>> i'm the executive director of the alaska council for administrators and from our perspective, the most important thing in alaska is to give a long-term sustainable fiscal plan in place for our state which has ongoing revenue outside of our nonrenewable resources. really, primarily because we need to stabilize education across the state. our educators need to feel that their funding, which is a constitutional duty in alaska, is stable so they can stabilize their schools and most important, i think for all of us, is to educate our students and the best way to do that is a stable school. >> be sure to join us july 21 and 22 when we'll feature our visit to alaska. watch "alaska weekend" on c-span, c-span.org, and listen n the free c-span radio app.

>> coming up this afternoon, the u.s. house will return at 2:00 p.m. eastern to start legislative work for the week. on the agenda for the day, 20 suspension bills with votes at about 6:30 eastern. also expected this week, a vote on whether to go to conference with the senate to work out differences on a bill authorizing defense policy and programs for the next fiscal year. it is also possible the house will bring up a vote on immigration and border security legislation that was debated last week. as always, you can follow the house live right here on c-span. until then, we'll bring you commerce secretary wilbur ross' testimony before the senate finance committee. he briefed members on the recent tariff actions. we'll start with the secretary's opening statement. secretary ross: chairman hatch, ranking member wyden and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the actions we have

taken to assure the continued viability of our important steel and aluminum industries. the reports i submitted to the president this past january, pursuant to section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962, found that steel and aluminum imports threaten to impair our nation security. he imposed a 25% tariff onle steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports. the tariff actions taken by the esident are necessary to revaive america's essential -- revive america's essential

steel and aluminum industries. they have been harmed that allowing imports to continue unchecked threatens to impair our national security. the tariffs on steel and aluminum are anticipated to reduce imports to levels needed for these industries to achieve long-term viability. in the short term, since the imposition of the section 232 tariffs, industry already has started taking actions to restart eyedled facility. eyedled steel and aluminum capacity is being -- idled steel and aluminum capacity is being restarted as we sit right here in ohio, illinois, missouri, south carolina, 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 y domestic production or for a specific national security considerations. today, we are announcing our first determinations, a 98 exclusion request for steel products. ranting 42 and denying 56. commerce has received more than 20,000 steel and aluminum exclusion requests, including resubmissions and has posted more than 9,200 for public review and comment.

commerce also received more to 2,300 objections exclusion requests. review of exclusion requests and related objections is being nducted as it must be on a case-by-case basis, but we have made some major progress in reforming and improving the process. i'll describe a couple now. first of all, we'll be accelerating the processing of exclusion requests by immediately granting those which are correctly submitted and for which no objections have been received during the public comment period. commerce is making an unprecedented effort to process the requests expeditiously. we also are developing a list of downstream products that

have been hurt by imports since the tariffs have been imposed and we are incorporating as many of these as are logical to the list that we are recommending for inclusion in $200 tariff listing of billion that will be released shortly. we've already found some 50 products that will be included in that list. the public comment period on the interim final rule for these decisions ended on may 18, and we're reviewing the comments received to assess whether any further revisions to the process are necessary. finally, on may 23, after a conversation with the president, i initiated a proceeding under section 232 to determine whether imports of automobiles and automotive

parts into the united states threaten to impair the national security. this investigation will examine the united states' production capabilities and the technologies needed for projected national defense requirements as well as the adverse effects of foreign competition on our internal economy. . secretary. let me just start off, section 232 statute.

requires that the secretary of commerce consider the domestic production that's needed for projected national defense requirements. senator hatch: when you decided self-initiate a section 232 investigation into automobiles and auto parts, what were the projected national defense requirements for these products that you had identified? secretary ross: as you know, the investigation, mr. chairman, has just begun. so we do not have the detailed answers to any of those questions. what we have done as required by section 232, i immediately sent a notification letter to general mattis as secretary of defense asking for his input. just as we had under the steel and aluminum investigations. as you are aware in the case of steel and aluminum, general

mattis wrote back to us that he accepts the proposition of the threat to national security arising from the imports of steel and aluminum. i have no idea at this early stage what his attitude will be on the automotive sector, but it is a factor that we efinitely will consider as required by the statute and even more as required by good mmonsense -- common sense as we consider these automotive and auto parts environment. senator hatch: product-based exclueses from the steel and aluminum tariffs are available in two circumstances, where a product is not available domestically in the quality or amount needed, and when national security considerations warrant. -- warrant an exclusion. however i understand the commerce department is refusing any exclusions from

