it will be to increase supply? >> fairly quick. the brief announced start of one million tons, and announced a secondary start of 1 million and a half times, 2.5 million tons of steel. better part of $2

billion worth of steel right there. it is coming. . -- i begin to the tha problem should be well addressed. happening is an unsatisfactory thing. there has been a lot of speculative activity storing inventory withholding products from the market by various intermediary parts. we are starting an investigation into that, trying to find that,t -- there is no reason for tariffs to increase the

price of steel. that is what has been happening and that is clearly not a result of the tariffs, but antisocial behavior by participants in the industry. this is a message i would like to have the administration get. 301, intellectual property investigation, is not in your jurisdiction, but since you are was -- representing the , this is getting very real. the soybean markets have started to collapse. yesterday, down $.40, i believe.

45%, the national average on soybeans. even if farmers don't have to sell their physical copyright now, the sudden volatility in the market can increased -- can increase the cost of hedging and in some cases require margin calls for those long in the market. i would request that you and others in the administration and particularly peter navarro to be aware of the pros and cons of think statements, to the press on these trade issues, and to be diplomatic with congress. thank you. as you know, the president has directed the secretary of

every powerto use at his disposal to help agriculture parties adversely affected by retaliation. i will communicate what you have said to the white house. >> we heard the president say that to the secretary of agriculture. all the senators around the table said, we don't want -- want money from the treasury. up, what doollow you mean by that? you going to make available to our farmers and ranchers? propose?you going to ambassador light hazard -- lighthauser said, your farmers and ranchers have my sympathy. they will be the first people. or richard fusion if there is a trademark.

-- who suffer with richard fusion if there is a trade war a retribution if htere ithere s trade war. i am not familiar with all of the tools -- >> how can you not be? testifiedome here and that is how you were going to solve the issue. theselike describing steel prices as antisocial behavior and not a result of the tariffs. that is not true. antisocial behavior, excepting that description was provoked by the tariffs. >> these tariffs are viewed as an opportunity for them to profiteer. related to the tariffs, thank you. what do you propose the agricultural secretary should

do. >> it is up to the secretary of agriculture. each of these segments of agriculture is quite a different segment. there was the idea that they did not want government aid. over theo control retaliation. there was the idea that they would match the $50 billion of tariffs they put products on with their $50 billion. the president said he would put terrorists on $200 billion. that is a fairly significant number. >> it sounds like you are getting into a trade war to me.

i think we are looking at insensitivity, a trillion dollar deficit next year, the largest one we have seen, because of this administration. is, to blindly pursue these policies without concern for what happens to them, it is a huge mistake. about the canadian and steel industry that is of a national security threat to the united states? the steel industry is not accused of being a security threat.

>> we do not have a surplus in dollars, -- we have a surplus in dollars, not in physical value. >> what is the national security theat of the trade surplus united states has with canada ?nd steel i don't understand why the president is not focused on china, i don't understand what the president is excluding zte. national security rationale for putting a tariff on the canadian steel industry with whom we have a trade surplus? the reason the tariff is

being put on by decently all countries, most of whom are friendly countries and have good relations with us, some others of which also have surpluses with us. the reason it has to be a global solution is if you just look at the raw data, you would not think china is a problem for the united states. what they have been doing is masking their exports to us by shipping them through other so if you just believe the raw numbers, china is shipping less to us than they did five years ago. the reality is quite to the contrary. they are disrupting global steel markets and causing direct and indirect damage. we have to do this on a global basis. news is that as a direct result of the 232,

suddenly europe is enacting safeguards against steel dumping into europe when they did not do much before. japan for the first time has created an enforcement body to deal with the problem. the only way we are going to solve the global steel overproduction and overcapacity is by getting all of the other countries to play ball. and why they are come -- complaining bitterly about the tariffs, this is starting to take the kind of action which if they had taken it sooner, would have prevented this price -- this crisis. german: senator, your time is up. secretary, thank you for coming today.

the retaliation bullseye is an ongoing critical challenge. i would like to start of my question by providing you with an update on the effects of the steel and aluminum terex. -- aluminum tariffs. the expected total of the harvest will be the lowest in 40 years. we are in a rough patch. wheat wasg price for down about 70% per bushel. when in my office happened.

they lost 80% -- $.80 on the dollar. the wheat was on the ground from last year's crop. this crop was the lowest in 40 years. we could be in a situation where we would lose the market. once you lose the reliable supplier, you are in a lock of trouble. -- a lot of trouble.

shielder and operator of equipment talked about the rising cost of his business. this company designs and manufactures and distributes old and hardware. his company uses steel from manitoba, canada, to make their shields for key blades. the steel is not available from any other mail in the united states.

extracting the steel is a cumbersome -- cumbersome and a slow exclusion process. exemption,nce of an there will be no choice but to the rising costs of production on their customers. he does not want to do that and there are no situations to pay for it. what will be the impacts of the tariffs on steel and aluminum? i know, that these businesses are paying the price for the administrations negotiating strategy. ross, it is imperative that you and your department understand the current in fact

alsoe current impact, but on the so-called "little guy." i sympathize with the owner of this company, but you can only do so much as a senator. i made a request for you earlier. there are small and medium-sized businesses for these tariffs. he gets up every morning at 530. 6:30 p.m. our time. i know it is extremely valuable. i gave you the background sheet.

this is a classic with regards to small businesses up and down main street. >> thank you, senator. from your description of this like the, it sounds exclusion process was specifically designed. it was the unique product, if none of of steel, that happens, there is no reason it will be granted and exclusion. >> if you could move this to the top of the list it will be great.

