the united states courts of appeals is president trump's nominee for the supreme court. >> i am pleased with the nominee the president has chosen. after talking to him yesterday morning, i look forward to supporting his nomination and doing whatever i can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. if judge cavanaugh is confirmed, women's freedom to make decisions about their bodies, reform store health care system, the quality of our era and -- air and water, and much more will be at risk. >> frankly, i cannot think of anybody who was more qualified to serve as the next associate justice of the supreme court. announcer: follow the confirmation process on c-span through congress as judge kavanagh meets with key senators, the senate confirmation hearings, and the vote. watch live on c-span, watch anytime on c-span.org. or listen with the free c-span radio app.

now, a hearing on the impact of new realms of tariffs on foreign goods announced by the trump administration. this senate foreign relations committee hearing chaired by bob corker of tennessee, is 2.5 hours. the foreign relations committee will come to order. menendez will be a minute later -- late. we thank our witnesses for the being here. we will consider the implications of recent trade actions by the administration, including the implementation of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from canada, mexico, and the european union. it will become is a big surprise to anyone that i am concerned about the president's trade policies and i think we all should be. from the imposition of tariffs

by abusing session 232, the tooth 32 authority threats to withdraw from long-standing trade agreement such as nafta, these actions are hurting our business in foreign communities all around the country. are damaging our international relationships that we have spent decades building, casting doubt on the united states, and our role as a global leader and a reliable partner. the tariffs imposed on imported steel and aluminum under section 232 already disrupting and damaging supply chains and business plans of numerous american businesses.

don't get me wrong, we do have significant trade challenges when it comes to china. while we all agree on the need to make sure the international trade system is fair for all workers, families, companies, and consumers, i think we should focus on building coalitions such as chinese theft event one -- intellectual property instead of imposing 232 tariffs on our friends. these actions are alienating our closest friends and our allies such as canada, partners that we rely on more than just economic security. the president said trade wars winnable, whether we win or lose, there is going to be collateral damage in businesses along the way so many members -- as well as our place in the world. the administration needs to explain to congress where this

is headed. i know many members have been over to meet with the president. to talk about where this is headed. to my knowledge, not a single person can articulate where this is headed or the plans or the strategy. it seems to be a wake up, ready, fire, aim strategy. to explain to us where it is going. the cause of these tariffs are clear. how and when it does and. will we be better off as a result? the constitution clearly establishes a power to collect duty and the power to regulate former commerce with congressman we are holding this hearing because of the need for congressional oversight on these actions. i have offered a bipartisan legislation with senator flake, johnson, isaacson, shaheen, and others for congress to reclaim its appropriate role and responsibility. with respect to setting tariff policy. the bill has protective wide-ranging support from organizations representing

businesses and agriculture across our country with many overwhelming vote of support for those efforts yesterday in the senate. we will push for a binding vote on this legislation in the near future. we thank our witnesses for being here today. let me introduce our witness. our first witness is the nation's income as assistant secretary of state for the affairs.and business in this role, she is responsible for advancing american prosperity, entrepreneurship, and innovation worldwide. we thank you for being here. i would not want to be in your position today. but you are gladly here to do so. we look forward to our private panel that will come up after without some of the same relationships. with that, if you would give your testimony in five minutes. any record -- written documents

you have without objection will be entered into the record. we thank you for your service. do you want to make an opening comment? >> if you have a moment, i do. >> why do you get a cup of coffee and take a deep breath. [laughter] give an opening comment. these days, mr. president -- i wish. [laughter] mr. chairman. >> recently, i have felt the same way. >> i hope it doesn't get you in trouble. i have -- a deep breath is not enough. thank you for calling a timely humans, wer the past have watched the president pose a series of trade measures against our allies and adversaries alike without considering the impact eject -- of these actions could have on important strategic partnerships. i appreciate your legislation addresses this issue. have different

is about our existing and proposed trade agreements, the recent vote on the senate floor shows strong by patterson -- strong bipartisan support on pushing back the president's disruptive action. we have witnessed more of this action on display arguably the most important partners with a critical agreement to keep our nation secure. his actions coupled with his denigrating remarks do not inspire confidence. as it relates to this subject hearing, i believe decades of unfair trading practices have left workers, businesses, and families hard hit. it is critical we strategically assess the real challenges american workers. recent economic analysis has revealed how china's economic rise over the last generation has severely damaged some of america's hardest working people in their communities. china has driven global overcapacity in steel and aluminum. a problem the world shares with us. we must go after china's

subsidization of these materials and they're dumping onto the global market. which has shuttered factories across our country and put too many americans out of work. as many of my constituents know too well, we must also go after china's expropriation and outright theft of our patents and copyrights. american families don't need spreadsheet analysis to know the economic implications these actions are real. section 30 one investigation into china's policies on technology, transfer and intellectual property, the administration must take action to reverse the damage done to u.s. workers and companies. success will require more than a never ending escalation of tariffs. to support hard-working americans, we need a could -- a response firm countries that china's predator chart -- predatory practices are at a disadvantage. the administration has started a campaign against our allies, driving them into the arms of

our adversaries instead of leading an effort to address the challenges of china's economic policies. as a nato summit this week reminds us, the united states leadership in the world, our ability to meet the full range of global economic environmental health and security challenges requires sustainable, trustworthy partnerships. whether confronting russia's disruption of democratic institutions here and among our european allies, working with our latin american neighbors to cope with the instability driving families from their homes, responding to china's business in the south china to see, we are stronger with the alliances built on shared history and values. remarkably, president -- the president saves his harshest words for our allies who fight alongside us in the fields of afghanistan. alongside us in the freedom of democracy from russian investigation. and imperialism in our own hemisphere. to our witnesses.

i hope the hearing will help eliminate the administration's confusion, flurry of tariffs and trade restrictions. i hope we can agree on who our friends are and who our adversaries are which are the right tools and the right priorities. with that, i look forward to the hearing. much.nk you so madame secretary, if you would begin, we would appreciate it. >> thank you. chairman corker, ranking member menendez, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding tariff implications for u.s. foreign policy and the international economy. the department is grateful for the partnership we have with the members of this committee and with your staff. the trump administration is thattted to ensuring american workers, farmers, and companies have every opportunity to compete and succeed in the global arena. to continuing to work with you on this common goal. national trump's

security strategy declares that economic security is national security. working to safeguard both economic security and economic prosperity for the american people. in addition to the dedicated officers here in washington, the state department has over 1500 economic officers posted in embassies and consulates around the world who explain our foreign governments and enlist their support of our goals. our ambassadors and senior officials meet with foreign leaders to discuss our mutual priorities. they also advocate directly for u.s. companies. the department works in coordination with our colleagues at ustr, commerce, and other agencies to ensure that we are in close contact with our allies to explain the administration's

trade and economic policies. we have heard some concerns and questions from our allies and trading partners and we have engaged with them proactively on a regular basis. addressing their concerns about our international trade policy a part of our larger conversation with them. the department is clear with our to havehat we continued shared interest with countries around the world, from countering terrorism, to the denuclearization of north korea. we emphasize that our combined efforts are required to make the world a more just, safe, and prosperous place. a key area in which our allies and partners share our frustration is responding to the challenge of china's economic aggression. we are building an international coalition to address china's state led policies which distort

markets, discriminate against international competition, forced technology transfer, and permit theft of sensitive intellectual property. is committed to utilizing all available tools to increase economic security, promote greater opportunity, and build constructive, global relationships. we are also working to attract investment.ct greenfield investment, which will benefit our workers. pompeonth, secretary joined for being other cabinet secretaries and 15 of our ambassadors to welcome international businesses to the usa summit. and emphasized the president's message that america is open for business. under the leadership of secretary pompeo, we are focused on -- on economic diplomacy in the interest of the american people.

thank you again for holding this very important hearing. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. might just ask of you and were observed the rest of my time. do you have any idea what the usinggy is relative to 232 to put tariffs on our european partners and canada and mexico? can you articulate how that helps us build a coalition to counter what you mentioned in your opening comments, which is china's abuse and theft of intellectual property? thank you, senator corker. president trump has determined are the 232 actions necessary to preserve the vitality of our domestic industries. i have received questions about why it is we are focused on china or the eu, or other of our allies. initiative was2 not targeted at any particular country.

it was instituted on a global basis to address steel and aluminum overcapacity. statute indicates the domestic industries to supply needs for our defense industrial base for critical infrastructure do constitute national security threats under this legislation. >> so, canada is a threat to us? from a national security standpoint? don't we ship more still to them than they do to us? national is not a security threat. however, the global steel and aluminum overcapacity that currently exists in the affecting our ability -- the ability of our domestic companies to adequately produce aluminum and steel. the viability of these industries does constitute a national security issue for us. i will reserve my time for the second panel. go ahead, sir. >> thank you.

you just said that canada is not a national security threat. did i hear you right? >> yes, senator. -- but the232 says president has invoked sustains that canada is a national security threat. a it is not a set -- not national security threat, why is the president using section 232? senator, for that question. as i indicated previously, section 232, the language that the -- indicates competitive viability of our domestic industries is needed in order to maintain national security. in addition, it states a week -- weakened economy inhibits our ability to maintain our defense -- our defense capabilities. therefore, under 232, the president has determined that this global steel and aluminum overcapacity does impair our national -- >> does canada present a greater threat than china?

>> china is considered our largest threat. the president has instituted very tough measures. our intellectual property. to protect our innovation. the chinese from imposing unfair trade practices from distorting markets. >> does canada has a defense production sharing agreement with the united states? >> i am not aware if we do or not. >> the answer is yes. it has a defense production sharing agreement with the united states. a nationalthat it is security threat. at the same time, they are in the midst of producing defense elements with us. do you believe our allies are going to be more or less likely to join us in a coordinated act to -- action against china when they see the administration being tougher on allies like canada than china? question.ou for that our allies and partners share our frustration about china's economic coercion. i personally have had many

conversations with allies all over the world about cooperating against the chinese economic threat. they are as concerned about china as we are. >> yes, the problem is that instead of building a coalition that was willing and wanting to confront china, to the international forms that we could execute through, we attack them. we attack them. is the a -- what is the administration strategy to respond to china's escalating retaliation and bring them to the negotiating table to deal with underlying issues? more escalation? i don't understand what the pathway is here at the end of the day. we slap a series of tariffs on them, they reciprocate and retaliate and add tariffs to us. where is the endgame here?