the products that limit the volume of steal and aluminum products any exclusions america from certain countries. what is the national security justification for refusing to grant exclusions from quotas where in the same circumstances the same product would be excluded from tariffs? secretary ross: thank you for that question, mr. chairman. the president's proclamation does not authorize us to grant exclusions from quotas. there are very few countries that have quotas in any event. those are principally the -- most important one of which is south korea, and that does have a quota which is exwall to 70% of the average shipments, product byproduct, from 2015 through 2017. in addition, bra zigs and argentina va greed to quotas --

have agreed to quotas. those three are fundamentally the quotas that exist. we're taking into consideration the requests that have been made for exclusions based on quotas that have already been exceeded or shortly will. the problem is that a number of countries rammed in a huge amount of product prior to the president's decisions. and therefore have put in much more than they had in the prior year. so there is an intellectual challenge as to whether or not to reward those countries that system. ng to game the nonetheless, we're giving real consideration to requesting the president to consider whether the similar exclusions should s nonetheless, we're giving real be granted it knows countries subject to quota as opposed to the ones we're granting to

those countries that are subject to tariff rates. senator hatch: the process that the commerce department is administering for the benefit to request product bsh based exclusions from the steel and aluminum tariffs has had, in my opinion, many serious flaws and problems continue to surface. or instance, some subject to objections in their view contain inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading claims. and they would like to rebut those claims. however, i understand the commerce department has provided no formal channel for submitting rebuttals on .gov where all the requests and objections must be filed. will the commerce department accept rebuttal comments on rejections? if so will petitioners be able to submit their rebuttals to

the regulations.gov website? secretary ross: i would like to put up chart number one which will describe to you the statistics on the section 232 processing. i hope it's large enough type that can be viewed but on the off chance that your vision is read as mine, i'll also you the information. by type of submission in case of steel, we have received 20,000 2003 exclusion requests. 2,500, se of aluminum totallying -- totaling 22,506. against those there have been bjections filed in the case of 3,939 items in steel, and 98 items in aluminum.

r a total of 4,can 037 exclusion -- 4,037 exclusions. in terms of comments we have received during the comment eriod 383 comments on steel, 51 comments on aluminum for a total of 434. so the total submissions in the ase of steel are 24,325. in the case of aluminum, 2,652. 26,977.grand total of of the exclusion requests, we have posted 8,168 in the case of steel, we have, of course, we have rejected 2,513. the rejections are in addition to the ones posted.

9,310 for a ng total of 20,003. in the case of aluminum, we have 9,310 for a posted 1,828. we have rejected 420. we have pending 253. or a a total of 2,503. that comes to the same total 22,506 of exclusion requests. in terms of objections, we have posted 1,765 in the case of steel. 52 in the case of aluminum. a total of 1,817. we have rejected 230 in the case of steel, five in the case of aluminum total of 235. we have pending 1,944 in the case of steel. 41 in the case of aluminum.

total, 1,985. the grand totals, there were 3,939 objections filed in steel and 98 in aluminum for a total of 4,037. the timing is in chart two. these are the steel submissions by week. and you can see, or will be able to see in a moment, that there was a big peak realized on the week of the 14th 6 may -- of may of this year. and that single week we received 3,175 requests. those are the large blue bars that you see on the chart. those have now tapered off quite a bit. the exclusion can request 6/11 ed in the week ended

1,481. r are only in terms of the ones posted, those are the grade bars -- gray bars, and you can see 1,48 in that starting to go down as well because we're eating through the backlog. the orange bars are the objections filed. and you'll see that bar is growing very rapidly. as the exclusion requests have become a little bit seasoned, the objections come in. and then finally, the yellow very small bars are the objection filings posted. pretty well pretty well catchi up with the backlog that was created. a similar pattern in aluminum n chart three.

in the case of aluminum, the request for exclusion peaked in the weekend in the case of aluminum, the request for exclusion peaked in the weekend of the 7th of may at 769 that week. and has gone down to 210 in the most recent week. of exclusion requests posted, that's again the gray bar and you can see how that's going up. we manage to post in the week of june 4, 602 . the case of the orange bar again is objection filings. and the yellow bar, the very, very small one, is objection filings posted. so there is no huge backlog a ause as you know there was mandatory objection period prior to which we could not grant anything. so you will start seeing more or less every single day batches of exclusions being acted upon. based on what we have seen so far, though, there is a high

probability that relatively few of those will be granted because many of them have no substance and/or have potential substance but have objection that is are well-grounded posted against them. i hope that gives you a bit of a feel for both the magnitude of the chore in terms of the number of requests received, and the fact that we're making very good progress in dealing with them. it's also important to note that under the president's proclamation, whatever the date when an exclusion request is granted, it's granted retroactive to the date when that objection was posted. so even if it takes a few days longer for people to be granted an exclusion, they really won't suffer meaningful economic harm