>> we cannot do anything until we receive whatever objections there may be. we will do our best to accelerate if this is out of the period. >> i have a different kind of question for you.

domestic uranium comprised only 7% of the total uranium delivered to the power reactors. the problem is particularly important in my home state of wyoming. we count for two thirds of that domestic uranium. the commerce department, will it initiate an investigation based on this petition. when can we expect that to begin. ? we will be making a decision very shortly as to a decision whether to initiate the 232

investigation. your figures are quite accurate about the extreme independence our country has on foreigners that are not necessarily always our friends for the supply of aluminum. now through right the process of trying to come through a rational conclusion about whether or not to self initiate the 232 on aluminum. >> congress has enacted anti-dumping provided in title vii of the tariff act in an effort to protect domestic industries. tariffs imposed will result in

significant harm to our newspapers. how should the commerce department approach this case, whether will be the same -- where there will bbc domestic industry -- be the same domestic industry? how does congress ensure the intent is achieved? wax from among the data we never requested from the newspaper industry, which currently has yet -- be requested from the newspaper industry, which currently has yet to be the only ones we have gotten the data for have been provided by the petitioner. his figures show the very , such as the one

in pacific northwest where he operates. they can go back to his newspaper constituents and say, please tell us how many pages to print a day, and how much per that outhe extra cost then we can put in perspective and adjust the extent to which we have this compelling argument. we are quite open to receiving .hat information any newspapers who would be willing to submit that information would be helpful. >> that information will be difficult for the big newspapers -- both be difficult for the big

newspapers, it is the little newspapers. the inputs they are putting and are going up, which means advertisers are going to advertise less, because they have a budget they have to meet. it has a watch of different implications that are hard to calculate. a lot of small newspapers are going to go out of business if that happens. may do well, but with less customers, it may not. thank you. a number of parties have told us there is the process of opening this. to the degree that proves correct, it may very well be another solution. >> we understand the dilemma and the problem to the degree you can get that information. it will be very helpful.

information on the cord is what was put on by the petitioner. it is a fraction of a penny, not just per page, but per issue. they would say it is not a be a big problem compared with some of the other problems the newspaper industry has. we have already gotten to a situation where he has withdrawn his similar petition against the particular kind of paper used in directories. that should also help alleviate the situation. we are trying very hard to get a handle on what these cost figures are. even with the small newspaper, i can't imagine they don't know what their paper cost is in the number of pages. it can't be that hard for them

to calculate. secretary, china has been stealing our intellectual property and using unfair trade practices for far too long. unless president has taken this problem seriously, unlike his predecessor. i'm increasingly concerned that terrorists are going to hurt american consumers and domestic businesses, is specially the agricultural sector, far more than they will persuade the chinese to change their unfair trade practices. the president said he is 100 billionimpose dollars more if china has not made systemic changes. what is the overall strategy in the administration to find a beforen in this case these terrorists have a substantial impact among american consumers? strategy is to try to bring enough pressure on

parties who were not behaving so they conclude their present behavior will be , as to thel to them importance of intellectual isperty, the president extremely committed, and so am i. we had a historic event yesterday. the president signed the 10 millionth past -- 10 millionth patent issued by the united states. almost half of all the patents that have ever been issued in the entire world. more than half of the 10 million have been issued since 1985, so the pace of the patents is growing very rapidly. that is good.

it is only good if we can force andr nations to honor them not abuse them, not force technology transfers and a steel through cyber security. the only method we can think of, we have tried negotiation. the president has concluded that we need more than just negotiation. there have been years of talks with china about intellectual property. agreeesident feels and i that now is the time for action and unless we make it more painful for them to continue those practices, then to do otherwise, unless we put that kind of pressure, on them, it is unlikely we will succeed.

>> we appreciate your focus. we all agreed they were abusive and they cheated, but this thing that seems to be escalating out of control quickly. the decision of the white house sectione tariffs on 301, its investigation, is concerning. this decision walks back in that thenouncement limitation of tariffs will be put on hold. the president's proposal to move forward with hundreds of billions of dollars damages the industry at a time where producers are already experiencing low prices in the economy. one in the list this week this as largely dangerous, due to trade uncertainty. this could potentially cost

soybean producers in just my state of south dakota alone to $25 million. we are all suffering market price to clients as well due to current trade policies and i would like to drive home the point that with every passing day, the united states lose it -- loses market share to other countries. i have two questions. producers are looking to the administration to create more opportunities for trade, not less. what is the administration doing to promote jobs in farm communities, and how will farmers and ranchers have to hold their breath until global partners stabilize? into the second, what happens if we don't reach an agreement on

nafta and have imposing crippling tariffs on our top trading partner, which is china. last friday, i met with the delegation of farmers from north dakota. concerns,d similar price,lt that the market at least with soybeans, the main product discussed, the market price decline has been exaggerated eye speculative activity. their belief is the price will level out at a better level. they also believe, and our own research tends to confirm, it will be relatively difficult for china to fully implement their threat on soybeans.