>> thank you for that question. it is an important one. our and the game is for china to change its behavior. we want to demonstrate to china that we are willing to take strong measures to force china to change its behavior. which distorts markets. which has -- >> i don't mean to interrupt you. my time is limited. share the endgame. the question is what is the strategy to get there? in the actiond the president has done, we get retaliatory tariffs and then the president retaliates against those tariffs and china so they retaliate against those tariffs. the only what is the strategy at the end of the day to achieve the goal you just enunciated? hasresident trump determined that tariffs of the most effective means to achieve this goal. the last several decades, we have been having many conversations with the chinese.

president trump as determined that tariffs are the way to get chinese -- the chinese to behave. >> i regret the worse and here, because i don't think you are really in the mix here on this issue. your censure as cannon fodder at the end of the day, which is really a challenge. heard noem is i have strategy whatsoever that suggest how this is going to end up. i don't even know how we are using to 32 to gain leverage other issues. for example, the july "new york that stateicle says farm and threatened ecuador with if they refused to drop a breast-feeding article.

how is it that we are using 232 on something like that? of thator, i'm aware media report and it is false. >> you are not using 232 as it relates to anything other than national security concern 232 sot >> we're using we can give our domestic steel aluminum producers the ability to regain their industries. we want the domestic industries to be able to have the capacity to supply needs for critical infrastructure for our defense needs. 232 specifically states the viability was in the best interest of national security. helping thel for steel industry in the united states, but the manner in which these a ministrations -- this going about itis

is going to have huge consequences for middle america and middle-class families and and lost jobs. that the end of the day, you reformatted -- you read more havoc.ery -- >> we produce 75% of the steel we use in this nation and our defense industry only uses 3%. thereally saddened that person who is up your today, we all like working with you and we know that because you do a good job in the areas really spend most of your time, we do have a second panel that might be able to answer questions in a little bit different way. to be cannon fodder this morning i don't think you're really prepared to defend the policies and appropriate manner.

question, let's ask them, but maybe not use the entire five minutes so we can move on to a panel. anybody that wishes to do that is more than welcome to do so. >> basic data, we want to increase the number of tons of steel we produce. tonsheir goals in terms of or jobs? >> senator, i don't know that there are specific numeric goals, i think that the interagency analysis -- >> you answer the question. when president bush did this come of it was a study that showed for a few thousand steel jobs when he slapped down steel tariffs we lost 200,000 jobs. and those types of considerations, have they been taken into account? aware of that study in particular but my colleagues at the department of commerce have done economic modeling and

economic analysis to advise the president on the recommendation that the jew 32 investigations be conducted and the tariffs be of limited. >> are you tracking right now how steel prices of increased in the u.s.? 1% we recognized? >> i am not. 25 --are hearing 30% to 40% straight games. you realize how that makes among competitive in the world markets, correct? >> yes, sir. earlier we heard that there were 30,000 some waivers being requested for the commerce department. is that roughly the number of waivers he received? >> the number i saw was 20,000. something of that nature. how are we going to possibly respond to that end as it makes good economic sense to have a few commissars in the commerce department picking who is going

to be able to survive and not survive in the industry? we have a woman build a business applying trucking industries said in three months she will be out of business. reeling taking account -- i've heard the ministrations a short-term pain for long-term gain, we really taking into account the permanent damage that is being done right now? >> the goal of the commerce department in instituting these actions is to increase the viability of our domestic industries. >> of steel. >> of steel and aluminum. we would like to see everyone succeed. we would like is it history to be a level where they can start hiring people again and create more american jobs. use andve steel industries every word. -- that are very worried. deciding on the exclusions?

are they looking at who made political contributions to the administration? this is pretty worrisome that you have a couple folks deciding on who is going to be excluded from these tariffs. there's no criteria that then laid out, there's no transparency that has been given. how should we feel comfortable 20,000 -- i do believe the number wrong laid out is probably closer to where we are today. do you know anything about the grantingf how we are exclusions to people throughout the country picking winners and losers? come at the end of the day we would like to see all american workers come out as winners in this situation. secretary ross did testify before the senate finance committee last month and he discussed extensively the process, he mentioned the transparent public hearing and before theiod

tariffs are instituted and then he described the exclusion process through which u.s. companies can apply. it is being done on an objective basis, the commerce department does have economic models -- >> i watch the experts -- the was merelyothing he that clear. >> just talk about virginia and the effect in virginia on the aluminum and steel tariffs and the retaliation imposed as a result, i was at a farmers county ruralifax, southern virginia and soybean farmers were coming to me to complain about the significant damage that they are now suffering under because of retaliatory tariffs and take that response to president trump's actions. yesterday, my poultry industry in the shenandoah valley and the eastern shore came in to talk to me. senator kansas have these conversations as well. they are being significantly affected by the retaliation by

china and other nations. i got one right here. whiskey, this is a tiny virginia distillery in loudoun county and they are small, 10 employees that make right whiskey, gin, and writing. in the last five years they spent $100,000 to expand in europe. in europe, america was he is really popular. and theyoy 20 people have had several significant to sell instarted germany, italy, holland, and the u.k.. after the steel and aluminum to affect family you retaliated with equivalent tariffs on whiskey, and additional 25% tariff and the founder of the company said we are just launching in the european market in a big way and this is the worst possible time for us. we are probably going to see all of our european sales come to a screeching halt.

we talked about a trade war and the question is who is it against? in virginia, it seems like it's against farmers and workers and the national stance would suggest and mr. chairman, i asked the version of this and the record, this from a recent washington post article that pulled trade data, this is just the effect of the steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliation of not other tariffs and trade wars the administration are starting cap -- are starting, over the next three years or 30,000 jobs would be gained in american industries because of the steel and aluminum tariffs, largely in industries that make steel and aluminum but 430,000 jobs will be lost in a whole set of industries for a net job loss of 400,000 jobs to manufacturers and agricultural workers. this is what we are dealing with just on the aluminum and steel tariffs. this morning there's another announcement about an additional $200 billion in tariffs that are going to be imposed on china and

they will retaliate in kind. this is hitting virginians very hard, hitting americans very hard. chair, i appreciate you and others who position to that vote yesterday. it won't surprise anybody on this panel i don't think we should ever be at war without a vote of congress and i don't think we should be at a trade war without a vote from congress. i think congress should have to approve trade wars and i don't think the president accepted -- except in very tightly defined circumstances should be able to unilaterally get us into a trade war that hits american in virginia and workers to this degree. i've a question that really goes into the strategy of what is the endgame? you noticed all the effort being undertaken by the ministries the imposition of tariffs without explanation to us of a strategy, the administration is also asking in a significant way to undercut the world trade organization. there's an article in the "wall street journal," yesterday, trump is the debbie to on the ropes by invoking national

security for tariffs. and blocking trade judge appointments. the administration's decision to block appointments to the appeals judges on the wto mean that american companies if they want to challenge unfair trade practices of other nations, may have a hard time being able to get an appeal. what possibly could be a justification for the administration trying to block appointments to the wto appeals panel? i do that is hurting american companies. what is the justification for? -- for it? note famous vision is trying to block these appointments. what we are trying to do is make sure that these wto appellate judges are acting within their mandates and are held accountable. there is concern that these appointed judges are exceeding their responsibilities. there's no accountability for them. our united states trade representative's wants to look

at debbie to reform as part of the president's overall trade strategy, we would like to reform the multilateral trading system overall so it works better for the american people and for american companies. >> does it help american companies if they are not able to have their cases heard when they want to allege unfair trade nation? by another >> i think it's in the interest of all american copies that we reformed the multilateral trading system in a manner so it works best for american workers and american companies. >> i have follow-up questions. >> thank you, chairman. thank you so much for being here. noteepairs to him a aging's use of intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, overproduction and market distortion on account of state owned enterprises another anticompetitive behaviors.

over two months ago, i convened a senate foreign relations committee subcommittee hearing on predatory international economic practices. for those who are observing this hearing, i would ask you to review the testimony, there are a lot of answers about particular tactics we might employ that we are not employing to help bring china and others who engage in these practices into good behavior. it's clear to me that china is more of a threat comparatively to other countries who are economicin these predatory practices because of the scope and the nature and the consequences of their behavior. in your prepared remarks, you indicate you are building an international coalition, along with other stakeholders within governments, to address this economic aggression by china. you agree that an optimal response is to unite allies, to

unite partners who have also suffered because of beijing's predatory international economic practices and thus allow us to leverage our collective weight against beijing, as opposed to going it alone? >> i agree with that. we need to build support and we are building support amongst our allies very -- allies. >> winston churchill says there's only one worst thing fighting with allies, it's fine without them. would you agree that the international coalition that we need to assemble to address china's economic aggression should ideally include at a minimum the g7 countries? >> senator, we try to work with countries in all regions of the world, because all regions including the western hemisphere , the eu, southwest asia, everyone is suffering the effects of china's economic aggression of their distortion of markets.