because it will be retroactive whatever tariffs they paid will be refunded to them quite promptly. i hope that helps to clarify that part of your question, sir. senator hatch: senator wyden, out of my time. could i just make an objection after hearing all that. >> it sounds to me like we got a government-run mercantilist economy as opposed to a free market economy. senator wyden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, look, your charts notwithstanding, america's small businesses believe they are being held hostage in a bureaucratic twilight zone waiting to see if going to escape. and you don't have to take my word for it, mr. secretary. here's what going one of the to officials in the commerce department said this morning in

the newspaper. he is quoted as saying that the process on these tariff exclusion issues is, quote, going to be so unbelievably random. and some companies are going to get screwed. these people are making dollar lion unbelievably uninformed decisions. mr. secretary, those are not my words. those are the words of a top official in your department as of this morning. now, the number of companies, and every single member of this committee is hearing from small businesses, every one. the number is staggering. you planned on receiving 6,000 applications for exclusion. so far you have gotten 21,000. now we're going to review your path today, but as far as we can tell, what you have done is going to address something like

applications, and by the way, adding further concern is this top official, who was quoted this morning, says you've only applications, and b the way, adding begun training am on how to process the -- applications. so every week it just seems to me there is more and more bedlam and i'd like to start with a question of whether you how the ied with product exclusion process is working now. that's a yes or no answer. are you how the satisfied? secretary ross: thank you for raising those questions. first of all as to this unnamed anonymous allegedly high commerce official, i don't take very seriously comments that are made by people who are probably disgruntled for some other reason when they are anonymous.

i don't think that that's a very good basis for anything. but more importantly, on the substance of it, the person is totally incorrect in saying we have only begun to train people. what is correct is that it took a long time for the congress to give us through the appropriations process the right to add people that we had requested. and they have not given us the full amount that we requested. between it being delayed and smaller than what we had equested, that's why the new people that finally hire, ermission to about a million dollar worth of them, those are the people being trained. so it simply shows this anonymous source is not very well informed as to what is actually going on.

that's simply wrong. senator wyden: i can tell you want to dismiss the criticisms, but what he said, mr. secretary, is consistent with what every single member of this committee is hearing from home. i have companies that employ hundreds of workers in our state making steel pipe fittings. cutting blades for the sawmill industry. a wide variety of industrial products caught up in this process. i was just home. endless are these stories. i've got to tell you, i think it is a real head slapper. it will endless be certainly ba to the small businesses to check in with all of us on this committee for anybody that hears that this process is going well. it is not going well. and i think i'd like to close with a very sesk request, as you can see, the chairman and i have been working on these matters and i don't think the

improvements that you have talked about are going to be adequate. i would like to ask you this morning to commit to providing this committee on a bipartisan basis within a week a specific timetable and specific fixes so that the small businesses and the workers who are contacting us can really have a sense of what's going to happen. will you make a commitment to do that and get it to us within he next week, mr. secretary? secretary ross: i'll be happy to send to you within the next week our program. but it's impossible to commit to a specific timetable when we don't know how many requests are yet to come in. so that's one big problem.s: as you can see there are requests still coming in. but if you do the hallmark, you'll find that there are very, very few requests that have ended the comment period more than about a dozen days

without response. senator wyden: the reason i'm asking for this plan within a week is i don't think your department did a lot of homework at the front end which is one of the reasons we're having the problems. big proble. as you-all planned on receiving 6,000 applications for exclusion. so far you have gotten 21,000. so respectfully i will tell you i don't think enough homework was done at the front end. i want to make it clear i am expecting to see within a week to the chairman, myself, and all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis an actual timetable on how we're going to get this fixed. because i will tell you respectfully, nothing i have heard this morning sounds like we're going to be on top of this any time soon. thank you, mr. chairman. senator hatch: senator grassley. grassley: i heard grassley: i question by our name about auto parts and this relates to it but it's more specific.