there was be shipped to china -- we ship around 32%-30 3% from america. this, wel to replace would have to increase their byorts of soybeans to china 60%. if they could do that, they would be doing it already, and they could do that at a competitive price. there is no evidence that brazil has been holding back just because we did not put tariffs on china. to find that as this thing settles down, there will probably be some problems, but two things will happen. that china is able to pay a premium to brazil to divergent shipments from their other existing customers, that

will open up from american farmers the markets indicated by that product, and whether that will be a full offset, i don't know. but the current speculative activity in the futures market is due to an anxiety, fear of the unknown and what might come next. i sympathize very much with that. from big farmers directly. they did not think it was exaggerated. don't know whether your constituents in south dakota feel the same or not. the problem we have is if they are not going to fix the big problem, the unfair trade practices, the abuse of intellectual property now, when are we ever going to fix it? it is very difficult to do.

it would have been a lot easier if prior administrations had dealt with that before. the president feels very committed that we have to put maximum pressure on any hope of fixing the problem. ofthere is a lot consternation in this foreign country about this. i hope things settle and stabilize, but in the long run, there are various concerns about restricting access to markets, rather than expanding. country, we have to do everything we can to grow our markets. seen negotiations going on with respect to some of these countries. >> mr. chairman, thank you.

>> the administration is trying. we were not able to hook push not goingjustify ahead with the tariffs. signs wehere are some make it -- may get some ultimate resolution. i don't think the chinese want a trade war any more than we do. the general view of the president is that the trade war was lost years ago. this is an effort to fix the outcomes that were unsatisfactory. you for being here. i have a letter from senators from back intman, march.

the letter asked the president to expand the scope of 232 to cover downstream electrical products. we are following that request with your office in the white house. steel manufacturer left in the united states and they have been hammereddo iorts of electrical steel and aluminum. dump products were as thed in the u.s., last domestic producer of electrical steel, of significant national security importance. i was glad to see the trade representative included these products on their 301 list. could you provide an update on where things stand with downstream electrical steel products? >> there is no doubt they will be included.

i believe the downstream products will be covered shortly on the electrical steel, as well as in other areas. if you heard from my opening remarks, but we have also supplied a supplemental list to other industries that we have become aware have had the same problem. instead of it coming in as raw steel or a relatively low degree of processing, it is coming in as more of a sophisticated product. working to deal with that. that is even worse than steel it -- steel itself coming in, because now you're getting another layer of jobs, how you at it, beyond the steel. we are totally cognizant of that.

unlike other considerations, that is something we believe we can very well deal with indy 301. as you know, we have a couple of major papers, with a lot of smaller papers, lots of jobs at stake when it comes to policy that affects those newspapers. you and i have spoken about this and i appreciate you taking the time to talk about it. conversations, regarding the initiation of the suspension agreement, i hope you have been giving the request in the accompanying data serious consideration and i hope you are taking the appropriate action to address those concerns. >> i just received your letter within the last couple of days.

the same request for those papers give us the information. i don't know if you hear when this question was raised before. eeing from these papers if -- is how much paper they used in a page. and, what is the subscription price, or the price of a have, so we can put it into perspective. any time you deal with products that have been dumped, someone will put in an increase. is that really an important increase, or is it just something which adds a little thato existing problems they have from internet and social media, that is unrelated to paper?

to the degree you can get your newspaper constituents to give us that data would be a great help. >> we will work on that you provide it. >> thank you, senator. chairman: senator brown. >> thank you. i would like to ask, if you would, i am going to ask a series of questions i would like answered. first of all, we want the electrical and steel issue resolved. -- identified steel mills steel mills as closed because of some 6500-und 2012, 7000 members have been deal -- laid off due to steel plant closures. this is all happened in the northeast quadrant of the state. the culprits behind

these layoffs is global steel overcapacity, which started as a singular chinese problem. my question is based on your 232 analysis. when you expect more steel mills to close, do you expect thousands more workers to be laid off? no traded states took enforcement action to address china steel overcapacity. >> yes. addresso agree we don't steel imports now. you agree and china intends to gain market share, not just in steel, but also in other sectors, down or up the supply chain? >> yes. >> given the role you have had , dorade talks with china

you think this would undercut negotiations of congress took action to weaken our trade enforcement tools? >> yes. >> thank you. wydennk the ranking member for his unspoken defense of trade remedy laws. last question. republican members of this committee have written a bill to review ford investment in the united states. gainow china is trying to u.s. market share by buying our companies right now. gain u.s. market share by buying our companies right now. the investments fall outside the scope of the committee of foreign investment in the united states outsider national review. we don't review them at all. should begin you the authority to review those investments and

give you another toward to fight against the chinese? we would like to get this into law as the administration can -- considers investment restrictions against china. >> we are happy to help you with anything that will make it to restrict the chinese investments here. know, we have placed some 446 trade actions against various countries were various infractions. of those, about half are against china. about 40% of that half are on steel. there are 60% of the products that are on steel that we to the degree could have the ability to pass

on anything the chinese were trying to acquire, it would be very useful. now, there is a construction as to what can be done. we will have help in that regard. >> this is to make clear for anybody listening. this is about chinese investment in the u.s., or other companies. are you prepared to take position in support of that bill at this point? prepared to take position in support of the objective. i have not read the bill in detail. endorsemento get an from the administration, but more than just in endorsement. thank you for your answers. my invitation for you as we talked about, as your nominations still stands. i hope you can still make it. >> thank you. lorraine is one of the facilities that has been re-open. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. secretary, thank you for joining us today. i am very concerned about the number of aspects of these 232 tariffs. seem to me that the administration has taken into account the fact that for every person who works in this steel production industry, it is probably 40 or more people who work in steel or more consuming industries. we are picking winners and losers and resulting, in my view, in far more jobs lost than gained. when company comes to mind, i have sent a letter to you. i sent it almost two months ago and i have not yet received a response. i would appreciate it if i could get a response. >>is in route to you. has been almost two months. many pennsylvania companies have applied for inclusions.