i would say we should look to allies all over the world, including the g7. >> is a lot of questions as to whether or not we were doing that. we need a strategy and we for that time and again here. what are our objectives? what is the endgame? one means to we have at our disposal right now, what resources are at our disposal and what authorities in order to clear away the stress? in order to advance those objectives. what new authorities or resources are required? that is a strategy very thoughtfully put together. it's not clear to me that one exists. you believe the congress should be a fully informed partner in developing and implementing our nations response to china and others? >> that for the reasons i'm here, i was hoping to have a conversation that better informed the administration on congress's views, and how we can

better work together to combat china's economic aggressions. you said that the ustr and commerce and others are sharing policies with our allies, i don't think there has been sufficient sharing with congress and i believe in administration is to do a better job of its waning trade strategy to congress. i don't will the forum like this is conducive to eliciting a detailed strategy and i also believe that a response to beijing's economic aggression in order to be sustainable is going to require the buy-in of congress and thus the american people. i tried to be productive over the weeks and months as this whole situation has played out an increasingly farmers from indiana and manufacturers and workers and others, their anxiety is heightening and i put out a solution, a bipartisan national economic security and thisact of 20 seen has the support of senators markley, rubio, kunz, summer

gardeners now on board. it would create a statutory requirement for the periodic production and submission to congress of a national economic security strategy. will you take a look at this if you have not already? >> senator, your staff has shared it with me and we will take a look at it. would welcome the opportunity to work with the administration on teasing this out. the last thing i would like to quickly turn to is -- i do a vitiate your presence here, is in the prepared testimony for mr. boultonanel, notes that section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962 provides the president of united states broad authority to restrict foreign imports for national security purposes. mr. bolton asserts this authority has only been used twice, once to ban oil imports from iran in 1979 and the second time in 82 to ban oil imports from libya. as assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs, is it accurate that the

authority under this act to restrict foreign imports for national security purposes has previously been used against iran and libya? >> i believe that is correct. -- against against which countries is it being used? used against any particular country, it's of being in the resurrection. we should give consideration to domestic production and the capacity -- capacity and investigators to meet such requirements. >> and start interjecting my time i'm about a minute over i want to respect the chairman's prerogative to get to the next panel. i will just say that we know it's been used for ayatollah khomeini's iran and muammar gaddafi is libya and there's a strong nexus between strong allies like canada on one hand in this general threat that you point to with respect to its

current usage. policyforeign perspective, i see an important distinction between 1979 iran and canada today. i thank you for your appearance and your service. cardin,e to senator loveor coons: >> i would for you to use your time here in answering these questions. us, me, i don't want anybody else in the same boat with me. president is abusing his authorities. i think it is a massive abuse of his authorities. using to 32on he is and abusing his authorities in usedway is that 232 can be

with no basis. you don't have to go to the itc with the world trade commission or anything else and prove something out. you can just say it is in our national security interests. we may move to autos as i understand it. again, i have no idea how the making of automobiles by others is a national security threat to our nation. the president doesn't have to lay anything out using 232, we are trying to change that, so the second thing i would like for you to disabuse me of anyways is there is a strategy. none whatsoever. i think what is sad is there are people around this nation that are hurting -- farmers are losing money as they harvest right now. some of that has got to go across the scales of the title harvest and if the prices down, they absolutely lose money. haveof them unfortunately

faith that there is a plan. but there's a strategy. i know senators have been up there to meet with him is billion times. i have not heard a single senator come back with any any earthly -- idea. cannot articulate a sentence as to why we are doing this. with the rest of the questions, to the extent that you can disabuse us and informed people across our country that are patiently waiting that there actually is a plan. i haven't to believe there absolutely is no plan. in the mornings, people wake up and make this up as they go along. in some uncanny way, they figure out a way out of this, that will be great for our nation. but i know today there is no end goal. and so again, i hope you will disabuse us of that and you are welcome to do that now.

the president is acting within his statutory authority. we have lunch at section 232 and there was a very robust interagency process in which the state department participated, the treasury department, every agency of the united states government which has equities in particular areas came together and we talked about this and we talked about the plan, we talked about a strategy. our goal was to act in the interest of the american economy and as far as overall economic strategy, i can lay it out for you right now. the president's strategy has five dollars to it. it is to support our national security. we want to strengthen the domestic u.s. economy. we want to negotiate better trade deals, free, fair, and reciprocal deals. we want to aggressively enforce u.s. trade laws in the interest of the american worker, and as i was indicating to senator kaine earlier, we want to reform the multilateral trading system, the

wto if it works properly can be a great resource for us in our global economic disputes. so the president has very carefully laid out an economic strategy that is contained within the national security strategy which is our blueprint for how this administration is operating. >> that enlightened us in no way. >> thank you for calling this hearing and thank you for what you and the ranking member have done to lead us in what is a united effort to say that madame assistant secretary, you have launched a war. president trump has launched a trade war without a strategy. in these trump tariffs are imposing consumer taxes. i'm hearing from folks in delaware, from port workers at the docs who are concerned that ship loads of steel that come to my state in the wintertime from sweden and from finland will not be coming.

at cost will be raised that their jobs will be harmed. i'm hearing from soybean farmers that they are facing the lowest price for their crops in a decade. folks are confused and they are anxious and they have a concern. and you just heard it from us on a bipartisan basis. the president trump has lost a trade war without a strategy and without a plan for how to get through this. in your prepared remarks would you have repeated, you said allies and partners share our frustration in responding to the challenge of china's economic aggression. we are building an international coalition to address china's policies which distort markets and discriminate against international competition and for technology transfer and permits after sensitive intellectual property. madame assistant secretary, if that is what you are doing, i would be cheering. i would be saying what a terrific plan. i only wish this were true. but it's not. took withthat i just the chairman, we visited for of

our allies in northern europe that included sweden. in our meetings with national leaders in those four countries, countries that are fighting alongside us in afghanistan, they are puzzled, they are offended, and they are distanced from us by these tariffs. that should be being imported to wilmington, delaware may soon be turned away by tariffs that are dividing us from a country that should be an ally in an appropriate trade contest with china. i just had a meeting yesterday was sen. isakson: my good friend from georgia, where we met with the trade minister of south africa, a country that is finally open their markets to our poultry after years of efforts that we undertook. it is clear they are going to slap reciprocal tariffs on us they will harm poultry farmers of eastern shore maryland and eastern shore virginia, seven delaware. this is a trade war with real consequences but without a strategy. frankly, i couldn't agree

more with of one the republican senator young just made, section 232 is or he has in the real enemies of the united states, against libya and iran, not against canada, germany, sweden, south africa. withe assistant secretary, all do respect, the administration should be on notice that 88 senators yesterday voted to send a strong and clear signal to president trump that he is misusing his section 232 authorities. what youif you believe are competent with these tariffs is supporting our national security, in recent meetings with ministers of foreign affairs from sweden to south africa, to canada, you're in fact harming our national security. if you believe we are going to negotiate better trade deals by picking fights with all of our best allies, that is not in fact the case. if you think the outcome will be a reform to wto, i think instead it will be chaos.

i wish the articulate's strategy delivered in your prepared statement was in fact what was happening. but i see the exact opposite. please call madame secretary, in a minute or two, if you could give us some reassurance that president trump sees as clearly as you do that our goal should be to unite our allies against china's mercantilist policy and is not in fact what i see happening, which is a wildly swung bat that is hitting our closest allies in a way that harms our national security, harms our chances of better trade deals and harms folks in my home state who work in our court and work on our farms. >> i can tell you that president trump is committed to working with our allies. secretary pompeo under the leadership of president trump as you know, has been traveling the world seeking support from our allies in order to achieve our goal of a complete irreversible verifiable denuclearize north korea.

we at all levels of the state department are discussing all of these issues of shared interest with our allies, including the china threat. i have had many personal conversations in the western hemisphere and south america, in the european union, in north asia, all over the world, everyone agrees that china is a big threat. we are working to combat that threat. turning back to the 232 issue, i would disagree with you senator, that a weakened national economy , we can steel and aluminum industry's our national security threat. i understand senator young's point about 232 being used -- wet iran, who clearly just of the problem. iran is still an issue that we need to deal with. but at the end of the day, 232 is designed to also protect our domestic economic production. thes laid out clearly in statute. president trump is acting within

his statutory authority, there is a strategy, i laid out for you the five pillars of our economic strategy and as you have indicated in my opening statement, i laid out you the state department's role and the i am at a time. i appreciate your response. as assistant secretary, i hope you will take back the message that while the president may be acting within the statutory authority, he is acting recklessly, he is acting dangerously come in a way that is dividing us from our allies and is exposing consumer taxes on the folks in our country who we most wanted to help. if we don't see a strategy that lines up, i think congress will act to restrain his reckless use of this authority. thank you. >> senator isakson. i just want to say, madam secretary, the last time you and i were together, i was speaking in favor for you to be confirmed by the united states senate in

your current position. i'm sorry you have to sell the program you're selling today. i'm glad you are in the position you are in. i would like to say one thing about what is being said. i am reminded of the wendy's commercial about 20 years ago. when the little lady in the rambler pulls up to the window at mcdonald's, pulls the wrapper off her hamburger and looks at it and says, where's the beef? great commercial. they got a market share from mcdonald's because it made a big point. mcdonald's changed their product line and increase the number of ounces in their hamburger because of that commercial. that is the power of a good point and plan. it is pretty apparent that we do from ae a stated plan marketing or business standpoint. this lady as the chairman -- as a secretary of our country and diplomacy in charge of business and those issues. big business and economic issues. we are going to cause difficulties for our state

department and secretary pompeo if we don't have a clear message to sell as what our policy is in the goals to get there. what has beeng said, i appreciate the comments people have said. same am sitting next to a former trade rep. they took china to the world trade organization. we got the run on textiles out south. .e're at that point now we don't have a plan. command,johnson at our -- >> thank you, sir. madam secretary, in response to sen. coons: you said there were many countries around the world that you are visiting to

share our concern about china's trade practice. that is understandable. can you list the countries that will join president trump strategy that relates to the tariff issues that he is implied? >> sen. corker: sen. corker: i would have to look through my conversations -- >> can you name one country? >> there are many countries. >> can you name one? >> probably russia, wouldn't you think? [laughter] >> i agree with the chairman. can you name a country? that agrees with what president trump is doing? to speak forant another country, but i can tie you i've had conversations with many different government officials who share our concerns about china and who agree that -- i have met with many representatives of countries that share the concern of what china is doing third but they don't agree with what president trump is doing.