232 announcement 232 announcem the administration released may 24 states that it will apply to light duty autos and auto parts. now many auto parts share the same product code in the auto mowive chapter -- automotive chapter of the harmonized schedule with other similar products such as heavy duty trucks, bus, construction equipment, and industrial engines. for example, water pumps used in the cooling system of the construction equipment are classified as, quote, fuel lubricating or cooling medium pumps for internal combustion piston engines, end of quote. the harmonized tariff schedule code does not differentiate between auto and construction equipment parts. is it the administration's to impose tariffs up to

25% on all these parts for every country around the world, even impose tariffs up to 25% on all these parts for every country around the world, even if they don't necessarily go into automobiles? secretary ross: at this early stage in the investigation we do not have the data to make any of those decisions. but the intention is to deal with automotive parts not to deal with parts throughout the economy. i can assure you of that. but there also has been no decision made as to whether to recommend tariffs at all. we're at the early stages of the process. we have invited the various participants in the industry to make their submissions. they requested some extra time. so we gave them an extra week to do so. so we're trying to go about this in a very judicious and very open, transparent, and fair manner. we will try our very best to

avoid there being any unintended consequences such as the ones you have described. and i have taken note of what you said and we will undertake to deal with that as we go through the process. senator grassley: i think that would be a pretty satisfying answer to manufacturers other than cars in my state. question two, you mentioned in your testimony that several u.s. steel plants are expected to come back online as a result of steel and aluminum tariffs. do you think it will take for production from these facilities to impact and lower the price of steel here in the united states by increasing supply? secretary ross: it should do yo fairly quick. u.s. steel announce add couple months ago fir first restart which was a million tons. they subsequently announced the second restart of the million and a half tons. that's 2.5 million tons of

steel. that's the better part of $2 billion worth of steel right there. it's coming. exactly what month it will come, i don't know. but by around the end of the year that problem should be really well addressed by most of these new restarts of facilities. what has been happening and is a very unsatisfactory thing, there has been a lot of speculative activity storing inventory, withholding product from the market by vare yoice -- various intermediary parties. o the price of steel and for a while the price of aluminum up far more than is justified by the tariffs. so we are starting an investigation into that trying to find out whether there are people who illegitimately are profiteering out of the tariffs.

there is no reason for up far m justified by the tariffs. so we are tariffs to increase the price of steel by far more than the percentage of the tariff. and yet that's what has been happening that clearly is not a result of the tariff. it's clearly a result of anti-social behavior by participants in the industry. senator grassley: my last point is something you don't directly deal with but i want to make this point. it's not a question to you. it's just a message i would like to have the administration get. i realize that section 301 intellectual property investigation is not in your jurisdiction, but since you are the person here representing the administration, i convey this point to you from what i hear from my constituents. the impact of the proposed tariff is getting very real. we watch the soybean markets start to collapse from an upper range to a mid $8 range.

yesterday down 40 cents i believe. as an example, losing range to national average soybean yield 49 bushel per acre equates to farm losing $61.25 an acre because of these movements. even if 49 bushel per acre equa sell their physical crop right now, the sudden volatility in the market can increase the ost of hedging and in some cases require margin calls for those who are long the in the market. i would request you and others in the administration and particularly peter navarro, to be appear of the pros and consequence of the statements to the press on the -- these trade issues, and be very diplomatic with comments. thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary ross: senator, i would be happy to relay your comments to the parties you described. as you know, the president has

directed the secretary of agriculture to use every power that is at his disposal to help the agriculture parties who are adversely affected by retaliation. i will communicate what you have said to the white house. senator grassley: we heard the president say that to the secretary of agriculture and in the process all the senators around the table said we don't want money from the treasury. we want markets. thank you. senator hatch: senator. >> just to follow up on chairman grassley's question. what do you mean by that? what do you mean -- what are you going to make available to our farmers and ranchers? what do you propose when -- sitting ssador was there, he said your farmers and ranchers have my sympathy because they'll be the first suffer hat will

retribution. senator bennett: i said they don't need your sympathy. they need to act reasonbly. what do you propose for our natural r farmers and ranchers. what you do you mean the secretary of agriculture should do everything he can do? i think opposes these policies. secretary ross: i'm not in detail familiar with all of the tools the secretary -- senator bennett: how can you not be familiar with them? you come here and testified that's how you are going to solve the issue. it's like describing these steel prices as anti-social behavior not a result of the tariffs. that's not true. secretary ross: i disagree with you. senator bennett: anti-social behavior even accepting that description was even pronoked by the tariffs. secretary ross: no, sir. they viewed the tariffs as an opportunity for them to profiteer. senator bennett: thank you. they are related to the tariffs. what do you propose the

agriculture secretary should do? a policy opposed by my republican colleagues, but what should they do? secretary ross: it's up to the secretary of agriculture to come. because each of the segments of agriculture is quite a different segment. i think he heard very clearly the comment from the farm state representatives that they don't want government aid. well, we have no control over what another country does in retaliation. but what the president just did announce to try to discourage retaliation when the chinese on the 301 announced that they would watch the $50 billion of product that we have put tariffs on, with their $50 billion, the president put tariffs -- said he will put tariffs on $200 billion. that's a very significant number -- senator bennett: sounds like the beginning of a trade war to