because they have been able to import a particular type of steel that is not commercially available in the u.s., they bring it into a facility they they't pennsylvania, where recently brought back almost 100 workers. they have total compensation packages on average that exceed $100,000 per worker. these are good jobs and every one of them is at risk. they have not heard anything since their submission in early april. i certainly hope they will get a proper response because these guys do not deserve to lose their jobs the cousin we have decided to impose taxes on american consumers of steel. i hope we will get a quick resolution to their situation. i think other circumstances are more difficult. i recently had a conversation with an executive from kraft heinz. co-headquartered in my state. heinz ketchup is the

quintessential american product. i do not pick i have had a day of my life that there ketchup has not been on the shelves in my kitchen. it is interesting. of nafta, and the free trade agreement we have with canada and mexico, kraft heinz decided to reorganize their production chains. they reorganize from canada to the united states. all of the ketchup that they manufactureda is in the united states. unsurprisingly, the canadians have decided that they will impose huge taxes on the sale of american ketchup. it is hard to imagine that this does not genetically the road their market share -- their marketerode share. i was not born yesterday. the solution for them to be able to continue to sell their product in canada would be to and down their u.s. factory

move to canada, then they would not be subject to these tariffs. i am very concerned about the direct consequences for the downstream steel and aluminum users, and we are seeing the threat to their jobs. i am concerned about the retaliation, which has not hit us yet, but it will hit the people who make craft and heinz products. i will like to follow up on a question that senator bennett was pursuing. with respect to section 232 tariffs on canadian steel, i did not hear a persuasive argument why the implication of these modest amounts of steel from canada amounts to a national security threat to the u.s. questionse the differently. what policy change with the canadians have to make? sot would they have to do that the administration would stop taxing my constituents on the steel that they buy from canada?

as i believe you know, from testimony from thessador light heiser, person from the media as well, we had initially exempted canada endingico from the 232, overall.ons of nafta unfortunately, those talks were not able to come to the conclusion. hasssador light hauser indicated publicly that he is optimistic that after the mexican election, which is the first of july of this year, that those talks could pick up steam again. our objective is to have it revitalize nafta. a nafta that helps america. 232's wouldhat, the logically go away.

both as it relates to canada and to mexico. >> i am about to run out of time. i am very deeply concerned that the provisions trade representative light heiser is proceeding, it would weaken nafta. would causevision nafta to expire in that kind of context i think we can expect the departure of investment from the united states, which would be harmful. i wish we would stop invoking national security. this is about economic nationalism and an economic policy of managing trade. when south korea is exempted from 232's securities because they agreed to lift a quota on american car exports, which we were not hitting anyway, they agreed we would punish our own consumers of south korean trucks. that has nothing to do with national security. my time is out, but i want to

urge that the commerce secretary to not impose these taxes on my consumers with respect to automobiles. since we are witnessing what i a wholly inappropriate use of the 232 tariffs, i would urge my colleagues to support making the final decisions about the tariffs. a couple of other questions mr. secretary. commerce department made a deal with zte. i was struck by the fact that during all of this, the trump administration had a nominee, an importantad counter intelligence post. this is an open hearing in the intelligence committee. we do not have very many. i asked him if he thought zte

was an espionage threat? been a part -- a bipartisan report on this in the past and he said yes. the commerce department has not entered into a deal with zte. theuestion is, does commerce department believe that the espionage threat that the counter intelligence nominee was concerned about -- does the department believe the espionage threat has gone away? sec. ross: i think it is a little more complicated question and a complicated answer. when the only powers that commerce has relate to enforcement of export controls, provisions byhose breaking the sanctions both to north korea and to iran. 2017, wehy in early

force them into a settlement agreement that was approved in court. that agreement provided for them to pay between escrows and billion, andver $1 to agree that in the event they had further violations of the agreement, that we could take one of two courses of action. confiscate the 300 billion that had been suspended as part of the original deal. and two was to shut them down. which is at bis, bureau of industry and security, that is the relevant part of commerce, they recommended that in punishment for the second thing that came up just recently, namely, march of this year, which was not further

sanctioned violations but rather usof that zte headlight to -- had lied to us during the negotiation process. they recommended that we grabbed a 300 million. i felt that that was not enough and therefore, initiated the action with the that we not do the 300 that we instead shut them down. when president trump made the request that we reconsider and see if there was some other way to deal with the behavior that is within our domain, which is not espionage, it is simply violation of export controls, we came with the new solution of anding them -- fining them billion dollars more and 400

million in escrow. toe importantly, the right put in a monitor of our choosing, a group of people of our choosing who would have zte.tered access to there has never been an enforcement case of either an american company or a foreign company were we have gotten that power. i believe, and i believe most people agree, that from a strictly enforcement point of which is all that commerce is empowered to deal with, from the strictly enforcement point of view, i think if this was our original solution everybody would have a plotted it. it is only with the other revolution about espionage. whoa, please mr.