it is amazingly have a strong case against china. the way that the president has pursued this, he has been able to get china -- give china a free pass because the world will not join president trump. >> don't think we are giving china free pass. we're instituting strong -- actions. >> we have friends with us -- if we had friends with us, we would be in a stronger position. i was at that finance committee hearing with secretary ross. opinion as arent chairman mentioned is to have the process on the exemptions to the section 232 process is going with steel and aluminum. the administration will not let the industry represent small businesses. they have to follow each individual case on their own. you imagine the burden on a small company trying to pursue a claim? and they are trying to do business, the company, for example, that senator kaine was

talking about, they don't have a lot of employees that can pursue in order to issue deal with getting an exemption. the process is a must, isn't it -- is a mess, isn't it? your supply chain depends on the product coming in without tax -- tariffs. what do you say to that small business owner? senator, if you have any small business owners that are having problems, i'm happy to connect them to colleagues at the department of commerce who can hopefully help them. >> we have of course direct problems in the supply chain with those who are subject to the director tariffs that are imposed. then we have the retell a issues. those at the -- those that are getting the retaliatory efforts. the senator kaine situation. chairman, corker mentioned that the administration has announced -- they are looking at section

232. autoshe point of view of come as he these, vans, trucks, and auto parts. can you tell us how that discussion is going as to the imposing of security tariffs in that industry? >> commerce is completing that investigation. you have robust interagency discussions. have they started? >> the commerce department is still completing its investigation. >> so there has not been in her agency. how much after the commerce finished its investigation, when -- how much time did it take within the interstate -- interagency discussions before the aluminum and tariffs were imposed? >> all of the agencies -- >> how long after commerce did the initial investigation, when did you start meeting? >> i don't recall the time. >> how much time was spent? >> i don't recall. >> are there under industries

that commerce that you are aware of that are looking at in addition to the auto industry's? ms. singh: none that i am aware of. >> let me point out, mr. in maryland, i've heard from farmers that have crop,y been impacted, soy etc.. we have heard from manufacturers. let me quote from others. choices.facing two bad according to its ceo. they can move production to china, or raise prices and risk losing consumers. either way, it will cost jobs. just one company in my state. i could give you many, many more. you're not giving us much of a comfort level of a process that is an actual process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator flake. >> thank you. thank you for being here. you mentioned part of the

justification was to have a strengthened economy. the rationale for imposing these tariffs. you mentioned a weekend of economy affects our ability, basically, to provide for the national security. i am familiar with some of the literature. surrounding the effects of imposing these tariffs. correct me if i am wrong, but the wealth of data out there is a farthat there bigger impact, negatively, on our economy by imposing these tariffs, because of the knockout effects in terms of other industries surrounding steel. that you steel and aluminum. gain by whether it is 50 jobs saved versus 200 jobs lost. multiple times. tell me what data you relied on to suggest that this will lead to a strengthened economy?

ms. singh: senator, i would refer you to the secretary ross presentation at the finance committee hearing. he talked in detail about the economic analysis of the 232 actions and the conclusions they arrived at. aside from his statement, the wealth of data -- you are familiar with some of this data. the wealth of data, we you not concede, suggests that this has a detrimental effect on our overall economy? if you are using that as a rationale, the weekend of economy, does not allow us to provide for the national security. putting aside whether or not canada represents a real threat in terms of its and abilities to supply us with steel and aluminum during some kind of conflict. given the defense arrangements that we have with canada. and the fact that they have been in an, ever position or wanted to be in a position where they would deny us the ability to mount a

national defense. alone, are economy you relying simply on the words of wilbur ross? the wealth of data suggests that this will weaken our economy, not strengthen it. senator, these are interagency conversations. the recommendations of the united states trade representative, other officials can all went to the president and this is the resident -- this is the decision the president has made. sen. flake: i understand. i am just saying, what data does he rely on? his inner agency or actual economic figures? and historical data that we have accumulated for prior actions of this sort. the wealth of data suggest this weakens our economy, not strengthens it. do you dispute that? experts atthey are the department of commerce who

have been there for decades. not political appointees. they are career folks with looked at the situation. this is the information they have provided. we have the treasury department, commerce department, the united states trade representative, hundreds of economists who have looked at this on these other recommendations they have provided based on the information in the same data you have looked at. sen. flake: i would suggest you torture datao use to come to a conclusion that this is going to strengthen our overall economy. just the data out there affirms in spades that this will lead -- lead to a weekend economy. we are seeing the effects on it now with the announcements of companies moving offshore. with a straight face that the administration tries to claim and tries to say simply, ignore what we know about the economy and the effect

of these kind of tariffs. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. corker: senator markey. markey: thank you, mr. chairman. attendth koreans did not a meeting they were scheduled to have with the united states today. it just continues to raise the question as to whether or not the north koreans are playing ,ames with the united states with regard to their promise to denuclearize. especially in light of the fact that events indicate before the singapore summit, that china had already increased trade with north korea. singapore, china also tod that they were going

increase trade with north korea. that clearly undermines our extractto be able to the concessions from the north koreans. promised to the united states and to the rest of the world. , lookingon to you is at china right now, do you believe that china has increased trade with north korea over the last couple of months, and especially in the aftermath of the singapore summit? ms. singh: thank you for that question. i don't have personal knowledge of chinese trade with north korea and a fitted have -- and if it has increased. sen. markey: so you don't know. ms. singh: i don't know, sir. thinkarkey: again, i whenever we listen to the administration when it comes to

any subject that relates to china, that there is an ambiguity that unfortunately is presented from the administration with regard to a here, itnowledge, but is clear that we are not going to get the result which we want ism north korea if china playing games. with the trade sanctions. ofch they are a part committing to enforce. have you ever had a discussion internally within the state a joint agencyn panel with regard to toughening the crude oil sanctions against the north koreans in order to ensure that they understand that there is a commitment that has

been made to guarantee that north korea in fact has to fulfill its promises before we see economic relief? i'msingh: i am not sure able to comment on our sanctions deliberations. i can tell you that secretary pompeo is personally committed to a process that leads to the complete irreversible and verifiable denuclearization of north korea. sen. markey: that is why i'm asking the question. thehe chinese are loosening trade sanctions against north korea, then complete and irreversible denuclearization becomes less likely, not more likely. that isthe conversation happening with the chinese about this increase in trade? ms. singh: we are talking to all all nations with an interest in the

denuclearization of north korea appeared we are having conversations with the chinese, over thers in asia all world. this is in global interest to a denuclearize north korea. our secretary is committed to having conversations with leaders around the world. about making sure that this process works. sen. markey: exactly. when i am saying is there is no evidence it is working. in fact, there is evidence that it is not working. it is pursuant to the family playbook by goes back to his grandfather and father where they pocket the benefits. here it would be suspension of military maneuvers on the korean peninsula. return for consensual and's made by the north koreans. but we don't see any evidence of that yet. they didn't show up at the meeting today. and it is all part of a long-standing pattern of conduct by the north koreans going back generations.

if china is now playing into then ultimately the likelihood of them actually making the concessions are very slim. would ask for you to report back to this committee with plan the whatever administration has to ensure that china continues to honor to impose trade sanctions that are enforceable on the north korean government. i would ask -- i would make that request for you, mr. chairman, that we receive the instant -- the information from the state department. ms. singh: i can tell you that we are committed to engaging chime -- china on this issue. we are committed to making sure that they work on this issue and as far as our posture on the of. coming you know that the singapore summit was historic.

a north korean leader has never met with the u.s. president. we feel that we have made progress and at least having the conversation with north korea. sen. markey: i don't think the meeting in another itself signifies progress. i think it is a first step. if there is nothing that follows on and china can use the ambiguity of the agreement to increase its trade, than the pressure on north korea can comply with whatever promises they made is reduced. if you can report back to us, i would appreciate it. sen. corker: sen. gardner. >> i appreciated the opportunity to visit with you and talk about the issues that senator markey touched upon dealing with north korea, asia issues over salt -- overall. the chance to speak about my legislation. thank you for that opportunity. i want to follow-up with what senator markey is talking about in january of this year. at least in the age around.

in january this year, china suspended access to marriott's website with china for root for -- for referring to taiwan as a country. -- listed only after they issued a public a policy. -- a public policy. they deliver 36 airline carriers, of a letter that they demand to stop referring to taiwan as a part of china. last month, there was a report that china rejected a request to discuss china's new anti-taiwan labeling policy for u.s. airlines including action against american airlines, delta airlines come in united airlines. these actions -- there were articles yesterday about the iphone that if you had the taiwan flag in china, your location shut up in china, that your iphone would lock up if you used the taiwan flag. if you look at your iphone location as settings, does not taipei.an come in says these actions are the latest from an aggressive chinese government working to pressure

american businesses. it calls into question of how the u.s. intends to responds -- respond. what have we been doing and what more can united states be doing to counter this pressure campaign and bullying from china? ms. singh: thank you for that question. we have been looking at the situation that you have indicated. about how taiwan should be labeled. you may recall that the -- sen. gardner: this is about overall and appropriate action. ms. singh: it is inappropriate behavior. absolutely. you will recall that the administration put out a very strong statement regarding china that airlines change their websites not to reflect taiwan as a separate country we have told our airlines that they should do what they think is right. that they are under no obligation to comply with china's directive. we have made this clear to the chinese government that our business will conduct policy -- conduct their businesses as they see fit and that the airline websites commit the way they completely taiwan is

in accordance with u.s. policy. we have made strong statements. a july 25 of for the airlines to comply. we are not sure what sort of penalty will be imposed. against our private sector for not complying. but we are prepared to respond appropriately if any damages done to our u.s. enterprises. sen. gardner: a follow-up on discussions of china. recently -- he was brought to my attention a business in colorado that had an employee that moved to china from taiwan. they had a point in taiwan. this employee was hired in taiwan. --arently took information intellectual property with them to taiwan is a replicated the manufacturing process in china the taiwan, they replicated manufacturing process. stole the information. use the information. court in china has accused

the u.s. firm of violating copyrights and patents. we havea sign of things to work on. i don't like the tariff approach. i want to be clear that there is a letter that talks about 25% costs being passed on to people in agriculture buying sweets and other equipments they would use and cultivation practices. because of the steel tariffs. we need to do something about china. i hope u.s. businesses don't succumb to the bullying pressure that china has pursued. forsingh: thank you senator that. we and the government want to make sure our businesses are not bullied or you are free and to your legislation. secretary mattis and secretary pompeo have sent a letter indicating that we welcome the legislation is in line with our into pacific strategy, which is also designed to demonstrate our commitment to the region. china -- and counter china's influence there.