me, mr. secretary. i think the sensitivity maybe on capitol hill might be we're looking at $1 trillion deficit next year, the largest deficit that we have seen outside of a recession or outside of a war because of this administration's policies. my point is, i don't think you are going to have any backstop for our farmers and ranchers. and to blindly pursue these policies without considering what happens to them, i think is a huge mistake. i'd like to ask you following on to the chairman's questions of you, mr. secretary. what is it about the canadian steel industry that is a national security interest threat to the united states? secretary ross: the canadian steel industry is not being accused of directly and individually being a security threat. senator bennett: what is our trade deficit in steel with canada? secretary ross: we don't have a trade deficit. senator bennett: do we have a surplus?

secretary ross: yes. we have a surplus in dollars. may finish my answer. we have a surplus in collars. -- dollars. we do not have a surplus in -- ical value senator bennett: what is the national security threat of the trade surplus that the united states has with canada in steel? secretary ross: the national security implication is in the aggregate, all of the steel. senator bennett: what is the national security basis for the tariff that you have placed on canada? i understand what we're supposed to be doing with china. i don't understand why the president's not focused on it. i don't understand why he's excluding z.t.e. i don't understand it. what is the national security rationale for putting a tariff on the canadian steel industry with whom we have a trade surplus? secretary ross: if would you let me finish the answer.

the reason the tariff is being put on essentially all countries, most of whom are friendly countries and have good relations with us, and some others of which also have surpluses with us, the reason it has to be a global solution ask, if you just looked at the raw data -- solutions, is if you just looked at the raw data is a uldn't think china problem for the us. what they have been doing is masking their exports to us by shipping them through other countries. the raw data, if you just believed the raw numbers, china's shipping less to us than they did five years ago. the reality is quite to the contrary. they are disrupting global steel markets. they are causing both direct and indirect damage to it. so we have to do it on a global basis. the good news -- i'm not quite finished.

the good news is that as a direct result of the 232's, suddenly europe is enacting safe wards against steel dumping into europe. they didn't do much before. canada's taking action. japan for the first time has created an enforcement body within them to deal with the problem. the only way we're going to solve the global steel overproduction and overcapacity is by getting all the other countries to play ball with us. while they are complaining bitterly about the tariffs, the fact is they are starting to of action which if they had taken sooner would have prevented this crisis. senator hatch: your time is up. senator roberts. of action whic if they had taken sooner senator roberts: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for coming today. i know you expect me to focus

by ariffs as ably described my colleague from colorado. and putting agriculture commodities in a retaliation bull's eye that is an ongoing and critical challenge for everyone in farm country. i would like to start off my question by providing you with an update on the effects of the steel and aluminum tariffs are having in kansas and locally. first, i want to let you know our wheat harvest has just started. the expecting total will be the lowest in 40 years. we're in a rough patch. yesterday the closing price in dodge city, here's the farm report, for wheat was down about 70 cents per bushel. corn about three sent. soar gum four cents. i was in my office when the decision was made on the solar panels and washing machines.

office, at the white house when that happened. and the sorghum production were there and they lost 80 cents on white house the dollar. ore problems with that as we continued. soybeans down about 20 cents. 245 would have been worse if -- that would have been worse if it hadn't rebounded over the course of the day. we usually have oiler wheat exported to next -- our wheat exported to mexico. the wheat producer in kansas. we have wheat on the ground from last year's crop. this year's crop, as i said, was the lowest in 40 years. mexico's buying their wheat from argentina, their corn from brazil. that's the problem. we could be in a situation we lose that market. and our -- we wouldn't be a reliable supplier. once you do that, are you in a lot of trouble in the trade business. i want to talk about recently

the owner and operator of shield agriculture equipment, mike, contacted me about the rising cost his business is experiencing due to steel tariffs. this is one example. i guess he's in exclusion perfectingtory with one of the 42,000 you are trying to deal with. shield ag is a small business in kansas. it employs 42 people. the company designs and manufacturers and distributes tools and hardware. his company uses steel from manitoba, canada, it make their shields v. blades a. key component of blade plows. farmers use this for conservation efforts. the steel not available from any other mill in the united states. due to tariffs on steel, shield ag's cost of production for this single replacement blade

is $85,000. shield ag has smit an exception request but yet to see it posted on the regulation website. it is a cumbersome and slow exclusion process. i know you need people, and i know you need funds to pay the people. in the absence of an exemption, shield ag will no choice but to pass the rising cost of production on their customers, primarily farmers and ranchers. he does not want it do that and they are in no situation to pay for it. what will be the impact of tariffs on steel and aluminum? mike knows. as to many small and medium sized enterprises who are seeing price increases now and have been for months. i think a case can be made that these businesses are paying the price for the administration's negotiating strategy. secretary ross i think it's imperative you and your department understand the