secretary. recent revelation about espionage. i pointed out that the house on a bipartisan basis has been talking about the fact they think zte is an espionage threat for years. you certainly have a right to take the full five minutes to take me through this explanation, but i still have not gotten in answer -- an answer as to whether you and this administration agrees with him thinking it was an espionage threat. is holdould like to do the record open and have you give us in writing, and consult with your colleagues whether you an feel that zte is still espionage threat.

what i see in the trade area, knock theinly we need wind with differences. you have had one of the big challenges in building the bipartisan support for the president's trade policy where there is lots of opportunity to one together on enforcement, china and on upgrading nafta. it is virtually impossible to voicest how to different within the administration speak on trade. and in my view, seemingly contradict each other. an opensked him in intelligence hearing about whether he thought zte was an espionage threat, he did not have a three and a half minute answer. he had one word, yes, i consider espionage threat. let me ask you about one other

matter and we will await to have a written response. could we have that within a week with respect to zte is a current espionage threat to you and your associates in the administration? we will response all of the requests for written answers as promptly as possible. >> i would like that in a week because, as you know, we are continuing the debate here in congress with respect to zte. so, i hope that we will get this within a week. one other question with respect to proceedall intend in some of these areas. when there was discussion with respect to the tariffs on steel and aluminum, and how you are going to look at this going forward, i think you're prepared statement touched on this. you said you would of valuate it constitutes of what

good management and then you had other criteria. are you all going to be in the business of trying to create measures, or what constitutes these areasent for of the economy that are so important to american businesses? sec. ross: what i was referring our objectives in the steel and aluminum tariffs was to get the volume levels in the facility utilization levels they should bee able to be self-sufficient, able to support the necessary r&d, able to support the necessary capital expenditures, and therefore be viable as long-term entities. it is not that we are going to

pick and choose winners and it simplythat regard, was, what was our target, which is to get the operating rates up to where decent management could survive. >> one last question. we understand you have to go here at around 11:15. colleagues are coming back because of the vote schedule. on the auto investigation, i him curious who you talked with in connection with putting this all together. for example, did you talk to the united automobile workers? was this something that you all did as he tried to reach out? same thing with respect to business. by the way, i did not hear about it as the ranking democrat on committee,finance which troubled a lot of the members because there are consultation requirements embedded in the law. autoyou took on this

investigation, who did you consult with? sec. ross: we took it on, as you know, at the request of the president. comment fromr unions, from the members of the industry, from foreign countries, from the interest of parties from the public, it is just now beginning. i believe we have issued the public registered notice about hearings in common periods, . of therecent request american automotive industry, we have extended the deadline for so that theyk, can provide the full breath of information that they wish us to consider. have not talked to all of the participants because the investigation is just beginning. know, 232 is different

with respect to consultations. one of the concerns i have is that there ought to be more consultations with the congress. as far as i can tell, the way this process unfolded onto 232 is, you pretty much had one conversation. you had a conversation with the president. we talk about something with such sweeping implications for the american tonomy, we are going to have do better with 232 and consultation. i hope mike colleague made the second vote. >> i did. gavelhink we can hand the off to her. there may be other colleagues coming. >> i believe there are. there are others on the floor that have not yet question the secretary. you couldd be good if handle the remainder of the hearing because i have to take off. secretary, thank you for being here.

as someone who has listened to my colleagues across the aisle. for free markets and regulatory burden, i feel like i have gone down the rabbit hole as a relates to the issues we are discussing today. it appears to me that in a chaotic, and frankly incompetent manner, you are picking winners and losers on very technical basis according to all of the reporting we have without a great deal of training. the regulatory burden is so extreme on small businesses. for example, if someone gets a waiver for a very specific product, and i do not need to tell you with what kind of specificity in many of these companies are filing dozens of waivers based on having to file a different one for every slightly different product. very specific

product for one business does not even result in a waiver for another business with the exact same product. you are requiring that these waivers be filed every year, and many of these are small businesses. i want to tell you the story of one. the majority of nails that are manufactured in this country come from a company called mid continent now corporation in missouri. down theut an hour road from the aluminum smelter you referenced in your opening statement. it is the only large scale producer of steel mills in the united states. a produce over 50% of the nails made in america. the company has 500 workers in a town of only 17,000. they are the second largest employer in poplar bluff. so far, in response to the they have lost almost half of their business in one month.

due to price. they went from an average of 9000 tons of nails sold every month. 55june that dropped to hundred. in july the company will sell fewer than 4000 tons. the cost -- the customers can easily sourced nails manufactured in other countries. they have now laid off 60 of their 500 employees. they have idled their most sophisticated facility, and they are expected to cut 200 more jobs by the end of july. the company that has visited with us believes they will be -- of his us by labor day believes they will be out of business by labor day. inputs were so much cheaper. they have filed 24 separate exclusion requests, but there

will not be enough time for them to save their business. out the road, the smelter has added jobs. at the end of the day, we are going to lose more jobs an hour down the road at the nail company then we may gain in the smelter. this is what is happening. all of this have talked about this. i would love to save this company, i want to save this company, but there is something very wrong that people on this committee are able to jump the line with individual companies and have you call someone in kansas, or have you go back and figure out how you can help this nail company when there are thousands of and place across this country. potentially going to lose their jobs because on the day you announced the tariffs, you had not done the homework on what exclusions would be appropriate. that is what george w. bush did when he announced steel tariffs.