thank you, mr. chairman. a group of ust from the committee, four of us on this committee, with senator , headed up a bipartisan code l, three democrats, three republicans, we went over into the baltic region and that with leaders from four countries. and the leaders at all levels from presidents to prime minister's to parliamentarians. sure chairman corker has already mentioned this. but they were very, very concerned with where president trump is going on trade. and a very specifically, a lot of talking about tariffs. and the discussion went along the lines of -- we have been your friends. now you are calling us under this 232 section enemies and a threat to national security. are not happy about

this. they don't understand it. they think we are headed for a trade war. then it starts spiraling down and nobody has control of it. i don't see from anything i have heard today, from you, what the exit strategy is here, where -- what is the endgame. clearly, we have things we should be doing on trade. see theeally don't president is listening. do you have any evidence the president is listening to foreign leaders about what is going on? i think it is almost unanimous leaders aren telling them you are headed in the wrong direction. is he listening to foreign leaders? ms. singh: thank you for the question. i do think that there is an endgame. sen. udall: i am not asking

about the endgame. i am asking is president trump listening to foreign leaders? the answer is easy. just tell me know. ms. singh: president trump has regular conversations with foreign leaders. sen. udall: he is not listening to them, ma'am. he is not listening to them. under this piece of law here, the trade expansion act requires commerce to consult with the department of defense and other agencies making it a determination under 232. right? well, i don't even think the president is listening to his own agencies. report where the consultation is going on. secretary mattis writes to currenty ross and says, domestic capacity -- they are talking about the aluminum and steel, that this is some

national security issue -- is actually sufficient to meet national defense requirements, and that dod and this is a direct quote from secretary thats, dod is concerned the negative impact on our key allies regarding the recommended options within the commerce reports. the government, the trump administration, you have agencies speaking out and this is very unusual, i think, and unprecedented what this administration is doing. let me just say a quick word about nafta. i know the chairman wants to move on. so i will stay with in my time here. but, free-trade agreements that we have negotiated to the benefit of the world's largest corporations and their shareholders, i have consistently argued on these free-trade agreements, that they

should do much more. guarantee labor protections, secure commitments to environmental stewardship, and nafta is no exception. it entered into forced 25 years ago and i support the effort. i've talked to secretary ross that we try tore improve nafta. actually, secretary ross told me, he said this will be done in 90 days. that was before he took over. he said we have been working on this to be done in 90 days. here we are today. 17 months later. there is no endgame there. here is a specific example about what is happening with trade in new mexico and how it is hurting new mexico under nafta. there is a company called southwest steel coil, almost all of the exports are finished products from the united states, to. workers coming down mexico. their response to the u.s.

actions will be devastating to businesses like this that rely on a production process that moves back and forth and across the border. companies will be forced out of business. they will be required to pay a new tariff every step of the way. you are going to put companies out of business in new mexico with these tariffs. thank you. sen. corker: sen. portman. portman: let me start by complementing your boss. i thought secretary pompeo's comments about the importance of the alliance, calling it perhaps the most successful and important military alliance in the history of the world. i thought it was appropriate. i appreciated his speaking out on that. haveregard to the issue we before us today, i think you have heard clearly from my colleagues already on the broader issue of concern about what will happen with both increased tariffs and higher

cost to our consumers and companies, but also the impact on our exporters. in me say that i think response to your questions, respectfully, you should also talk about the vision the president laid out at the g7 was noin june, which tariffs. maybe i was just listening for what i wanted to hear, but what i heard was that there is an ultimate vision here of getting us to a world where both tariff and nontariff barriers are reduced substantially, or even eliminated to the benefit of the economies of countries around the world, including ours. i hope that is the ultimate objective here. is to have the united states continue to play the leading role as the country that advocates more open markets, more transparent to camillus corruption. that has been our roll over decades. , and this is from talking not just to our

negotiators, but also to people from some of these other countries, including china and the eu and canada, that we have not laid as we take on these countries, with regard to china, the three 10%, so thelion at chinese are confused. they are not sure if it is because we want them to buy more of our products, and objective raised with them specifically with regard to soybean and lng. they are not sure if it is structural changes that you talk about in your testimony, stopping as you say, discrimination against international competition, technology transfer, sensitive intellectual property. they are not sure if it is about steel overcapacity, which to me is a huge issue.

ultimately, will we see run the -- what we see around the world is partly a response to china, reducing half of the world's steel when they produced about 50% of it 10 years ago and having that steel come through country.ment into our they don't know. i think the same is true of the european union. beently there has discussion that it is about autos. we shouldbout autos, be very clear. i don't think 232 is the right tool to use, but to the extent we have these tariffs in place, we need to be clear and realistic in terms of our objectives. i think it is clear to all people who have been in this position that, without having a realistic negotiating objective, and sending mixed messages, it

is very difficult to get to a solution. this to you as the representative of the administration who is here, knowing you are not in direct negotiations, but maybe you could respond to that. do our trading partners know what our objectives are, with regard to these trade cases we haven't initiated? >> when it comes to the 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, we are having bilateral conversations. there are some countries with whom we've come to agreement on quotas. other countries, we have not been able to come to agreement. we are talking to countries individually and helping them understand what we would like to see achieved. anator: and that's weeresting response there is have been able to negotiate something with our strongest but with canada we have

their dairy program. that doesn't fit within the --ional critique you national security criteria, but we should be clear. with regard to mexico we talked being sold in the interior, or state owned enterprises, but i'm not sure from what i am hearing from them that they understand what the objective is. a is the broader issue, but it is not a 232 issue. i would like for the record some thoughts about 232, i believe the entity that is best capable of determining what is in our national security interests is the department of defense. i believe there are to be a tightening of the criteria so we understand what national security is according to the joint chiefs definition. the disapproval which is in the legislation could be brought in oil,l products, not just

so that going forward we don't misuse to 32 because my concern is that we will lose the tool. either these other countries will respond in kind, as we have started to see, without showing injury and without showing unfair trade, or we will go back to the wto as we have in the past, and this time we will find article 21osing an case with regard to 232 because of the way we used it so broadly. i appreciate your testimony today. >> when it comes to canada and mexico, we are having the broader nafta conversation. you we areto assure having conversation with our allies. at the state department it is our job, our mission to make sure our allies the direct -- our allies understand the direction we are going in. thank you for being here to talk with us today. i have a couple of questions regarding to 32.

-- 232.ding to 32 it's important that the administration quickly initiate an investigation into the and wey's 232 petition, have been awaiting a response

for six months. instead of requiring congress to weigh in on all section 232 actions, are there is things we can do to improve this 232 process? are there things we can do to improve the process that won't tamper and administrations ability to protect our national security with regard to trade and the issues of energy, issues of uranium?

senator: i hope you will take back the message that some of the difficulty that has been expressed here is not universally shared by every united states senator. every member of this panel would go back and look at and study the five pillars you suggested. been people saying we don't know where we are going. we have a clear description using those five pillars of where we do want to go and we are following them. there is a lot of criticism about the president arguing with our allies over trade. oute are some examples there that make them very angry and should make him angry. what has already been referred to hear, we have a partner in the nafta agreement called canada. and canada is beating the breast over the tariffs put on steel. canada is a member of the north

american free trade association. they are ourally, friend, they will continue to tariff they put a 240% on dairy products. we are the third-largest dairy producer in america, behind so ourin and california, dairy farmers don't look at it the same way the canadians do, and it's hard to explain to them how they can be in a free trade zone and wind up with a 247% tariff on their product. softwood lumber is the exact same problem, and it is hard to explain to them how we can be in this position, and these people claim they are our friend and our ally, and they are, but my some is nafta needs adjustment and i commend the president for doing all they can to make the adjustments.

that heeen very clear wants to get that done, and we should all support him in that try to do things better. trade is complex. using tariffs is complex. but i want to talk about something that is going on with the chinese. i think we all agree the chinese or something to be concerned about. anyone who hasn't studied 2025's made in china plan needs to look at that. micron technologies the second largest employer in the state of idaho. they are one of the world's largest producers of memory products. they had chinese nationals steal patents that they

used to produce products. those people to those to china. they then patented and the exact same thing in china. they then turned around and sued icron. and a couple of weeks ago a judge used the stolen patents to microninjunction against technology from selling products in china. china is a huge producer of technology products and it is ron sell that mic their product there. if they don't it is going to cause them serious problems. enterprise sued in a court headed

by a judge employed by the chinese government. aree of us from idaho taking a very serious look at this and we are going to do some asngs that are stringent, far as the chinese government is concerned. and we have to. this company depends upon having a rule of law and countries ande we are doing business, i applaud the president for his strong feelings about what the chinese are doing, what they for instancel, requiring chinese ownership and companies that do business there, and getting into their secrets and their patents. but they are also doing things under the table, like i just described and this has got to stop. we are doesn't stop,

going to be an difficult straits as we go down the pike, trying to compete with china and their 2025 plan. >> thank you for your comments. i would like to associate myself with your remarks. senator: this is on the president's radar screen. i know that personally. but it is something we are all going to have to pay attention to. and this is just the to of the iceberg as to what is coming. senator: thank you for holding this hearing, mr. chairman. it's a complicated issue because it involves two separate stories . there has been a general consensus in american politics about the value of the global economic order, the rules-based trading system. while this is a committee that focuses on foreign policy, it is difficult to ignore that while free and open trade has credible benefits, it has downsides.