current impact not only with regards to farmers and ranchers and the entire ag industry, but also the small business community. the so-called little guy. so when mike called and talked to my staff, he asked who can i call? what can i do? i talked to him. i sympathized with him. but obviously you can only do so much as a senator. and also the chairman of the ag committee. i told him about the hearing today. and he made a request. and i made a request to you earlier and i appreciate your response and that is you give mike a call so you could hear first hand the tough choices small and medium sized businesses are making due to these tariffs. he gets up every morning at 5:30. that would be 6:30 our time. i know your time is extremely valuable. you have indicated you are going to give me a call. i gave you the card, little

background sheet. i appreciate your willingness to give him a call because his example is a classic with regards to small businesses up and down main street in rural and small town, america. thank you. secretary ross: thank you, senator. from your description of his situation, it sounds like it's one for which the exclusion process was specifically designed. a unique product, unique form of steel. not available from here. and if there's no objection, which if there is no u.s. manufacturer, it's hard to imagine there would be objection filed, if none of that happens, there's no reason he wouldn't be granted an exclusion. as i promised you before, i promise you now on the record, i'll call him no later than tomorrow morning. it may not be quite as early as 6:30, but i'll get either today or quite early tomorrow.

senator roberts: if you could move him to the top of the list. i'm not sure that's the way we ought to do business. secretary ross: do you know, senator, when he filed the request for the exclusion? senator roberts: i do not know that. ail be happy to get back to you. secretary ross: as you know. there is a statutory senator, w filed the request for the exclusion? senator waiting period that we have. we can't do anything until that will clock has tolled. and therefore until we have received whatever oakses -- objections there may be. it can could well be he's in that period. if he's out of the period, we'll do our best to accelerate. senator hatch: senatorencely. senatorencely: i'm going to have a -- senator inslee: i'm going to have a different question. in january, were you submit add section 232 petition for relief from imports of foreign uranium that threatened our national security. according to the recent ukraine number marketing annual report

u.s. 17 released by the energy information administration. necessaryic uranium comprised only 7% of the total ukrainian delivered to the nuclear power reactors. our overrelaylyance on uranium from foreign countries has create add significant national security threat and hamstrung our domestic uranium producers. senator enzi: the problem is particularly important in my home state of wyoming. we account for 2/3 that have domestic uranium will the commerce department initiate an investigation based on this petition. when can we expect that to begin? secretary ross: i'm quite familiar with that situation and i have among other things been discussing it with secretary perry. as you know energy comes very much -- directly under him. we will be making a decision very shortly as to whether to nitiate a 232 investigation.

it's complicate bide some prior agreements that exist -- complicated by some prior agreements. we're sorting through it and will come to a conclusion very, very quickly. i think your figures are quite accurate about the extreme dependence that our country has on foreigners that are not necessarily always our friends for the supply of aluminum. but we're going right now through the process of trying to come to a passional conclusion about whether or not -- rational conclusion about whether or not to self-initiate the 232 on aluminum. senator enzi: i appreciate that and your answer. congress has enacted trade entity laws such as anti-veiling and counter dumping, in an effort to protect domestic industries. in the case of uncoded ground wood tariffs imposed to benefit

one mill will result in significant harm to our rural newspapers. how should the commerce department approach case where is the protection of one portion of an industry can lead to significant harm to another portion of the same domestic industry? given congress did not enact the trade elremedy laws to harm the overall economy, how does commerce ensure that congress' intent is achieved? secretary ross: among the data that we have requested from the newspaper industry, which frankly has yet to be forthcoming, is just how much r page for each of their publications does this mean. the only ones we have gotten data for have been publications does this mean. pr the petitioner. his figures show it's a very trivial thing both for major newspapers such as "wall street journal," and for small

newspapers such as the one in the pacific northwest where he operates. we have been seeking from the industry and some of the members of congress have been helpful in going back to their newspaper constituents and asking, please tell us two things. one is, how many -- three things. how much pages do you print a day? how much per page is the extra cost? and how does that compare to the price of the paper? then we can really put in perspective and judge the extent to which it's a compelling argument. we're quite open to receiving that information. i have no idea what it will show, but we're desperately seeking input. any newspapers in any of your areas who would be willing to submit that information would be very, very helpful. senator enzi: that information won't be difficult from the big newspapers. it's the little newspapers that