they announced exclusions on the very day. that is why it feels like what is going on over there, training people in three hour sessions with something so complex, feels chaotic and incompetent. sec. ross: let me address the several more marks -- remarks. theirtinent only filed exclusion request two days ago. reason, theyver did not file it on a prompt basis. sen. mccaskill: but filed it last week. sec. ross: we received it two days ago. i am not belittling their situation at all, that giving the importance, it is very unfortunate that they waited all these weeks to file the request. we weree authority granted, there is a process which we have to follow. sen. mccaskill: you could've excluded them on day one.

you have the ability to list exclusions on the same day you announce the tariffs. that was just a matter of homework. it took you a year to figure out the 232, why could it your experts figure out the exclusions that would obviously lie? is. ross: all i can tell you we can only deal with exclusions of which we are aware. they just filed there's very recently. that, istantively than do not think you were here earlier when i described the process. sen. mccaskill: it would be really helpful if you are going to bring charges like that if charges like that if you would give us all copies. i would be very happy to. we had just completed the charts last night. sen. mccaskill: you can use a copy machine. there is not that many members on the committee mr. secretary. secretary ross, we have had

many conversations about washington state and trade out large. weuess i would say this, kind of look at trade wars as a very 1980's retro policy. to in four jobs is related trade. whether aerospace or agriculture, or now seafood that will be impacted, when we have trade wars it impacts the washington economy in a major way. haveny of our businesses these thingsught that you are trying to fight but avoid thetried to trade war because in the end what happens is somebody pays the price and we are very concerned about agriculture. not only do we have 10 billion plus revenue from ag avoid the in our state, we push through in our port $182 billion worth of ag products. anything that affects ag affects

our state at large. ythingn the steel tariffs affects aerospace, now we are faced with the seafood issue. i guess what i am really trying to understand is, how do you game is going to support people who are in a sector that is paying the price in the short term? or, as many of my colleagues have said, this theory of job recovery in one area, but means tremendous risk and failure in other areas if these tariffs continue? sec. ross: the president's objective is not to end up with high tariffs. his objective is not to end up with a trade war. a do you think we are in trade war right now? i do. sec. ross: if i could finish. his objective is to get to a lowering of trade barriers, both

tariffs and untapped -- un tariffed ones and to protect intellectual property. because of restrictions imposed by the wto rules, there are rules wey few -- few have to encounter those objectives. the main seems to be one of trying to put pressure on china and on other parties who are doing what we view as un-toyed practices. the only way we are going to get them to change and protect another big industry in mainly one very dependent on a high very dependent on intellectual as they, as well industries of the present, is to on them.ure the purpose of this is to get to

an end game that is much closer to free trade than anything the world has seen before. thatragic fact is historically, we are the least protectionist country in the world. we have the deficits to show for it. it would have been much easier to solve these problems sooner. they were neglect did. the president has decided to take decisive action to deal with those problems now. that is what is our purpose. >> i just want to be clear, do you think we were -- we are in a trade war right now? sec. ross: as the president has often said, we have in at a trade war forever, the difference is, now our troops are coming to the rampart. >> i want you to hear me, apples and cherries are getting hurt. people who are farmers and small , individual businesses,

who fight every day to get access to asian markets, to india, to canada to mexico, they believe in a trade policy that keeps moving forward. why? because they gain access and there is a growing middle class. they get that we can grow things and the competitive that growing things even if there are more value added products. american agriculture can still win. what they cannot win at is if you push them off a's shelf base and they go out of business, they are not coming back. once you get whatever you get later, that person does not refinance their company and come back. they might be out of business forever. i do not think you are empathetic enough with the plight of agriculture. now seafood is on short margin and will be in the same spot. these people might go out of business while you are creating this trade war. mr. secretary,y

trade wars are not good, they are very damaging. for the state of washington they are very damaging. get whatike to try toner. information we can that either your department, or the treasury department has about what the administration's expectations out.or how this plays we know what tariffs the administration is planning to impose. we know that because they are your tariffs, correct? sec. ross: yes. hours and ustr. >> we probably have some pretty estimates andence x,clusions about if we do the chinese do why, -- y, the

canadians do y. we can probably predict what that trade countermeasures will be. ownn what we know about our terms and what we predict about countermeasures, presumably, somebody at commerce or treasury is thinking through how those inputs cascade into different industries, and what different industries have to look forward to. if you are senator cantwell and in your going -- boeing state, that is a pretty big company that can take care of itself and figure this out as best it can. but if you are a rhode island parks manufacturer with 30 employees were providing things to boeing, it is really hard to this unplanned or only

simply plans, or partly planned cascade of tariff consequences are going to come down and hit you. i guess my question is, what does the commerce department have. and at the extent of what you know it, what does the treasury department have by way of predictions as to how these trade conflicts will cascade into the american economy? would needs to worry the most. i assumed you looked at that kind of stuff before you embarked on this. i would like to see whatever it is that you've got. 232's, we as per the have justified before that the research we have done into the direct impact of the 232's on various segments of the economy. i think you are aware that we have testified that it was a fraction of a penny on a can of