to trade losers agreements that are even great, and not enough attention is paid to ibo that have been displaced over 30 or 40 years. that has created domestic blowback against some of the trade. that said, by and large america is a winner, when we interact with companies that are following the rules. that is where these dispute-resolution mechanisms come into effect, and you hope that they would work. these partner with countries on a host of other issues, including national security. and when we talk particularly 232 actions, these are allies and countries that have issues that need to be addressed but we can work with them, we believe we can't, because none of these nations seek to undermine our position in the world. they do want to get better deals but there is a mechanism in place to address it, which is

why i would have strongly preferred for the administration to have dealt with those issues second after focusing on china. because many of those countries we are allies with have deep concerns about china as well, which leads us to the 301 actions. from china is without precedent. made in china 2025 is a key piece of a broader plan to displace the united states in virtually every field that will do fine the 21st century. to if they were going displace us because they work harder, because they are more innovative, because they out -hostile less, that is one thing. that just calls on us to work harder and do better. that they seek to displace us with things like the theft of intellectual property. formere of days ago, a employee of apple was arrested at an airport in california, headed to china with a bunch of secrets and intellectual property on apple technology.

inyou want to do business china, here's your new partner, and you need to teach them everything you do so in a few years when they can do it as well as you can, we can kick you out and be your competitor backed by the chinese government, and put you out of business. unfair practices like denying market access but demanding unfettered access to our market. this needs to be addressed. so there is a belief in the business community that we should have warned china and this is what we are going to do if you don't listen, that is the story of the last two years. our relationship with china over the last 20 years economically has been built on the hope that once they became richer, they would be more like us. they have taken all the benefits of that global order but assumed none of the responsibilities, leading us to this point. i wonder what role the state department played on advising the administration on a path that said, why don't we partner with our allies first so that we

can all collectively confront china, because we are all facing the same challenges, and then secondly deal with these other issues because of the geopolitical implications? any does the if state department play on advising the administration regarding zte? te areies imposed on z severe and our issues with them extend well beyond sanctions violations. any communications company in china is controlled by the chinese government, with either want to be or not. and allowing them to embed themselves in the commercial infrastructure in the united states poses a significant national security threat area and while we are out there imposing tariffs for national security on partner countries with whom we have national security arrangements, we are allowing a foreign telecommunications operator to stay in business with our partners, knowing the threat they pose to our national security.

did the state department have any role in advising from a geopolitical perspective, focusing on china first, and what role did the state department play in the decision on zte. >> both of those are very important questions. the state department continues to play a role in advising the president on working with our allies to counter china. i previously indicated that in all my travels in senior leadership of the state department, whether they'r deputy secretary are secretary of state pompeo, we have told the white house we need to work with our allies to counter china. y-in, because bu the alleyway to get success with china is to isolate them. china needs to be clear that they are a threat to the global economic community.

and if our allies agreed and we can confront china and force it to change its behavior. the state department did play a role and we advocated the stiffest penalties possible. senator: it is hard to isolate china when we are in a trade war with the countries we seek to partner with. i hope this is something we can get worked out. i couldn't agree more. we have done a great job in unifying the world against us. thank you so much, for being here. we appreciate your service, mostly in the other areas. we will go to the second panel. >> thank you, chairman corker.

we will continue now with

the second panel. is here from the business roundtable. our second witnesses mr. michael fuchs from the center of american progress. fellowhs is a senior focusing on u.s. policy toward the asian-pacific region. previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs. thank you for being here. i don't knowdez, if you want to welcome them. any written materials you have will be entered into the record. thank you, chairman corker, senator menendez, other members

of the committee. for inviting me to testify on behalf of business roundtable. business roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading u.s. companies. our ceos are overwhelmingly bullish about the american economy, thanks to tax reform and regulatory reform. now isrriding concern that those gains will be entirely reversed i major missteps in u.s. trade policy. the trump administration is rightly focused on addressing unfair foreign trade practices that hurt american is this is -- and american businesses and workers. however, business roundtable strongly disagrees with many recent actions on trade, particularly invoking national security to impose unilateral tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

reasonsfour important for opposing this action. first, the tariffs increase costs on american consumers. this multibillion-dollar tax increase on imported steel and aluminum is already driving up the costs of many industrial and consumer product. -- products. second, by driving up costs, these tariffs are causing u.s. made products to be less competitive in those export markets. the tariffs are inviting a cascade of retaliatory tariffs against america's most competitive exports. study by thecent trade partnership worldwide found that the administration's steel and aluminum tariffs, along with resulting retaliation, will cause 16 american jobs to be lost for every american steel or aluminum job saved.

fourth reason's for opposing the tariffs is the misuse of the 232 statute itself. as several members of the committee noted, since it's inception in 1962, section 232 has been invoked only twice, to ban imports of oil from iran and libya. in both cases the national security purpose was clear. the national security purpose of restricting steel and aluminum imports from our closest allies is not at all clear. the improper use of section 232, twisting the definition of national security beyond reason, invites other countries to do the same against a wide range of u.s. exports. theite these evident harms, commerce department is now investigating whether to employ the same national security argument to restrict imports of autos and auto parts. there is no national security purpose for this, and the damage

would be exponentially greater. for these reasons, business roundtable strongly supports chairman corker's bipartisan bill to get congressional approval for 232 tariffs. we would also support other theslation to limit invoking of section 232. hasadministration demonstrated that the statute is susceptible to misuse. it is time for congress to exercise its constitutional prerogative to prevent harm to the economy. finally, section 232 risks alienating u.s. allies needed to address the real problem in international commerce, chinese policies and practices.

most business roundtable companies have encountered at least one of these serious problems, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, unfair restrictions chinese markets, and competing with state-subsidized chinese companies. roundtable therefore welcomes the administration's focus on chinese trade policies. however, the cycle of tariffs and counter terrorist initiated by the administration is dangerously counterproductive. 1 tariffssection 30 without negotiations unnecessarily jeopardizes u.s. farmers, workers and businesses. starting negotiation before imposing tariffs, thereby triggering commensurate retaliation against u.s. exports, the administration detail clearly to china how it's practices must change.

second, establish deadlines for concrete reforms, and third, describe actions the u.s. will take in coordination with our allies of china fails to address our concerns. finally, the administration should exempt u.s. allies from 2 them tofs to encourage join in this effort. i look forward to the committee's questions. chair: thank you for your testimony. -- tor: >> it's an honor to be here today. in order to tackle the global challenges we face from prussia -- from russia and china on

climate change and beyond, america needs a serious, long-term strategy. administration's approach to tariffs and trade is undermining u.s. national security. decisions are being made by american allies right now on how to to cooperate on counterterrorism, whether to cooperate in afghanistan and syria, are being influenced by these tariffs. the leaders in these countries are asking themselves, can we trust america anymore? the world does not stand by when we act and our allies are looking elsewhere for trade partnerships. second, u.s. foreign-policy is losing its moral compass right now. president has berated south korea over trade while praising the north korean dictator. -- while the pressure than while the president ignores russia's invasion of ukraine, he has imposed harsh tariffs on america's closest allies in

es americauntri relies on to deter russian aggression. that, to build an economy provides power to all americans, we need to level the economic playing field with china. but the recent tariffs leave the u.s. economy more vulnerable by alienating u.s. friends and allies. these tariff decisions are the to ay equivalent of coming gunfight and shooting your partners when you take a met your adversary. we need a strategy crafted in concert with our allies, many of whom are suffering from the same problems with china. and fourth, the u.s. should see our trade actions as a larger part of the effort to build a stronger economy at home. u.s. should strengthen alliances to counter national security threats, support democracy abroad to push back

against the rise of autocracy, develop a strategy in concert with our allies, and build an economy at home that works for everyone by investing in areas such as infrastructure and education. congress should play an important role in holding the administration accountable and reassuring our allies. thank you for inviting me here today. mr. bolten, i have been contacted by dozens of companies in new jersey that have been negatively impacted by the administration's tariff policies. one such company uses a korean specialty steel product to manufacture a life-saving medical device. quota onection 232 korean steel could put this company out of business. new jersey could lose over 400

good paying manufacturing jobs, and surgeries could be shut down from certain endoscopic procedures if the supply chain for these medical devices is disrupted senator: -- is disrupted. hundreds of thousands of patients could be at risk. there is no u.s. source for this steel and if there were it could take up to three years to gain fda approval for its use in medical devices. imports of where 232l are subject to the tariff, american companies can gain relief through exclusion requests. 2but there is not a similar process for countries with quotas. given your previous experience, how would you compare the administration's implementation process to similar efforts of past administrations? i think it compares

poorly. 232 and hisection case was entirely inappropriate. in previous cases where administrations, including the one i served in, sought to provide protection to the steel industry, it has been done through a different process that has typically narrow the scope hashe products protected, required that the international trade commission make a finding of injury to that industry, and has typically put tariffs on for a very limited time and in internationally-accepted regime that has not triggered retaliation. all those things have been absent from the way the administration has approached this, insignificant part because they used the wrong statute for it, badly undermining the rule of law that currently exists at least someld,

understanding of the meaning of national security. because if we have used national security in this way to protect our steel and aluminum imports, not even mentioning autos at openpoint, that is an invitation to other countries to do the same when they want to protect themselves from our exports. aretor: how important predictability, reliability and consistency when it comes to making deals? .> that is business to be able to plan in advance, most of the members of the business roundtable to their planning many years in advance. supply chains take 5, 10 years to develop, so the transparency and the ability to know what the rules are is critical to success of business anywhere. you mentioned in your first question, the use of quotas.