don't have an extra person to calculate what the per penny cost is on a sheet of paper. they do know that the inserts they are putting in are also going up, which means advertisers are going to advertise less because they have a budget that they have to meet. it has a lot of different implications of which a lot of them are hard to calculate. i can guarantee you that a lot of small upes are going to go out of business if that happens. that one mill may do well. on the other hand, with less customers, it may not. secretary ross: there are also, sir, a number of parties who have told us that they are in the process of opening mills. to the degree that proves correct, there may vell well be another solution, which is more domestic production. we understand the dilemma. we understand the problem to the degree can you get me that information, it would be very,

very helpful. because the only information on the record is what was put on by the petitioner. and his information is, it's a fraction of a penny per not just -- not per page, but per issue counting all the pages. so if he's right, that would say it's not a very big problem compared with some of the other problems the newspaper industry has. we already have gotten to a situation where he has withdrawn his similar petition against the particular kind of paper used in directories. so that should also help alleviate the situation. so we're working on it. we're trying very hard to get a handle on just what these cost figures are. and frankly, even with the small newspaper, i can't imagine they don't know what their paper cost is and the pages.of

it can't be that hard to calculation -- that hard a calculation for them to come up ith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, china's been stealing our intellectual property and using unfair trade practice force far too long. we all acknowledge that. i'm glad the president is taking this problem seriously, unlike his predecessors. however i'm increasingly concerned that the tariffs, both those in place and those that have been proposed, are going to hurt american consumers and domestic which is bist, especially in agricultural sector, far more than they are going to persuade the chinese to change their practices. with the president's announcement these prepared to impose $400 billion more in tariffs if china does not make changes t. appears the situation is escalating. senator thune: what is the administration's overall strategy to find an equitable solution in this case before the burden of these tariffs have a substantial impact on american consumers and businesses and drive down u.s. economic growth? secretary ross: the basic trategy is to try to bring

enough pressure on parties who are not behaving appropriately so that they conclude that the alternative of continuing their present behavior is going to be ore painful to them than acceding to the requests that we have made that they honor intellectual property. as to the importance of intellectual property, the president is extremely committed and so am i, and in fact yesterday we had an historic event. he president signed the 10 millionth patent issued by the united states. that's almost half of all the patents that have ever been issued in the entire world. more than half of the 10 million have been issued since 1985. so the pace of patents is growing very, very rapidly.

and that's good. but it's only good if we can force other nations to honor them and not abuse them, not force technology transfers, not steal through cyber security, north do all the horrible things we're -- not do all the horrible things we're all aware are being done. the only method we could think of, we tried negotiation. i, myself, have been four or five times in china negotiating over the last year or so, and the hezzpres has concluded that we -- and the president has concluded we need more than negotiation. there have been years of talk with china about intellectual property. the president feels and i agree that now is the time for action . unless we make it more painful for them to continue those practices, then to do otherwise, unless we put that kind of pressure on, it's

unlikely we will succeed. thune: we appreciate your focus on that. we all agree that they have been abusive. they cheated. and again i like the focus. but this thing seems to be escalating out of control fairly quickly. i want to come back to the -- one other issue. the white house's decision to impose tariffs under the section 301 investigation is also very concerning. this decision walks back an earlier announcement that the united states and china had reached a tentative deal that increase agricultural china and put the implementation of tariffs on hold. what's more, the president's proposal to move forward with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tariffs threatens to severely damage the ag industry at a time when the producers are already experiencing low prices in a down farm economy. in fact, one commodities' analyst this week described the current commodity markets as wildly dangerous. largely due to trade uncertainties. recent $1 drop in soybean

prices will potentially cost soybean producers in just my state of south dakota alone, $225 million. corn, wheat, beef, and pork are all suffering market price declines as well due to current trade policies. i'd like to drive home that point, the point with every passing day the united states loses market share to other countries competing with our ag product markets. some of it unlikely to be captured. i have two questions. first, with low and recently dropped in livestock prices and slim profit margins, producers are looking to the administration to create more opportunities for trade, not less. what is the administration doing to increase ag exports and promote jobs in rural communities? how long will farmers, ranchers, and the rest of rural america have to hold their breath until u.s. trade with multiple global partners stabilizes? second, what new trade agreements is the administration work on to counter balance what we may lose if we don't reach an agreement on nafta to offset

what we gave up by pulling out of tpp and crippling tariffs on our top trading partner, which is china. secretary ross: i met last friday with a delegation of farmers from north dakota. they voiced similar concerns, amplified it in another direction as well. that they felt that the market price, at least amplified it in which was the main product they discussed with me, that the market price declined -- decline has been exaggerated by sec laive activity. -- speculative activity. their believe the price will level out at a better level than it is now. they also believe, and our own research tends to confirm, it will be relatively difficult for china to fully implement