campbell's soup. a fraction on a can of blood riser, a fraction on a can of fraction oneiser, a a can of coke. we have done those kinds of -- >> can we see those studies? would you let us have a look at them? can we make that a question for the record ? sec. ross: they are not -- record? sec. ross: they are not very difficult to figure out. >> if the government has that information it would be great if you could share it so the government knows what to expect. the proof that they are accurate is with all the complaints i have been voiced about the 232's. no one has refuted the percentages that i have quoted. >> i am not trying to refute them, i am trying to get access to them. i'm trying to get that to us. sometime a question for the

record goes in and nobody ever answers. upant to be able to call your legislative stash -- legislative staff later on and maybe it will help them get the information to us. did wass: what we also it work overall at the economy. command of the tariffs is a small fraction of a 1% of the gdp. it is not physically possible for the tariffs to have more an impact in that on the overall economy. >> i just want to make sure my request improves whatever planning or projections were done for the president announcements that he was going to jack up the china tariffs $200 billion. specific to that particular trade threat. i would like to see what

economic projections are as to how that plays through. sec. ross: that is not commerce. but i have you here, so i assume you have access to that material. they are not going to tell you you cannot see that. sec. ross: i really think the areer party to ask -- we the 232's. we are happy to relay the request of the u.s. trade house. going to are not answer this question, i should go knock on a different or in the same administration? >> there are different doors because we have different responsibilities and different functions. >> but you do have access to the materials, do you not? you exchanged documents, do you not? sec. ross: everyone has access. if you would like to submit that as a written request. >> that is what i will do, thank you.

>> secretary ross, good to have you back, you have been busy. i am supportive on cracking down on china, a think it is necessary. we have tried in the path -- in the past and it has not been successful. i also support what we are doing with regard to a better nafta accord. we need nafta, we need it badly, but we have to make sure it is up to you. i believe in leveling the playing field on trade. casese been winning consistently, including still cases because of unfair trade and subsidies. my concern is 232 and we have talked about this. it is a very extraordinary remedy the ought to be used very carefully and selectively. used for national security reasons, that is why it is,drafted to my concern the way we are using it now is

misusing it and having negative economic impacts in certain sectors. risks us not having this tool in the future. although the wto is not yet adjudicated, if we are pushing the envelope beyond national security, we lose the tool that could be important for us in a trueional curity situation. concern of the application to canada, as example. country's number one export market. mexico, the eu, i do not see the national security perspective there. i have looked back and try to figure out, what did we need back in the 1960's when we came up with this bill? it has not been used in over 30 years. george bush tried to use it and his secretary commerce that it is not a national security concern so he had to use another measure. it does not require any showing of material entry. unusual in terms of our trade laws.

when you look back at the then chairman of the ways and means committee, he said this needs to be used to be sure we are helping our allies, not hurting them. he said it would inevitably result in experts being a burden on the domestic industry. domestica burden on industry, but a disadvantage to national security. speaking of damages, ohio is disproportionally hit harder than any other state by the canadian retaliatory tariffs because of 232. i get your argument that we have a global glut in steel. china is the reason. 15 years ago they had 15% of production, now they have 50% of the world production, they do not need it. winning these are cases, including almost 300% tariffs from china today. beelieve that the act are to used more aggressively.

something i worked on what senator wyden and others in this stopttee, we are china to the shipments were china sense their product to one country and it is sent to us. are notcingort. protection border has a huge role to play there. in regards to canada and mexico there is a solution we should look to. let's measure trade shipment. my understanding is we do not know to the extent if there is any trends shipment. we are not accusing them of unfair trade shipments. let's have a trigger in place where should that happen, we can react. it seems like that would be inappropriate part of the nafta negotiations. how would you feel about an approach of measuring shipments and then have an approach as opposed to using 232? present, there is no measurement being conducted because customs and border are not very interested in things that are ship between two between two shipped

countries that have no tariffs between each other. we do not have definitive data of what is going on. trans shipment through china and canada. we have seen all kinds of trans shipment with or without slight ofification of product getting around the existing enforcement action we have taken. you are well aware we have some 440 trade actions in force, including the one we just put in on the welded large diameter of pipe in china. rules require great andificity as to product origin. if they make a small modification, a steel barb like

this, if they put a little ti flange on it, we have to start over. i appreciate your response, that is why we wrote the act, to get in those kinds of situations. i understand that you are saying it does not prioritize the issue as much as you would like them, apparently. we agree, that is why we wrote the law. before we take these extraordinary actions and risk the possibility of using 232 in the future, i think the next time it will be very problematic given that we are using it without national security. what is the basis for a national security concern with regard to automobiles? sec. ross: we are at the early stages of the investigation on the auto industry. we clearly do not have conclusions. were are a few things that are very concerned about. one of which is the automotive

trade deficit that we have been experiencing. if you look at the overall trade deficit -- we are going to put -- putchart to show you up a shot -- eight chart to show you why it is so dramatic. the amount ofare trade deficit each year. starting about 1985 we had small trade deficits in autos. now we have huge once pushing 140 billion a year. we have a similar one in auto parts. my time and i apologize, i wish we had more time. maybe we can do a second round and i know you have to leave. my point is not that we do not have a need to balance trade, it