the administration witness treated that as though it were a benign success because we are we leadsing tariffs, our trading partners and to quotas. talking to our member companies that those quotas are more damaging than the tariffs themselves. they would be willing to pay the tariff to get the product they need in the supply chain to make things work. the with the quota in place, they can't get it at all. there are companies that the business roundtable that have products sitting at the dock that are desperately needed as inputs to a big project and they can't get them because of the quotas. is it the position of the roundtable that these tariffs are in the national interest? >> no. senator: whether we are talking about the indo pacific region or

a rule-based order, or whether it is with critical and -- critical allies like canada, what damaged his administration policy in this regard affect our ability to pursue all of those, and nh at tit-for-tat process with china, what is your assessment of the internal politics in china, who flinches first? that is an incredibly important question. the impact of the administration's right now are widespread. i believe if they continue, we are releasing the very beginning some them -- the very beginnings of them. around the we face world, whether it is china or russia or anything else, our our first line of defense. they are key partners in any of these

challenges, but right now we are making enemies of the very allies we need to tackle these challenges. we are seeing these impacts right now with the trade war that we are starting with our own best friends around the world. we are releasing the beginning of it right now, but capitals around the world, our allies and are making, they decisions right now, they are planning just like companies, what kinds of policies and positions they are going to be taking in the coming months and years when it comes to national security threats. they right now are asking themselves very clearly, can we trust the united states? i think it is very instructive, right after the g-7 summit debacle a few weeks ago, the german foreign minister gave a speech in which he listed three main threats that concern him throughout the state of europe. one is russia, second is china, the third is president trump's

america first foreign policy he is pursuing right now. to me, that is incredibly concerning. do you have a view on the china question? in a tip for 10, who blinks? how much are they willing to and -- in a test for tat -- tit for tat, who blinks? >> we have to understand that china is a dictatorship run by the communist party and they have when interest in mind, maintaining stability and staying in power. and they do not want to lose face because they believe that means they lose legitimacy. so the chinese communist party is highly likely to whether any tat with go tit for the united states, going forward.

bowman, you represent the titans of industry. has anyone articulated to you in strategy behind using 232 such a broadway against our allies? they have not, mr. chairman, and that is why we are concerned. from the positions i have served politics, itand the need that the leaders have been living up to the commitments they make an campaign rhetoric. but with the administration has pursued here under 232 and under china has us deeply concerned because the doesn't seem to be any strategy behind it designed to produce an outcome other than just tariffs. and we are strongly encouraging the administration, and are glad

to see many members of congress encouraging the administration, is develop a strategy that can produce success. success in this case means getting the international community aligned to pressure china to reform their trade policies and practices. a great segue mr. chairman. im going to hit the same note i did in the first panel, and the same note i have been hitting for a couple of months with respect to our response for predatory trade practices. need a it strategy -- we strategy. this is important to hoosiers. you referenced and indiana-based umminscturer, c incorporated. ummins must now pay a 25%

tariff on manufacturing components it imports from china for use in u.s. production. a 25%mpany's absorbing u.s. tariff unfinished products it manufactures in china for sale in the united states. s were to pass on this increase to its customers, they would use -- they would lose vital sales to asian and european competitors. that brings it home to the people i represent. i introduced earlier the year legislation, bipartisan national economic security strategy active 2018. it will create a statutory requirement for not just this administration, but for future administrations, to periodically

produce and submit to congress a national security economic strategy, just like we do with the national security strategy. there is an unclassified version, members of congress respectfully engage back-and-forth, kick the tires of the strategy and move forward together as a country. are you aware of the legislation i referenced, and what are your impressions? we are nowyoung, aware of your legislation. we are taking a look at it. i don't have an official business roundtable position for you, but i will give a personal view. it is a good idea. i served in administrations where the exercise at the exercise that-- the national security council goes through on a regular basis to produce a national security strategy is hugely beneficial priorities ing

the administration, and then holding yourself accountable against how you are doing against your priorities. front it would be enormously beneficial for any administration. indicatedou earlier the strategy is an effective component of making sure we china inptimally to their predatory economic practices. explain to me and others what you believe a strategy is needed. >> i am aware of your legislation and am closely reviewing it as well, but to your question, i believe this country needs a coherent and comprehensive strategy that sees the trade aspects in the broader can growf how best we

the economy here at home in a way that works for all americans, and protects our international interests and our national security at the same time. i absolutely believe a strategy in this regard is necessary, and i'm encouraged by efforts in congress to push the administration to develop such a strategy, especially in this case. there is a distinction that needs to be made between objectives and a more rigorous, thorough and comprehensive strategy developed across different departments of working with the national economic council and the national security council. some bullet points on a powerpoint slide with five pillars frankly is not a strategy.

it is just conviction. thank you for your remarks about the importance of a strategy. indiana is not only a major agducer of active product -- products, we are also a manufacturing-intensive state, to companies like subaru and nissan to produce products and employ thousands of hoosiers. you say the administration is investigating whether to employ the national security argument to restrict imports of autos and auto parts under 232. what would be the consequences of this approach are companies producing automobiles, and for consumers? >> in a word.

disastrous. steel and aluminum tariffs are already having detrimental effect on a lot of downstream users of steel and aluminum, that will ripple throughout the economy. by, take that and multiply 10. because the automobile trade in this country is much larger. we import close to $400 billion per year in autos and auto parts. now, if those supply chains are who knows how long it takes to reestablish them? there probably aren't ways for the companies to get the products they need to put into their autos. it makes the entire industry less competitive, putting aside

even the fact of a dramatic attacks oncrease, the american people, and the people who will end up paying that are the people who can least afford to pay it. one of the reasons we are here and testifying so strongly, is not just because of the effect 2 the use of 232 on steel and aluminum tariffs, but to broaden it to autos and auto parts would be devastating to our economy. there is talk about a planned strategy and we don't understand what it is with regard to trade actions taken by this administration, but we could say the same thing in regards to so many other areas under this committee's jurisdiction, including north korea. i have been asked north korea

questions and i can respond by saying, i don't know what the administration is doing because they have not briefed us. we don't know their strategy. presents a problem because quite frankly, many of us think they don't have one. it would be comforting to understand that. the same thing with trade. we had several meetings with the ustr and couldn't figure out a strategy. 'swill go to mr. bolten statement, which i thought laid out simplistically what needs to be done. i will start with china, if i might. the way you laid out china's trade practices, i think every member of this committee would agree. i think just about every member of congress would agree, that we want to see a change in china's trade policies. we you start off by saying, need to detail how their current practices must change with a

realistic timeframe for being able to achieve that. do we have a detailed -- oftanding of what where this administration would like to see us end up with china, and the timeframe to achieve that? has that been shared with either of you? >> it has not. are here speaking out about it. we have tried to have a dialogue with the administration, and by the way, the administration has been very receptive when our business community comes in to express concerns, and have always given us a good hearing. we feel like we have had a good hearing on the street issues, but have not broken through on the risks being posed by the way the administration is going about it. on the china question, there is

still time. and i believe if ambassador light heiser were here right now he would say yes, we have a strategy, and we are working on a negotiating position. but the anxiety throughout the business community, big and small, is that that strategy is not one that is coherent, and designed to produce success. success in this case is not tat trade andor tariff position. success in this case is some reform of chinese trade policies and practices. there is time for the administration to do that. i'm hopeful that they are doing that. i'm here to speak up because i don't see any evidence that they are. senator: the complaints against china are global. we are not the only country that has major concern by the way china behaves.

secretary on the former panel if she could name even one country that agrees with the trump strategy to get china to change their practices, and she could not even name one country. do you know of any of our trading partners that believe america is moving in the right strategy direction to get china to change these policies? senator. there is not one that i can think of. offact, i can only think countries that think we are going in exactly the wrong direction, and for a few reasons. sanctions,kinds of tariffs that we are imposing right now with china in all of trade were basically, are not owing to solve the specific problems that we have with china. we need allies and partners to pressure china here, but as we pointed out earlier, we are actually making

enemies of our partners and our allies, is that it actually listing them to help us with china. the third issue is that we also need to look beyond the trade space and see our broader national security interests. when we are going after china over-the-top, a cross-the-board tariffs on everything which are going to be counterproductive, we also undermine our position these of regarding north korea. we are not going to get north korea to change its behavior, with which we need china's help. right now, we are taking away our own leverage with china when it comes to north korea. more point.t one the secretary testified about -- about a robust, interagency process in regard to process.

and i challenged her on that, and she couldn't give me any about how judgment much time was spent on this. members of the ministration are open for your meetings, but i question whether there was any --ut from a meaningful input any input, meaningful input from the decision-maker before these tariffs were imposed. theio: mr. bolten, path the you outlined is by and large a consensus but there is a point i disagree with. we need to detail the problems we have with china, and you have accurately out lined unfair restrictions, ip theft, subsidies for domestic production and restricting digital trade and forcing them facilitiesputing

located within china, the requirement on apple for example to place the cloud there. the second is, giving them a deadline to change these things and telling them how you want to see those changes. and the third is, here is a list of things we're going to do if you don't meet his deadline. and number four is working with our allies, and i would imagine canada, mexico and the eu, which is three of our four largest export markets by giving them an exemption to the tariffs. i agree with the things you have described and i agree we would be in a much stronger position if we were working with canada, mexico and the eu. we just heard testimony from the state department that in the meetings we raised the china issue, but it is difficult to get that message across when these other things are ongoing. the problem i have is with you

giving them the deadline. the history of serious negotiations with china on matters such as this is not promising. toy have shown a propensity get us to accept symbolic measures in exchange for nothing, in exchange for us walking away from whatever it is we are threatening to do. but here is the bigger problem. on two of these items, which the president focused on, ip theft and forced technology transfer, there is a strong argument to be made that what china is doing on that now is a serious national security threat to the united states. these are acts of direct economic aggression, not simply for purposes of economic prosperity, but to displace the united states, supplant us in as a dominant power in many of these fields. and when you combine that with

what they have outlined in china clear design they have in place, when you combine that with statements made by the president of china about how there can only be to suns in the universe and there can only be one great power in the world and it is us, this is not just a conflict with the nation that seeks a bigger economy, they want to supplant us in all these critical fields. if you see some of the technology that is being stolen and transferred, some of it becomes irreversible. any gains they make and five g technology, if they establish supremacy in five d which they are on the path to doing potentially, all the technologies and industries of the 21st century depending on five g will be billed to chinese standards, meaning we will be out of place with regards to that. if they dominate biotechnology,

and the like. so it seems like the biggest problem you have with the administration on china is that we are not working with our and that they took the actions first as opposed to giving them a moment. is that an accurate assessment, that first we should have given serious negotiations a chance to work? >> yes, that is roughly at. thing youith every just said. if i were a negotiator i would put at the top of the list exactly the things that you just mentioned, i would put those at clearp of list and make what the consequences for the chinese would be if they don't change their policies or practices. but i would also put on paper, here is what we want you to do, here are specific policies we want you to adopt.