their threat on soybeans. the fact is that brazil now ships to china around 55%. soybean imports it needs. ship around 3 %, 33% from america. for brazil to replace us, they are the only one which has remotely enough capacity to do it, they would have to increase their exports of soybeans to china by 60%. well, if they could do that, they would be doing it already if they could do it at a competitive price. there is no evidence that brazil has been holding back just because we didn't put tariffs on china. i think you are going to find that as this thing settles probably will re be some problems, two things will happen. one, to the degree that china is able to probably will be some pay a premium to

brazil to tie vert shipments from their own -- to divert shipments from their other existing customers, that will open to american farmers the markets vacate bide that product. whether that will be -- vacated by that product. whether that will be a full offset i don't know. but the current speculative activity in the ag futures market is due to anxiety, fear of the unknown, fear of what might come next. and i sympathize very much with that. but i heard from big farmers directly, they do think it's a little exaggerated. i don't know whether your constituents in south dakota feel the same or not. the problem we have is if we're not going to fix the big problem, which is the unfair trade practices, the abuse of intellectual property now, when are we ever going to fix it? very, very difficult to do.

we would have been a lot easier had prior administrations dealt with it before things got as far out of hand. but the president feels very committed that we've got to put maximum pressure on to have any hope of fixing the problem. there is a lot of consternation in farm country. i hope you're right. i hope things settle and stabilize. in the long run there is serious concerns about restricting access to markets rather than expanding. and lot of consternation in farm country. i hope you're right. i hope things settle and obviou we've got to do everything we can to grow our markets. it doesn't seem at least right now, we don't see evidence that there is any negotiation going on with respect to some these countries that we missed out on with t.p.p. mr. chairman. thank you. could just ss: if i

add. one thing. yomeioned about the proposal the chinese had come up with about the 70 billion, including a lot of a i was the one who negotiated that. it does show you that the administration is trying. it's just we were not able to accomplish enough to justify in the president's mind not going with the tariffs. i think there already are some signs we may get with the tarif resolution. i don't think the chinese want a trade war any more than we do. and as you know, president's general view is that the trade war was lost years ago. this is an effort to fix the outcomes that were unsatisfactory from us. >> senator casey. senator casey: thank you, mr. chairman. secretary ross, thank you for being here. i sent a letter with senators regarding ortman

electrical steel. back in march. at that time that letter asked the president to regarding expa cope of 232 to cover down stream electrical steel products. we followed up on that request with your office and the white house staff, as you know. we have only one electric youal steel manufacturer left in the united states. ey have been hammered by dumped imports of electrical steel and minimally transformed down stream products. the continued import of these dumped products in the u.s. not only endangers good-paying jobs in pennsylvania, but also put at risk the dumped imports last domestic producer of electrical steel, which is of significant national security importance. i was glad to see the trade representative included down stream electrical steel products on their 301 list. could you provide an update on where things stand with regard to the inclusion of down stream electrical steel products? secretary ross: i believe

there's no doubt they will be included. there will be a big list forthcoming very, very shortly, and i believe that will cover the down stream products in the electrical steel, as well as in some other areas. i don't know if you were here for my opening remarks, but we have also supplied a supplemental list to the u.s. trade rep of other industries at we have become aware have hit the same problem. where instead of it coming in as raw steel or relatively low degree of processing, it's coming in as a little bit more sophisticated product. so we're working actively to deal with that because that's even worse than the steel itself coming in because now you are hitting another layer of value add. -- her layer of jobs just value added.

another layer of jobs. we're cognizant of that. unlike some other considerations, that's something we believe we can very well deal with in the 301. senator casey: thank you. i was going to ask you about news prints tariffs. in a state like mine, we have a couple of major papers, then 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. i appreciate you taking the time to talk about it. after our conversation, sent a letter to you regarding the initiation of a suspension agreement. i hope you are given -- giving that suspension agreement request and the accompanying data i provided serious consideration. i hope you take the appropriate action to address those concerns that are raised by lots of papers across our state and i'm sure many others. secretary ross: i just received your letter within the last couple days.

i would make the same request to those papers. give us the per page. give us the information. i don't know if were you here when this question was raised before, but what we're seeking from the papers is how much paper do they use in a page. how many pages do they publish in each issue. and what is the subscription price or the price that they have so that we can can put it into perspective? because for sure any time you deal with products that have been dumped for sure somebody is going to bear an increase. the question is, is that really an important increase to them or is it just something which adds a little bit to existing problems that they have from internet and from social media and stuff that's