is what fools we use. if we use to 32, which looks back at the legislative history, it has only been used three times since the 1960's when it was written. it has not been used in over 30 years because other commerce departments said it is not a national security concern. industry is the number one exporter in america. cars and auto parts is the number one exporter. losing those markets is a big deal to the auto companies as well. it is a highly integrated industry. the supply chains are complicated but they are international. we continue tot make progress on a level of playing field, reciprocity. doing get with the tools we have at our disposal with unfair trade, the deal with surges, the deal with countries that

subsidize and be very, very cautious in terms of how we extend beyond that because i think that will end up hurting our workers and our economy. i look forward to continuing to work with you on this. time iss: the witnesses supposed to leave her at 11:15. the senator has a short statement and we can finish up that way. time and it your appreciate you staying here this morning. he speak for, which is the voters of the state of georgia. press end of the conference you held up in aluminum can a reference that it would ly be pennies for the cost of that can. the largest producer of soft drinks in the in -- in the united states is coca-cola. is penny times a billion

for coca-cola and other products. they are sold every single day by their retail outlets. the same is true with everybody else. although a couple of pennies on , we are not much getting into a war that will cost lots of billions of dollars. we need to make sure we know where we are going before we found out we got there and it is the wrong place to be. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i was listening to your exchange and what i agree on. we wantrcement rules, them used. the problem is, the way this administration is using 232 is unprecedented in and not what was anticipated with that authority given by congress. you also have, as you pointed out, the framework for international trade on wto, it

does not cov things we would like to see it cover. i have not seen the administration work within the wto to make that more favorable towards the u.s.. trade agreements, we had elevated the standards. that had worked to help american companies. sensitive seem to be to try to deal with these issues on that level. i share the concern that we are getting into a trade war. it don't understand the administration's strategy. as we talked to some of our key partners, some of which we have trade balance is with that are scratching their heads as to why we are taking actions against one of our nato allies. it raises significant concern in the matter of which the administration is going about the trade. some of the issues that have been raised in regards to the

companies. i am the ranking democrat on the small business committee. small companies do not have an army of lawyers that can help deal with exemption of products. they cannot deal with the way that the original process was set up for exemptions. it does not work for small companies. we need to have some sensitivity for them to be able to get the help they need in order to make an appropriate case to you for an exemption of product line. i would urge you to work with us and the small business community so we can find a streamlined process. perhaps through their industry representatives, so that they can pursue proper exemptions for these rules. not ross: i think you were here earlier when i described some of the changes that we have made. one of them is, -- >> i heard that exchange. it is not working. sec. ross: i do not agree with

that. it is working, but there are that aree periods required. like the one that senator mccaskill mentioned complaining that we had not granted an exclusion to a request that was filed a few days ago, after weeks and weeks and weeks during which it could have been filed. it is not our fault that people file late. i put up a chart to four, the number of filings that are still considerable.uite exclusiondeal with an request that has not been filed. you set upess that makes it extremely challenging for a small company to pursue a product line exemption. sec. ross: the only way that we can deal with it is very specific products. becauseonized code,

that is the only way the customs and border patrol can deal with things and implement them. we have no choice. would you let a trade organization filed a claim on behalf of a business? how to they have the capacity to do this? sec. ross: here is the reason that does not work, sir. tradely way the association will mold a harmonize code numbers, which are up to 10 digit numbers, the only way to know them is to get them from the individual members. adding another step to the process not only would not accelerate it, it would slow it down. that it is better and essential to have the individual companies filed individual , and 29,00orome such number has already been filed. >> we are going to have to disagree on this. i am telling you, from our

perspective of the small business role that i play, it is not working for a lot of small companies. they effectively cannot pursue this so they do not have the capacity to do this. sec. ross: i do not mean to be argumentative, but i find it hard to imagine that even a small company does not know the harmonized code number of the products they buy. hard timea understanding why trade association could not do the on behalf of a small company. sec. ross: ok. has been good. i want to thank you all for your attendance and participation. i want to thank you secretary ross for your patience and being here and answering questions. your willingness to appear and answer our questions. i asked that any member who wishes to submit a question for the record do so by friday, june 27. with that, we will get you going so you can meet your schedule. this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. we areup this morning, in juneau, alaska for the next up on the 50's capitals tour.

alaskan governor bill walker is are just starting at 7:45 a.m. eastern. a texas democratic congressman capitals tour.discusses border d u.s. immigration policy. iowa republican congressman steve king talks about child separations. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal." live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. here is what is life on the c-span networks thursday. the house works on two morning. join the discussion.immigration. they air at 9:00 a.m. eastern. legislative work at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. on c-span2, senate continues work on 2019 federal spending package, including water, military construction and veteran affairs. on c-span3, ahead of the securities and exchange commission, jay clayton testifies in the oversight hearing. the committee hearing begins at 10:00 a.m. a number of president trump's ambassador nominee's take

questions at a confirmation hearing. they include nominees for the european union, belgium and zimbabwe. that is at 2:00 p.m. >> next, a look at the u.s. response to russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. a former state department official testified that other u.s. adversaries like china may begin to emulate russia's efforts to influence u.s. elections. the senate intelligence committee hearing is chaired by senator richard burr of north carolina. >> i call this into order.