one thing that everybody in the business community that has interacted with the chinese government and i imagine members a the committee have had similar experience, finds that when they talk to the chinese government, the chinese government says, tell us what you want, and waving our hands and saying, we want these problems fixed immediately, that is true and that would be great that we need to give the chinese a coherent and practical list of the stuff we want them to do, put it on paper, it is probably confidential, it out to be shared with you so that you know what is on the priority list of the administration. it to be possible to write it down and the administration ought to put that piece of paper on the table in front of the chinese before they just jump off and announce huge retaliation. rubio: with a list of

things we threaten to do include under theng done now, memoranda meant the actions the president has taken? >> they could. 1 authority is in operation outside the rules of the wto. so is stealing intellectual property and the wto does not provide adequate protections for intellectual property, and we opt to pursue our rights under wto where we have them. wto doesn't provide enough rights, so we in the business roundtable are not ruling out the possibility of the using itstion statutory authorities that are not sanctioned by the wto, but they ought to be a last resort, not a first. for thatank you interchange. i think congress and the world, except for china, would be unified around our efforts if we

focused on the things senator rubio just laid out. i don't think there would be any dissension in congress. to find a difficult witness that would counter and effort that was solely focused theft,llectual property subsidizing state-don't enterprises, that type of thing. and that is what is interesting about this. there is a problem that does need to be solved, and if he dealt with it in a coherent way with your friends around the world, you could solve that problem. you alluded to understanding politics, you were in the white house and understand that people make statements during a campaign. we have been getting signals ist hey, your 232 effort, there anyway you guys could wait until after the election? and there has been statements made by the administration, we

are going to wait and deal with nafta after the election. and i don't know what is driving this. again, it is so incoherent it would be difficult to even begin to understand what is driving the policy that is in place today. let's say that this policy is 100% about politics. this is really about the midterm elections, and really the nafta issue will be dealt with after the elections, the tariff issues we are currently dealing with will be dealt with after the elections, the auto industry tariff's will be dealt with after the elections. so let's say this policy we have articulated, blacks coherency, would stay in place between now and the first tuesday of november. what would be the effect on the business community and our relationships around the world? damage is being caused every day. bear in mind we are only a few weeks into the first phases of

the steel and aluminum tariffs. we are only in the first few days of the retaliation that has been put in place against those tariffs. even on more to come, the steel and aluminum side. much less the auto side. damage is being done every day. i have heard people of the administration say, ok, don't worry, it's going to get resolved, it it is just going to take a little time. everybody just knees to absorb a little pain in the short run. the short run is not small to begin with, it's getting larger by the day. and the additional measures that the administration now threaten to exponentially increase that. and it's not a situation from the business standpoint where we suffer a little bit of damage today, but everything is ok two weeks from now. when you disrupt supply chains, when you demonstrate we are run unreliable trading partner, you

lose those relationships permanently. when you stop selling to a customer -- harley davidson is faced with a choice of either stopping selling in europe, because they are the subject now of retaliation over europe, or building their harleys in order to send them into europe without a 25% tariff. that's a terrible choice for harley davidson to make. but i think they are make the right one by going someplace else to sell to europe. once they stop selling harleys in europe, even for a few months, they may be knocked out of that market permanently. so the damage is day by day, that no one should assume that incremental damage does not last a whole lot longer than the trade dispute does. >> thank you. you want to say something? >> i fully agree with mr. bolton

that for our relationships -- without arld doubt the longer this goes on the worse it is. china has been pitching our european allies and forging an anti-u.s. trade alliance. for a moment it sounds like the europeans are not game for it. go on forntinues to months and months and longer, i wonder how long they will hold out? i wonder what will you -- what .e would be discussing today continuing on the path of negotiating -- we would be having a different kind of conversation and be in a different place to counter the real threat, which is what china is doing. thank you chairman corker.

if i might, it's terrific to have your clear and forceful testimony today. let me take a few minutes and make sure i understood correctly. you testified that trumps tariffs are a tax hike on american businesses and consumers, is that right? >> correct. >> you say it hurts our complete by making parts less competitive. and you say it invites harmful retaliatory tariffs from many of our allies. and for every job we might protect. this is just our early round of tariffs. paid agent his a medically greater impact if the administration does indeed go ahead with another 200 billion and tariffs. you view this as a misuse of the authority,statutory

and you congressional action. >> yes. -- >>ou are a republican you are a republican, former chief of staff to the last president. >> we are a bipartisan organization that advocates in support of a long -- of a strong u.s. economy. itall joking aside, i think is striking that someone of your experience and pedigree and representing the organization that you do is so forceful and asking for congressional action. something -- i can't remember when eight the rt president came before us and urged congressional action against a sitting republican president. how does this end? you are here for the previous round of questioning, where we have the assistant secretary for the administration. and questioners asked for, demanded a strategy.

when does this stop? i'm hearing from workers who know that shiploads of steel from finland may not be coming this winter. .e may face a loss of revenue folks who were generally speaking strong supporters. this is just a first round. its americans who are going to pay increased taxes. in your view, however urgent is it we take action and how does this end?

sowe are here speaking out strongly because we are concerned about exactly the things you mentioned. necessarily a comfortable thing for the head tothe business roundtable come forward and speak out against an administration that has been so effective for american business on issues like taxes and regulation and workforce training and scaling. on all those issues we have cooperated tremendously well with the administration, and i think the results are showing up in a strong economy and strong business optimism. the a difficult thing for head of this organization to come out and speak out against the trade policies. headingelieve they are in a very dangerous direction. timesaid, i think there is

to put it on a constructive path. the administration may be in the process of pulling together a series of negotiating an agenda with the chinese that will produce -- that could easily produce significant reforms in china. the question is are they prepared to do so? to remove someed of the impediments they put in place of having our friends and allies supported? the success, which basically agrees with us behind our negotiating strategy, i don't know how it ends. this story can have a good ending. you saying is that it is urgent that the trump administration reverse course in terms of broadly imposing against our vital allies

that will have negative consequences in my home state of delaware, from farmers downstate to the dockworkers of wilmington . and focus on a team of allies to confront china's real aggressive actions that undermine global trade, and that if we don't act soon the consequences will be large, they will be lasting, they will undermine our alliances and national security, and it will harm american competitive's -- harm american competitiveness and jobs. i appreciate the chance to work with you on what is an important at agenda for america. you so much. sen. gardner: at >> i think you both for the opportunity to have you both before this committee and hear your expertise. somew you probably have time to watch the previous panel on the questions that were asked, so thank you for being with us still. i wanted to follow up on some of the questions i asked to the

secretary about china's actions and activities. mentioned in the question to her, in january this year china suspended access to our website for referring to taiwan as a country. we now know china's going after u.s. airlines for potential action because they didn't refer to taiwan as part of china. i worry about what they are trying to do to u.s. companies. i know the senator mentioned macron. a u.s. companyof that had a facility in taiwan, and employee was hired by company in china. when i'm at with the foreign minister, they said china is doing more and more, they are from taiwan, try

to take their intellectual property with them, if they can get away with it. in this case, this individual gave apparently a lot of information to china. they set up a facility and planned. they got a court injunction. now a u.s. idea is being stopped by china, claiming they completely stole information. it's a company in my state of colorado that sold a product to product tosends the china, a couple of weeks later got the schematics back from china, reverse engineered the product. this company had a couple of questions for the company in colorado. company in china was exactly the same name as the company in colorado.

activity, whattt should we be doing to make sure american airlines come american hotels, american businesses overall aren't falling for those bullying chinese diplomatic berating? >> countering the chinese bullying of american companies is one of the most difficult problems. the kinds of problems you describe with macron, those are happening throughout the member companies, the 200 member companies of the business roundtable. they widely we don't talk about it publicly because the bullying will get worse if they raise their heads above the parapet. almost everybody that deals in

high technology and is either trying to do business in or competing with chinese entities has faced some similar serious kinds of problems. needs to be a top of a serious negotiating agenda. we need to be able to write down specifically what it is we are demanding that the chinese do and have that negotiation. not an easy negotiation. the chinese are not easy to deal with. they will stretch is out over long periods and give us only partial concessions. that is the road that has to be traveled. tough work of trade diplomacy and we are here to call on the administration to do it. >> i just hope to these companies, they won't fall for it. they will soon be subject to the same kind of antics that macron

has found itself subject to. pretty soon they may find other kinds of activities they are subject to in china. that kind ofowed corruption, that kind of bullying, that kind of lawlessness to occur. when it comes to intellectual copyrights, standards of trade, how they are acting in response -- how they are not acting in response -- in accordance to the standards we hope all people are living up to. we thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to have your testimony. >> we thank you both for being here and for your patience. for some reason we have a protocol in this committee this -- in this committee where we have an administration come in. unfortunately, by the time it gets to the real intellect, most people are gone.

we thank you both for spending time to be here. there will be some questions after. we are going to ask the questions. have added a lot both to the record and to people's thinking. we thank you both for what you do and your roles to help shape policy and we look forward to seeing you again. thank you so much. meeting is adjourned.

>> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact to you. morning we will look at the recent nato summit and president trump's upcoming meeting with russian president vladimir putin. and author mark joins us from

los angeles to talk about his new book, the brink, president reagan and the nuclear war scare of 1983. washington journal, live beginning at 7 a.m. eastern on sunday morning. join the discussion. week -- including secretary boris johnson. it is in large part to disagreements to the uk's withdrawal from the eu. now an update on the brexit process from the european union's chief brexit negotiator. this is an hour.